Most of Western Philosophers and Psychologist were Quite Underdeveloped

[Rasheed]

If we assess western philosophy, one can easily conclude that most of western philosophers (assessing it from SD 8 levels of development) were stage orange, Derrida was green.

Looking at western psychology, most of psychologists are orange again, Jung and Perls for example are green, Fromm and Maslow are Yellow.

Ken Wilber is rare western intellectual who reached highest levels of development obviously but as I have said: most of western philosophers were quite underdeveloped including likes of Nietzsche, Kant, Spinoza, Descartes i.e these are big name philosophers who actually did not pass rational level…Imagine that for a moment.

Hence reading these philosophers maybe quite waste of time because one might not develop by reading them, that much…

Maybe I am wrong…Please explain why.

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Rasheed

[Israfil]

Understanding deeply the intellectual level rapidly accelerates the actualization process. I've had deep non-dual experiences without no spiritual knowledge, just from psychedelics and scientific/western philosophical knowledge. It was that that led me to spirituality and actualization. I live in a developing country and this knowledge has given me significant opportunities and an overall higher level of happiness than people around me. 

[Nilsi]

Nietzsche was coral - u mad?

[Matt23]

10 hours ago, Rasheed said:

If we assess western philosophy, one can easily conclude that most of western philosophers (assessing it from SD 8 levels of development) were stage orange, Derrida was green.

Looking at western psychology, most of psychologists are orange again, Jung and Perls for example are green, Fromm and Maslow are Yellow.

Ken Wilber is rare western intellectual who reached highest levels of development obviously but as I have said: most of western philosophers were quite underdeveloped including likes of Nietzsche, Kant, Spinoza, Descartes i.e these are big name philosophers who actually did not pass rational level…Imagine that for a moment.

Hence reading these philosophers maybe quite waste of time because one might not develop by reading them, that much…

Maybe I am wrong…Please explain why.

 

I disagree...

I just think using Spiral Dynamics as the be-all-and-end-all model for humans is kind of limited.  Thus, I think your analysis is probably missing lots and not giving some of these philosophers their due.  

This has been a general grudge I've had with Spiral Dynamics here on the forum; people taking it as the ultimate model of human development and not studying more broadly beyond it and realizing the human system (socially and indidivually) is probably way more complex than Spiral Dynamics.  

Sure, it's a useful frame perhaps... but also very limited.  Thus, when improperly used (only using this model and nothing else for example) it can give a very partial view of who your looking at at since you've already disqualified them as being of a "lesser stage", thus you don't even bother with them or their ideas and dismiss them.

Additionally, lets say spiral dynamics is "the great model".  This doesn't mean you can't still learn from others if they are of a "lesser stage" than you.  I think any idea can spark new connections, new creations, and a deeper understanding of things.  It helps expose you to more and more.  Even if you don't agree with the ideas, I think there's something akin to ''meta-learning" that can happen; you disagree maybe with the ideas they explicitly teach but you start to learn, maybe, about how that philosopher thinks, or that stage, for example.  

I agree...

In a general sense in that not everyone needs to read philosophy in order to develop.  There are, in my opinion, other great ways of developing yourself; having experiences being #1, or creating things, travelling, having relationships, etc.. 

I know Leo emphasizes intellectual study and that's his jam... but I just think studying can actually be a big distraction from actually living life and witnessing the beauty of it.  At least in my experience.  

Not that I dislike studying, I do love it... But just not the same amount as I thought I should be doing, and I'm aware that creating things and adventuring give me way more pleasure and fulfillment than study.  

Edited February 11, 2023 by Matt23

[hyruga]

Well, the eastern philosophers are even more underdeveloped then. Most of them don't read as much as western philosophers and they spent most of their time meditating.

[Ulax]

@Rasheed Maybe you've heard the cliché that we stand on the shoulders of giants.

What most of the names you mentioned wrote about was, to my knowledge, highly controversial and overdeveloped in their time periods. Its just that relative to today its underdeveloped. 

Kant, for example, was looked at, in his day, as publishing ground-breaking work by claiming that earthquakes are caused by natural rather than supernatural phenomena, whilst that would be mundane today.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Ulax

[ValiantSalvatore]

2 hours ago, Ulax said:

Kant, for example, was looked at, in his day, as publishing ground-breaking work by claiming that earthquakes are caused by natural rather than supernatural phenomena, whilst that would be mundane today.

There is no way, as a German I frankly found him the only likeable philosopher of the rationals, tbh. I presonally find them all laughable. That is legit funny. 

I like Greeks more, I bet even Euclid was a better philosopher than Kant. Heraclitus is mah man.

Sorry, I love to hate on Germans at times.

Edited February 11, 2023 by ValiantSalvatore

[ValiantSalvatore]

14 hours ago, Rasheed said:

If we assess western philosophy, one can easily conclude that most of western philosophers (assessing it from SD 8 levels of development) were stage orange, Derrida was green.

Looking at western psychology, most of psychologists are orange again, Jung and Perls for example are green, Fromm and Maslow are Yellow.

Ken Wilber is rare western intellectual who reached highest levels of development obviously but as I have said: most of western philosophers were quite underdeveloped including likes of Nietzsche, Kant, Spinoza, Descartes i.e these are big name philosophers who actually did not pass rational level…Imagine that for a moment.

Hence reading these philosophers maybe quite waste of time because one might not develop by reading them, that much…

Maybe I am wrong…Please explain why.

The point is spiral dynamics is about values, and not about development itself the cook-greuter model is about ego-development. 

• Wilber is not on the highest level of development he is centered at approximately causal witness state as a permanent structure-state (in one taste he reports this) - he could have gone beyond and could be centered at non-dual 
• There is a distinction between structure-states and state-stages
• State-stages are sufficient, but not neccessary for growth in structure-states
• Structure states is the permanent realization of the next higher state-stage
• You can be at stage green structurally (cognitively and value based) and have spiritual non-dual state-stage realization.
• Spirituality is the highest line of "intelligence" so to say.
• State-stages can be reached by "peak experiences" meditation, "psychdelics" (I bet no research), yoga, some spiritual practice, eventually even exercise and fluke luck. 
• As far as I know these values can first develop when the cogntive development (neccessary ego-development) has taken place
• Spiral dynamics can only play itself out when the neccessary cognitive development is there
• Some philosophers were outliers who surpassed this, Leo mentioned some of them in his blog and the intro about philosophy video
• Growth occures to current "scientific" understandings with 30 minutes of meditation alone and beign aware of integral theory and spiral dynamics. (Idealistic information I am sharing here)
• Growth occures approx. every 2 years and after ages 20-29 every 5 years one new stage is reached with consistent practice
• Stage turqouise is still within the ego.... it's not beyond the ego, yet it's the first that actively seeks to be more transpersonal, instead of green fadish spirituality, there is a deeper consistency with practices and going beyond the ego becomes a desire (see Maslow transpersonal stages), peak experiences etc. become more of the norm
• Depending on life circumstances, you can drop in SD development, yet hitting one stage makes it permanent even when you spiral down, if LC's (life conditions) are meet you are there again. Ex: Many who hit green in academia then go back into the real world who are disappointed with post-modern lifestyles re-engage in materalistic excess of orange, even when they still have the capacity to go back to Green any time.

As far as I know Spinoza is mentioned a couple of times with Hegel in Wilbers books, I don't study this academically, my raw intuition would have put him and Hegel at around Yellow with their idealism and it seems very system-thinking like. I think Leo also mentions that we could educate ourselves about them if you are more serious about philosophy in his intro to philosophy video, mostly using Wikipedia.

I don't like Nietzschians, they seem very stage red to me with some green, yet mostly toxic. I like Hegel, although I don't like studying western philosophy that deeply, it takes a lot of time.

If you want to grow you could directly go to the source at integrallife and study the courses there I did integral mindfulness to get a taste of all stages within spiral dynamics as a structure-stage and it's corresponding values - expression of stage when realized.

I don't think it's neccessary, I would just look at the video from Leo about philosohpy and read up on Wikipedia takes notes and ideally do psychedelics and read Wilber, as well as watch videos for growth. Or dive right into the research the paper from O'Fallon seems to be the latest addition to the ego-development model (abillity to take perspective...).

Sri Aurobindo was the one who inspired Wilber, who came up with the stages stuff, I believe... before Graves and Beck for Spiral Dynamics. 

In an older audiobook it's mentioned traveling and journaling can nudge you up 0.5 stages, especially if you are young 20-29 max, as far as I know. 
Wilber also mentions that weightlifting helped him to grow and he regrets not having it done early to facillitate growth in consciouness better phrased ego-development. Fundamentally, you need to have a spiritual practice as a baseline to grow. 

This is all the info I have to this topic I hope it clarifies stuff. Also, this certainly does not fixing dating actually makes it harder.

I wrote all of this rather naively and idealistically, this certainly does not apply to everyone. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by ValiantSalvatore

[Sucuk Ekmek]

  Spiral dynamics as a model is a perfection of stage blue. These are all Aristotelian categories. It's a chronologically lost model. You can't fit certain cultures or tribes in this model, it feeds upon western progressivism dogmas. It has it's favorite human. 

 How would this model catogory human sacrificing aztec tribes? For Aztecs whole ritual is no different than you consuming LSD and getting results.

 

We are connecting with gods so they are.