Carl-Richard

@JoeVolcano The question I asked about your assessment of Atheist was a rather new development in the discussion. I hadn't seen an outright hypocritical statement before that.

What do you mean "agree"? I just clarified what Maslow means by the term "self-actualization", a term he invented by the way. This fact might be even more poignant when Atheist is mentioning the term in conjuction with "self-transcendence", another term that Maslow uses in his model. If you just meant that you disagree with Maslow being distinct from SD, that's ok, because I'm not saying they're completely isolated. There are overlaps, but they're still different models: That's not true. I just don't believe it follows your concept of actualization/awareness. I've already talked about cognitive complexity in depth. Again, your concept might correlate somewhat with SD, but when I say "SD is...", I'm talking about what SD is, not necessarily what it correlates with. My last post to him was Ti as fuck. I pointed out a contradiction in his own logic (unless he wants to actually concede that he called Atheist clueless for no reason, or that he just likes to call himself clueless for no reason). He just pussied out as usual. But yes, I agree that if you haven't read much about academic developmental psychology, you'll of course be offended when I use that knowledge to defend my stance on a theory that comes from academic developmental psychology (SD)

Thank you for being so compliant.

Ok. I wanted you to concede that you're not at a non-dual baseline (or Human Adulthood or whatever), and that whatever understanding you have on that topic is based on something like past experiences of non-dual states, intuitions or models, which then means that you're also clueless.

@JoeVolcano You ran out of points?

@JoeVolcano Erm..

Omg he is literally just a 10x more brain dead version of Andrew Tate?

@JoeVolcano Do you have a clue then? Have you made it your baseline? If not, on what grounds are you dismissing him?

Is it? Try to guess how many times I've entered a non-dual state.

You hold that concept to way too high standards. Puberty is human development.

Cringe. I think close to half of the people on this forum has had non-dual mystical experiences. It's not uncommon. You can argue that "it's not the real thing", but equating that to not having a clue is facetious.

Motivation is one side of the coin. Resilience is the other. You can feel motivated to move your leg, but it will break if it's fragile and weak. Likewise, you won't follow through with anything if you can't handle stress. Physical exercise and health is the most fundamental basis for resilience. Mental strategies are just ways of tweaking that baseline.

I see. So different lines of the same developmental altitude probably correlate somewhat, but they're different things ?That goes back to my synergistic idea.

Btw, Kohlberg was heavily inspired by Piaget, and Piaget is a cognitive as it gets. The Neo-Piagetian models like Model of hierarchical complexity are super reductionistic (could be examples of the "cognitive backbone" of Western psychdev stage theory), but of course it loses some specificity and explanatory power. Maslow was interested in motivation, so cognition becomes less central to his model, but there is of course some overlap between developmental altitudes (motivational complexity ≈ cognitive complexity), hence Wilber's model (however, I don't think he overtly places Maslow in there?).

It's one aspect of human development. He carved out a niche for himself and mastered it, just like Leo did with Actualized.org, or what a musician does with their craft etc. We all have our own niche, and self-actualization is about mastering that niche. The niche can be cognitively simple or not overtly "spiritual"; low SD or low spiritual development.

@AtheisticNonduality I know you're using a broader definition, but self-actualization in a purely Maslowian sense I would distinguish from SD development. For example, I think Andrew Tate is a self-actualized person, but he has solidified himself at the lower aspects of Tier 1. That is who he is, unless he radically reinvents himself and somehow deconstructs decades of trauma and conditioning. You can hear it when he speaks. His default state is flow ("Being-cognition"), and he seems to embody the "Being-values". He has maximized his potential in this aspect. Not everybody is meant to have complex worldview. Maybe he will evolve into a Tier 2 person in the future (I highly doubt it), but he will do that as a self-actualized Tier 1.

If it's normal, why do you seek help?

Leo doesn't have motivation problems.

Do you do weight training?

Kill em with Red, love em to death, whatever it takes ?

Greeners gonna include The boomers included women and got fixated on that, so they viciously attack any threats to that. The zoomers included trans people instead, so of course they'll clash. Perfect example of how T1 inclusion is fake (and gay)

TERFs = Green boomers Trans activists = Green zoomers That is all the analysis we need ?

I don't know what those stages of indigo and up even mean (other than being vaguely mystical), but I guess putting all of it into a new Tier (3) can do a lot of work for justifying such a move.

When it comes to mysticism and my rigid view of SD, I like to think of it as a synergistic relationship rather than it being an inevitable marriage at the higher stages. In other words, maximizing one aspect of development will naturally increase the chances of exploring new avenues of development or maxing out other existing avenues (it's both a statistical thing and a functional thing). To say that there is absolutely no overlap between different aspects of life is of course stupid, but to place very different models along the same developmental line is also stupid imo.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not SD though That's actually a good example of a traditional psychology model which has less emphasis on cognition (throwback to one of my earlier posts).