Nora wanted to disprove the stage theory but more proved it than disproved. Her speech is from viewing the world through postmodern glasses which actually sees metamodern as modern (all these references to industrial etc.) "So you have just made your own stage theory", - very good point, Daniel!
Meta-theory to the rescue! Anyone else seeing Wilber's Integral Methodological Pluralism in this debate? Nora seems to discount most of the "outside" zones (Zones 2, 6, 8 and 4) like structuralism, empiricism and system's theory in favor of the "inside" zones (Zones 1, 3, 5, 7) like hermeneutics, and social autopoiesis. Another way to put it is that Nora seems to favor 1st & 2nd person methodologies and is tired of the overuse of 3rd person methodologies. I hear Sean Esbjörn-Hargens has updated IMP to include 2nd person methodologies (he sees Wilber's IMP as only containing 1st & 3rd person methods). It would be sweet if you could get him on the program, Brendan Graham Dempsey!
Read Iain Mcgilchrist “ the matter with things”... he solves this conflict by integrating their respective positions. The right hemisphere relates to the left hemisphere and then wisdom emerges from taking what’s emerged from BOTH BACK into the right hemisphere... a THIRD position (ie, wisdom emerges) and this continues back and forth. This accounts for relationship/context AND a form of linear progression of wisdom(not merely cognitive development). This relationship between the hemispheress to constantly create “a 3rd” is basically “being AND becoming” - what is and what can/could be that is an advancement.
I found this disappointing, I kept listening for an informed critique of stage theories on Noras part but it appears she has not read up on neo-piagetian cog sci. For example, She keeps talking about the importance of context while seemingly not aware of the discussion of how aspects of development relate to deep structure and context dependent décalage. She does not differentiate between vertical and horizontal learning - for example around 1:11:00 in relation to gang members (i.e. she does not have the language to separate the increased development of gang members within their context to a general development of more sophisticated faculties). I would love to hear a critique of stage theories by someone that is aware of the constructs they are not agreeing with rather than just correctly identifying the potential dangers of using stages to label and e.g. control / optimize for certain outcomes,
I think the problem is when you place vertical learning above horizontal, as a more 'advanced' stage. Neither is really 'better' than the other, and in terms of human longevity the former is probably less adaptive when widely adopted.
@@F--B My dissertation adviser (clinical psychology) did his initial research on new piagetian cognitive science. he said by the 1970s, stage theories had pretty much vanished from mainstream psychology. People interested din Wilber, Cook Greuter, Kegan (who is not a developmental psychologist), Commons and others in the metamodernity world, don't realize this and keep pushing non scientific ideas. it's not about development but the idea of discrete stages that's the problem. And I know there have been endless attempts to modify the notion of "discrete" stages (center of gravity is one particularly useless one) but I haven't seen any that have any valid scientific basis.
I got chills listening to Nora, for a moment I saw something I had taken as a fact of reality and life in a totally new way, something beautiful, how things could be, how beautiful life can be. This left an impression on me. Thanks, to Daniel too
29:55 "You cannot isolate the individual" My hope in metamodern theory is that it will help to find a way to deal with this very paradox for the individual is both isolated and not isolated. And this talk once again showed that the task at hand might be linguistic.
Great conversation, but the last few minutes were awesome…. that there is a sense of a language beyond stage theory that can reconstruct it from above… that Nora was up for working together. I don't understand some other people in the comments, reading this conversation like a boxing match. Sounded to me more like the prelude to an historic collaboration. Go for it!
Great talk. Both minds bring depth to the field. That said, it is all constructed around inverted axioms. The next stage is the age of oscillating in the correct manner around a pure bed of axioms. Alluding to patterns continuously, no matter how smart it may sound, simply means you are stuck on a hamster wheel. To move forward we must begin to share what we know of the mind in a structured manner. Meta-cognitive universals are a must if our epistemologies are to have roots.
Nora’s opening ten minute flow was phenomenal. So much to unpack. All the points profoundly placed. Not heard her name before. Will definitely be checking out her work. Will listen to the rest tomorrow. Sleep is calling.
Noam Chomsky said: we need ‘The responsibility of the intellectual’. The intellectual looks down on others as less. The patriarchal stage, gets on the stage and can not listen. As Mark Twain expressed in many ways, it is easier to tell a lie, than to speak the truth. Humility is a difficult game, thank you for making an entertaining sweat, let the snobbery end and humility begin.
1:09:00 Nora agrees here that what she calls „Soft-psychology“ - treating serious violent crime with caring compassion doesn't work. But she sees it as a „Typing-Error“. And that is the main difference between her position and Daniels. „Empathy to one person is the ability to manipulate.“ I absolutely agree here with Daniel that those types of nonjudgmental policies have lead to terrible trends and outcomes in several European countries where there is a huge amount of recourses, empathy and compassion given to the people who are least capable or willing to rejoice in compassion. - And It's not just a difference in the types of thinking that criminal organizations like gangs use, it is a closed world space of a lower developmental rung. - By saying she wouldn't judge anybody to be higher or lesser developed in any capacity she also disqualifies herself to make any moral value statement at all. - One of the reasons for doing so might be a pre/trans confusion where pre-converntional and post conventional forms of acting in the world are mushed together. - One other valid developmental metaphor could be the one of a climber, a ladder and a rung. Where the view of a post conventional rung of the ladder is one where it can see the lower structures but doesn't have access to the view of a gang member and its limitations. While the gang member might not be able to even intuit the rich contextual view of a Nora Bateson. Those could be very usefull developmental frames and tool that could help people by meeting them where they are and help to develop the gang member into a more stable conventional way of living, but since she sees it just as different ways of thinking nothing will be done to grow people out of a live crime and violence for example.
How does any developmental theory help you understand ethics or wisdom? Ken Wilber, with his massively challenged narcissism, may be exhibit A for the inability of developmental theories to deal with either ethics or wisdom. There's a kind of developmental view - though it's not about "stages" - in Indian philosophy - tamas, rajas, and sattwa. People have tried to compare it to Wilber and other developmental views but it is profoundly different. Unlike Wilber's Quadrant view and it's Chinese menu approach (take 1 from quadrant 1, another from quadrant 2, sauté 20 minutes and add soy sauce), the qualities or "gunas" of tamas, rajas and sattwa relate not just to the individual but the entire cosmos.
Fascinating talk - I agree with Nora that if you are looking into a culture ( or stage development model ) through a lens from the outside it is very difficult to know what is going on inside it.
Regarding how to correct pre determined development, I suggest: It's time to Personalize the curriculum What is the common denominator from where each one comes and how do we secure the safety of each one's emancipation pathway from conception to the grave? By following up to answer these questions, education progresses to no longer be left isolated from what it is learning about, by connecting in the Essence of life's vital experience like sap is to vegetation, feeding knowledge clarity from the lowest to the higher to the lowest grasp of understanding, binding us each with all into the Faculty To BeLive by celebrating together, the uniqueness of individuality.... The view I get from such an approach is the cultivation of people into all class dynamics. In this live, continued apprenticeship of care's vitality culture, everyone is a teacher and student. In this context, the role of classroom teacher becomes that of a coach who maintains the inspiration going in the direction's drive, fitted to adapt into each one's thriving together with the strongest serving the weakest. Make the curriculum available and attractive in the context that lets each one enter the gateway of knowledge when ripe and determined from the personal drive as opposed to peer pressure." Writing toward live curriculum facebook.com/benoitctr/posts/10220492953612490 Quote: "What if education's curriculum morphed to adapt along with home life in order to secure life long learning - upbringing - growing up?" Thoughts on System Thinking and Complexity Theory facebook.com/leftrighto.../posts/425395791350988
The below excerpts from Mascolo's paper sound to me more like how they ended the discussion of a different way to frame developmental theory. It might address some of Nora's criticisms and concerns. Mascolo, M. (2020). "Dynamic Skill Theory."* Handbook of Integrative Developmental Science, New York: Routledge. "Skill theory is not so much a theory of the development of children or adults, but instead a theory of the development of psychological structures. It is not a child or individual who operates at any particular level of development; it is the particular skill as it operates within a particular context (Bidell & Fischer, 1992). It follows that at any given moment in time, individual persons create particular skilled actions in order to meet particular adaptive challenges and environmental demands. As a result, although, at any given point in development, there are limits to the highest level of skill that an individual can construct, it makes no sense say that skills operate at any single level - even within individual persons and domains of action. The level of skill produced by an individual can change from moment to moment. [...] Both across and within particular domains of functioning, the level of skill that an individual creates changes as a function of the demands of the environment, and individual’s physical or emotional state, the level of support available, the novelty of the skill or context in question, and so forth. "Against this backdrop, it makes little sense to think of development as a kind of unidirectional ladder or fixed staircase. It is preferable to conceptualize development as a kind of web, with multiple connecting and diverging strands (Ayoub & Fischer, 2006; Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Fischer & Rose, 2001). A representation of the developmental web is provided in Figure 5. Each strand in the web represents a different developmental pathway. The pathways in the web can represent developmental changes in different skills or skill domains within the same individuals or in groups of individuals. Within the web, development can move in multiple directions, converging or diverging from its current trajectory at any given point in time. Questions about the pathways that development actually takes in particular individuals, groups, skill domains and contexts are empirical one, and cannot be presumed beforehand through logical analysis alone or on the basis of the assumed structure of any particular skill developing at any particular time" (10). "Drawing on ideas from dynamic and epigenetic systems thinking, Fischer adopted the idea that structures of acting emerge in medias res - in the middle of things (Fischer & Steward, 1999). A person is not a disembodied or rational agent set off apart from the world; the person is an embodied and emotive actor whose actions are embedded in the world. [...] Fischer (1993) argued against the idea that cognition could be understood as kind of fixed inner competence. No fixed competences exist within the individual; structures of action and though emerge dynamically through the mutual interplay between person and context, cognition and emotion, biology and culture, and so forth. "In this regard, it is helpful to think of developmental change processes in terms of vertical and horizontal coactions that occur within multiply-embedded epigenetic systems (Bidell & Fischer, 1997; Gottlieb, 2004). We can think of epigenetic systems as organized both horizontally and vertically. Vertical coactions occur between embedded 'levels' of the epigenetic system. Horizontal coactions occur within individual 'levels' of system functioning. From an epigenetic or systems perspective, the processes that organize development are not separate and distinct forces, but instead mutually influencing systems that produce both stability and order as well as flux and variation (Molenaar, 2015; Rose & Fischer, 2011). Ultimately, within such a view, the distinction between process and structure begins to erode (Giordano, 2017). There are not processes that operate on structures; there are only dynamically emergent systems -- structured processes that mutually regulate each other over time (Sawyer, 2002)" (14). * www.academia.edu/44981984/Dynamic_Skill_Theory_An_Integrative_Theory_of_Psychological_Development
Unfortunately, it does not seem like people against domain-general theories like DST and MHC have actually studied their literature or done a scientific evaluation of their work. As a person who has worked directly with Michael Commons and coauthored a paper on it's axioms, I'm willing to engage in a good faith conversation if someone wants to demonstrate how the MHC axioms are falsifiable with evidence. I think a lot of Nora's ideas are correct, but it just seems like she makes false equivalencies ("more" conflated as "industrial" and "eugenic"). I do not see how her core ideas invalidates coordination of behaviors producing orders of complexity as also being true. For example, if stacking complexity was not true, then we would expect babies to be generating scientific innovations right out of the womb. And if we carry the notion that measuring people as invalid, then we would not be able to have standards for professions, e.g. determining if a person is capable of doing life saving surgeries. I'm sorry if someone's feelings were hurt because they didn't measure up to a test [edit: for clarity, I'm not being sarcastic], but if we carry that argument over to medical education, we can't be letting people become doctors just because their feelings were hurt because they failed an exam.
Fischer's model has empirical validation. And it includes hierarchical complexity. For me it just expands on it in a more fleshed out (embodied, embedded, enactive and extended) way. And by doing so it does seem to address Nora's criticisms and concerns. So it might be a version of development with which she can at least partly agree. PS: As I am one who has achieved a consistently high skill level in a few domains I certainly get that argument. I don't know for sure but I don't think Nora would argue that point.
As to a good faith, detailed comparison of the minutia between dynamic skill theory and the MHC I am not qualified for that. However I'd suggest that Mascolo and Stein would be so qualified. I'd like to see a discussion of that comparison with either or both or them with you and/or Commons. Perhaps Brendan could arrange for that on his UA-cam channel? I can though provide here a relevant excerpt from a Zak Stein interview* below on hierarchical complexity: "And specifically in the work of Kurt Fischer’s dynamic skill theory, you see what is a very abstract, almost mathematical construct as articulated by Michael Commons, put in the context of a richly dynamical embodied and embrained person. And so I think the important thing to get that the model of hierarchical complexity is like a thermometer or a ruler. It’s not a rich, descriptive psychology, it is a uni-dimensional invariant property of psychological life that’s been distilled and is measurable, but you have to put on that very abstract skeleton, a whole bunch of psychological and even biological theorizing to have that construct makes sense of human behavior in medius res, right in the middle of things." * jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-113-zak-stein-on-hierarchical-complexity/?fbclid=IwAR0Shp1RtmxQN47_nab1oNHtnqvpJzaNT3YmtKqgMPMpzDpBzU5tWeMi41o
Finding underlying properties, this is what Theo Dawson was doing with Lectica. There are other papers, but I'll post one. Dawson, T.L. (2004). Assessing intellectual development: Three approaches, one sequence. Journal of Adult Development, 11(2), 71-85.
In the same interview cited above Zak is talking about comparing general intelligence with HC levels. It's where he said something similar to Nora: "So general intelligence is often used and spoken about as if this entire person is basically smarter than that entire person. And you’re not saying like in this domain of the linguistic and spatial manipulative and mathematical intelligence, he’s smarter than this person. [...] And that’s just bullshit. And it’s bullshit that’s actually a holdover from a eugenics and a very misconceived way of understanding the nature of human psychology and the genetic transmission of intelligence."
Thank you Nora. I came to know your work through Dave Snowden. If one needs some scaffolding or framework-type data driven modeling as reinforcement to these ideas have a look at the Cynefin Centre's from-nature desiged concepts. Warm data concepts dovetail nicely. I went through Kohlberg then Keagan before stumbling into Integral Theory. This over some twenty years and it land me feeling nauseous. I've got my personal disability that had a bullying and other-ing early life experience. I'm grateful for my recent dive into complexity science and the straight shooting Bateson and Snowden. They welcome the debate as should all. The map is not the territory. A stage assessment tells you little of an individual's personhood.
Not trying to be ironic with this observation, yet there is irony here in the sense that Nora has clearly spent a lot of time inhabiting Daniel's perspective and then subsequently moved to a "level" of theorizing that is much more granular, open to paradox, and oriented towards discovery. She's also, perhaps as a result of that work, a far more interesting listener and speaker. One gets the sense that she is alive in this conversation and actively learning within it, while Daniel drops dismissive analytical judgements that assume the listener inhabits his own thinking process (and thus Brendan, empathic enough to track on the part Daniel doesn't bother to explain to listeners has to interject so that the rest of us understand the basic logic behind Daniel's dismissals). Daniel's communication expresses a cool, smart, normal academic-declamatory style. It's interesting and informative, and I like it. But again, I get the sense Nora's been there, done that, and wants to *communicate.* Thanks to all for this. It's really good.
From Sri Aurobindo's The Life Divine, echoing Nora's comment about isolating a tree from its environment: "A tree evolves out of the seed in which it is already contained, the seed out of the tree; a fixed law, an invariable proc- ess reigns in the permanence of the form of manifestation which we call a tree. The mind regards this phenomenon, this birth, life and reproduction of a tree, as a thing in itself and on that basis studies, classes and explains it. It explains the tree by the seed, the seed by the tree; it declares a law of Nature. But it has ex- plained nothing; it has only analysed and recorded the process of a mystery. Supposing even that it comes to perceive a secret con- scious force as the soul, the real being of this form and the rest as merely a settled operation and manifestation of that force, still it tends to regard the form as a separate existence with its separate law of nature and process of development. In the animal and in man with his conscious mentality this separative tendency of the Mind induces it to regard itself also as a separate existence, the conscious subject, and other forms as separate objects of its men- tality. This useful arrangement, necessary to life and the first basis of all its practice, is accepted by the mind as an actual fact and thence proceeds all the error of the ego. But the Supermind works otherwise. The tree and its proc- ess would not be what they are, could not indeed exist, if it were a separate existence; forms are what they are by the force of the cosmic existence, they develop as they do as a result of their re- lation to it and to all its other manifestations. The separate law of their nature is only an application of the universal law and truth of all Nature; their particular development is determined by their place in the general development. The tree does not explain the seed, nor the seed the tree; cosmos explains both and God explains cosmos. The Supermind, pervading and inhabiting at once the seed and the tree and all objects, lives in this greater knowledge which is indivisible and one though with a modified and not an absolute indivisibility and unity. In this comprehensive knowledge there is no independent cen- tre of existence, no individual separated ego such as we see in our- selves; the whole of existence is to its self-awareness an equable extension, one in oneness, one in multiplicity, one in all conditions and everywhere. Here the All and the One are the same existence; the individual being does not and cannot lose the consciousness of its identity with all beings and with the One Being; for that identity is inherent in supramental cognition, a part of the supramental self- evidence.
34:00 - 35:20 The only way to make sense of this and to find a throughline here, that I know of, is actually the Integral framework with its distinction between structural developmental stages, separated into surface structures and ground structures, and nondual states that point to an absolute truth. - Its true that there are only a small minority of overall countries that would promote self expressive needs and drives of individuals - those are the devoted countries (Europe, Canada, USA, Australia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) while inner directed self-expression is look down on by economically and socially authoritarian systems. - It needs a certain amount of economic and social stability to create a context where sharing your feeling would be even wanted or desired. - The ground structures of those developmental stages are universally given, that's why you can take a child from any place and raise it in a modern and postmodern world, and it will grow up to be part of this world. The surface structures differ from culture to culture where there are different symbol sets, languages, norms. Take North- and Soutkorea for example - one has its leading edge from mythic to rational (Northkorea) one from Postmodern to Integral (Southkorea) - same culture same people, different Systems and different levels of overall developmental center of gravity. - The more developed society (Southkorea) gets you Oscar winning movies, smartphones, K-Pop and Squid Game. The lesser developed society (Northkorea) constantly tries to prove its strength by threatening the rest of the world with their nukes. - There are countless general ways to measure the overall development of societies. - The Integral Model would say regarding those transcendent states that premodern cultures where masters of those (like Korean Zen) and they plug in to an absolute truth that is just as valid at any structural stage. It's actually a completely different kind of development that is in its nature non-linear. - So that's why in a premodern context people don't care about your feeling - they don't developed the need for it. And why verbal expression of absolute truth might be a sign of relative immaturity, but it's a different type of immaturity that doesn't touch on the potential maturity of highly developed linguistic and symbolic thinking.
Bateson got knocked about halfway through and never quite recovered. She did a poor job of defending her corner here, which is a shame because I lean more towards her view of things. I've always found her to be quite a superficial thinker and have no idea why she is held in such high regard (other than the obvious).
Speaking as a white African, its my experience that, post the Enlightenment, Westerners do zoom in before zooming out whereas in Africa the out zoom is often all there is i.e. "a deep and saturated understanding of relational contexts'. Africa's challenge is that it is part of the global economy and is increasingly consumerist (wanting to enjoy the goodies those industrial linear thinkers have produced), meaning there's a need for specified balance sheets while balancing familial loyalties.
Lol "You need to develop your gang line." So fuckin funny. Nice discussion. I thought Daniel talked over norah quite a bit, especially at the start. I thought he wasn't as persuasive as norah, to my ears any ways. I was into stage theories, but have now grown skeptical over the past year or so.
I am glad it ended with the idea that we still need to come up some sort of new framework for development. In a sense it could be a renewed stage theory.
the Integral is the product of a certain time and place - and that time is 20 Years in the future in the more pleasant and reasonable places in the world
it sounds like one is taking about the stage theories through the lens of epistemology (cognitive development bias) and the other through the lens of ontology (complexity bias). both and, depending on the context and application? also, the sequences are a graphical representation, which help to explain / narrate within a context, rather than representations of actual sequential (linear) progression, or defining an optimum.
The problem I have with stage theory especially Spiral Dynamics is that is gets really narrow at Tier 2, its like you're either a non-dual saint or a systems thinker, wheres the variety? Basically if you don't align with either of those interests you can't reach Yellow or Turquoise. Its silly really.
I would like to know the context of Noras social media post. Generally speaking though, and as much as I respect and love her I wonder if she fell into the same trap of social media dysfunction as so many have.
I see she eventually mentioned this survey, I would still like to have as much context as possible including the entire thread of the post. It's difficult to listen to Gorski, I haven't read his book(s) but I suspect his ideas would be better communicated in print than a live conversation.
or Gortz. Sad that he had to respond with I disagree with x and agree with y, I would think anyone of this caliber on this topic doesn't have to resort to that.
Some of the context is her research into eugenics and statistics and their deep connection. Stats was born out of the ideas that we need to label and measure (and de-contextualise) human information to progress society in a 'productive' direction (and to reinforce the ideas of eugenics). Another context is she, as a very young child, learnt about integrative, transcontextual and complex thinking, as opposed to 'knowledge' like standard school does. Which disproves stage theory to some degree - albeit in a unqiue learning environment of her childhood.
Felt the discussion was aim at my current situation…..We we’re growing in every way. 3rd party connections and jealousy destroyed us.O ya. I yell and dominate conversations
What stage is it when you use your hair to hold your sun shades? he funhouse mirror stage maybe? Stages like all ideas, concepts, theories and generalizations and even words themselves are fuzzy. What is the phenomena of good ideas passed on to others then others first just slightly deflecting from the original intention behind the ideas yet in time it can even turn into its opposite? It is related to such bits of wisdom as "the road to hell is paved by good intentions". They are like possible tools but the tool is always dependent on who is using it. A hammer in the hand of a master carpenter is a very different thing than a hammer in my hand. Piaget: What kind of intelligence, vision and consciousness was reflected in such a man that does not get passed on in the work? The key is in the "ecology of the whole" so to speak. There are wholes within wholes and there are relative wholes. The human being is made in the image of the One Whole. We need to teach ourselves that parts of wholes can work well, even very well when dealing with physical objects or even going to the moon. However to use this kind of thought structure to deal with a human being does a kind of violence that we don't notice. We can have bad breath and not be aware of it. Check out the phrase "Look at my book".....this is weak; you are much better than that but better you don't yet notice it in the mirror. We can causally use words like "industrial" and it can have a well crafted precise meaning in our mind but it is not of much use for communicating to another. We need to be able to mark the sign points along the way as to what is a good conversation and what is one that is more non-communicative. So Nora what is the deeper question here......I'd say it is related to Martin Buber's ideas of I-Thou rather than I-It. As of yet we each do not have a clear understanding of what we are as a human being. We need to have direct perception that a human being is sacred. I'll end this with a quote from Chan Buddhism "The basic essential nature inherent in all people is clearly evident when you constantly perceive it within yourself." Yuan-hsien (1618-1697) When this is the case.....how will be treat human beings? Is it by chance that Georgy Batson near end of his life had some contact with Zen in America.....and this is is not specific to Zen.....it has to do with anyone who is able to directly perceive the sacred.
Like a horribly mismatched champion boxing match...( and so a little sad to watch the mismatch but the artistry of Nora is Exquisite and a Joy to watch!
What she deosnt see ,is that she , with her background and upbringing started on a very different spot and so she cant understand what a hart task it is to een be able to understand what she says. She started on a totally different level of complexity understanding. S its a matter of privilege not to understand the development it takes for most humans and only a small percentage even has the chance to get close. Its a " when they dont have bread, why dont they eat cake " issue. Not her fault and what she says is inspirational and makes total sense ( on this leel of development). I read books of her father when I was young and a new worldf opened to me. Actually , as I´m just in her intro statement I have to say, that she doesnt even understand the most simple map like Spiral Dynamics or hast read about it, as it says excactly that stages are adequate to the contexts people live in and sc. lower ( I prefer " previoius") stages are vital and beneficial in certain contexts. And by that she even applies Stage theory. So thumbs down for not even prepare for such a discussion in the least possible way. And they both havent read Gebser, as he doesnt talk of stages but structures and his Integral is valuing all structures and sees them equally important and valuable and we should detect them and bring them into surface ourselves. AND ...he was talking about humankinds and societies developments and not of the individuals and giving them grades from a limited and even less from a hierachical POV. And a theory isnt violent, but when you take violent action based on the theory . Is a knife violent? A theory is a tool and can be valid or not valid in a certain context and can be applied violently.
Lol. What if our structures (Industrial, Modern, Stage Theory,...) are simply expressions of natural human tendencies? Nora makes good points on the levels assessment of others that is so common so prevalent in "meta" communities. But are we forgetting that it's all "made up", a theory, a hypothesis where we forget that's its a theory - just another map - of reality, not reality itself.
Nora just explained why integral theory is a joke!!!! thanks for sharing this video it basically proves every thing I’ve ever thought about this unintelligent and unimportant philosophy. You can’t categorize people based off a silly color chart. There are far more developed theories and way better groups to be involved with than integral theory. You’re wasting your time people! Nora is amazing and I love how she just thoroughly dismantled the entire system. And then you shared it on your podcast like it didn’t......
Nora wanted to disprove the stage theory but more proved it than disproved. Her speech is from viewing the world through postmodern glasses which actually sees metamodern as modern (all these references to industrial etc.)
"So you have just made your own stage theory", - very good point, Daniel!
Nora "I don't want to...it makes me feel sad." Feminine empathizing bias (feels) vs Daniel Masculine Systemazing (Reals) ?
NonDual . . . FeelReal 😹👍
You missed what she was saying. She was challenging the frame (within which you start to be able to say “prove” or “disprove” Stage Theory).
@@chris.dalton I definitely don’t.
I agree. Nora is expressing turqoise/holistic but without recognizing that all the previous stages were necessary to get her there.
Meta-theory to the rescue! Anyone else seeing Wilber's Integral Methodological Pluralism in this debate? Nora seems to discount most of the "outside" zones (Zones 2, 6, 8 and 4) like structuralism, empiricism and system's theory in favor of the "inside" zones (Zones 1, 3, 5, 7) like hermeneutics, and social autopoiesis.
Another way to put it is that Nora seems to favor 1st & 2nd person methodologies and is tired of the overuse of 3rd person methodologies.
I hear Sean Esbjörn-Hargens has updated IMP to include 2nd person methodologies (he sees Wilber's IMP as only containing 1st & 3rd person methods). It would be sweet if you could get him on the program, Brendan Graham Dempsey!
Nice observation. Also, yes! That’s a great idea. Would love to talk to Sean.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey I'll bet Layman & Bruce could put you in touch
Read Iain Mcgilchrist “ the matter with things”... he solves this conflict by integrating their respective positions. The right hemisphere relates to the left hemisphere and then wisdom emerges from taking what’s emerged from BOTH BACK into the right hemisphere... a THIRD position (ie, wisdom emerges) and this continues back and forth. This accounts for relationship/context AND a form of linear progression of wisdom(not merely cognitive development). This relationship between the hemispheress to constantly create “a 3rd” is basically “being AND becoming” - what is and what can/could be that is an advancement.
I found this disappointing, I kept listening for an informed critique of stage theories on Noras part but it appears she has not read up on neo-piagetian cog sci.
For example,
She keeps talking about the importance of context while seemingly not aware of the discussion of how aspects of development relate to deep structure and context dependent décalage.
She does not differentiate between vertical and horizontal learning - for example around 1:11:00 in relation to gang members (i.e. she does not have the language to separate the increased development of gang members within their context to a general development of more sophisticated faculties).
I would love to hear a critique of stage theories by someone that is aware of the constructs they are not agreeing with rather than just correctly identifying the potential dangers of using stages to label and e.g. control / optimize for certain outcomes,
I replied to Edward Berge on this exact topic here in the comments
I think the problem is when you place vertical learning above horizontal, as a more 'advanced' stage. Neither is really 'better' than the other, and in terms of human longevity the former is probably less adaptive when widely adopted.
@@F--B My dissertation adviser (clinical psychology) did his initial research on new piagetian cognitive science. he said by the 1970s, stage theories had pretty much vanished from mainstream psychology. People interested din Wilber, Cook Greuter, Kegan (who is not a developmental psychologist), Commons and others in the metamodernity world, don't realize this and keep pushing non scientific ideas.
it's not about development but the idea of discrete stages that's the problem. And I know there have been endless attempts to modify the notion of "discrete" stages (center of gravity is one particularly useless one) but I haven't seen any that have any valid scientific basis.
I got chills listening to Nora, for a moment I saw something I had taken as a fact of reality and life in a totally new way, something beautiful, how things could be, how beautiful life can be. This left an impression on me. Thanks, to Daniel too
29:55 "You cannot isolate the individual"
My hope in metamodern theory is that it will help to find a way to deal with this very paradox for the individual is both isolated and not isolated. And this talk once again showed that the task at hand might be linguistic.
Great conversation, but the last few minutes were awesome…. that there is a sense of a language beyond stage theory that can reconstruct it from above… that Nora was up for working together. I don't understand some other people in the comments, reading this conversation like a boxing match. Sounded to me more like the prelude to an historic collaboration. Go for it!
agreed, thanks for your comment Mark
Great talk. Both minds bring depth to the field. That said, it is all constructed around inverted axioms. The next stage is the age of oscillating in the correct manner around a pure bed of axioms. Alluding to patterns continuously, no matter how smart it may sound, simply means you are stuck on a hamster wheel. To move forward we must begin to share what we know of the mind in a structured manner. Meta-cognitive universals are a must if our epistemologies are to have roots.
Nora’s opening ten minute flow was phenomenal. So much to unpack. All the points profoundly placed. Not heard her name before. Will definitely be checking out her work. Will listen to the rest tomorrow. Sleep is calling.
Compassion is not something that needs to be learned but rather expanded to include more of ourselves and the community of life
An excellent conversation. Many good points on "both sides" of the conversation. Thanks for sharing.
There is BOTH “both/and” AND “either/or”.
Noam Chomsky said: we need ‘The responsibility of the intellectual’.
The intellectual looks down on others as less.
The patriarchal stage, gets on the stage and can not listen.
As Mark Twain expressed in many ways, it is easier to tell a lie, than to speak the truth.
Humility is a difficult game, thank you for making an entertaining sweat, let the snobbery end and humility begin.
1:09:00 Nora agrees here that what she calls „Soft-psychology“ - treating serious violent crime with caring compassion doesn't work. But she sees it as a „Typing-Error“. And that is the main difference between her position and Daniels. „Empathy to one person is the ability to manipulate.“
I absolutely agree here with Daniel that those types of nonjudgmental policies have lead to terrible trends and outcomes in several European countries where there is a huge amount of recourses, empathy and compassion given to the people who are least capable or willing to rejoice in compassion. - And It's not just a difference in the types of thinking that criminal organizations like gangs use, it is a closed world space of a lower developmental rung. - By saying she wouldn't judge anybody to be higher or lesser developed in any capacity she also disqualifies herself to make any moral value statement at all. - One of the reasons for doing so might be a pre/trans confusion where pre-converntional and post conventional forms of acting in the world are mushed together. - One other valid developmental metaphor could be the one of a climber, a ladder and a rung. Where the view of a post conventional rung of the ladder is one where it can see the lower structures but doesn't have access to the view of a gang member and its limitations. While the gang member might not be able to even intuit the rich contextual view of a Nora Bateson.
Those could be very usefull developmental frames and tool that could help people by meeting them where they are and help to develop the gang member into a more stable conventional way of living, but since she sees it just as different ways of thinking nothing will be done to grow people out of a live crime and violence for example.
How does any developmental theory help you understand ethics or wisdom? Ken Wilber, with his massively challenged narcissism, may be exhibit A for the inability of developmental theories to deal with either ethics or wisdom.
There's a kind of developmental view - though it's not about "stages" - in Indian philosophy - tamas, rajas, and sattwa. People have tried to compare it to Wilber and other developmental views but it is profoundly different. Unlike Wilber's Quadrant view and it's Chinese menu approach (take 1 from quadrant 1, another from quadrant 2, sauté 20 minutes and add soy sauce), the qualities or "gunas" of tamas, rajas and sattwa relate not just to the individual but the entire cosmos.
Fascinating talk - I agree with Nora that if you are looking into a culture (
or stage development model ) through a lens
from the outside it is very difficult to know what is going on inside it.
Regarding how to correct pre determined development, I suggest:
It's time to Personalize the curriculum
What is the common denominator from where each one comes and how do we secure the safety of each one's emancipation pathway from conception to the grave?
By following up to answer these questions, education progresses to no longer be left isolated from what it is learning about, by connecting in the Essence of life's vital experience like sap is to vegetation, feeding knowledge clarity from the lowest to the higher to the lowest grasp of understanding, binding us each with all into the Faculty To BeLive by celebrating together, the uniqueness of individuality....
The view I get from such an approach is the cultivation of people into all class dynamics. In this live, continued apprenticeship of care's vitality culture, everyone is a teacher and student.
In this context, the role of classroom teacher becomes that of a coach who maintains the inspiration going in the direction's drive, fitted to adapt into each one's thriving together with the strongest serving the weakest.
Make the curriculum available and attractive in the context that lets each one enter the gateway of knowledge when ripe and determined from the personal drive as opposed to peer pressure."
Writing toward live curriculum
facebook.com/benoitctr/posts/10220492953612490
Quote:
"What if education's curriculum morphed to adapt along with home life in order to secure life long learning - upbringing - growing up?"
Thoughts on System Thinking
and
Complexity Theory
facebook.com/leftrighto.../posts/425395791350988
Really good convo, touched on key issues and perspectives while trying to be aware of assumption-driven conclusions. Kudos to all involved!
The below excerpts from Mascolo's paper sound to me more like how they ended the discussion of a different way to frame developmental theory. It might address some of Nora's criticisms and concerns. Mascolo, M. (2020). "Dynamic Skill Theory."* Handbook of Integrative Developmental Science, New York: Routledge.
"Skill theory is not so much a theory of the development of children or adults, but instead a theory of the development of psychological structures. It is not a child or individual who operates at any particular level of development; it is the particular skill as it operates within a particular context (Bidell & Fischer, 1992). It follows that at any given moment in time, individual persons create particular skilled actions in order to meet particular adaptive challenges and environmental demands. As a result, although, at any given point in development, there are limits to the highest level of skill that an individual can construct, it makes no sense say that skills operate at any single level - even within individual persons and domains of action. The level of skill produced by an individual can change from moment to moment. [...] Both across and within particular domains of functioning, the level of skill that an individual creates changes as a function of the demands of the environment, and individual’s physical or emotional state, the level of support available, the novelty of the skill or context in question, and so forth.
"Against this backdrop, it makes little sense to think of development as a kind of unidirectional ladder or fixed staircase. It is preferable to conceptualize development as a kind of web, with multiple connecting and diverging strands (Ayoub & Fischer, 2006; Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Fischer & Rose, 2001). A representation of the developmental web is provided in Figure 5. Each strand in the web represents a different developmental pathway. The pathways in the web can represent developmental changes in different skills or skill domains within the same individuals or in groups of individuals. Within the web, development can move in multiple directions, converging or diverging from its current trajectory at any given point in time. Questions about the pathways that development actually takes in particular individuals, groups, skill domains and contexts are empirical one, and cannot be presumed beforehand through logical analysis alone or on the basis of the assumed structure of any particular skill developing at any particular time" (10).
"Drawing on ideas from dynamic and epigenetic systems thinking, Fischer adopted the idea that structures of acting emerge in medias res - in the middle of things (Fischer & Steward, 1999). A person is not a disembodied or rational agent set off apart from the world; the person is an embodied and emotive actor whose actions are embedded in the world. [...] Fischer (1993) argued against the idea that cognition could be understood as kind of fixed inner competence. No fixed competences exist within the individual; structures of action and though emerge dynamically through the mutual interplay between person and context, cognition and emotion, biology and culture, and so forth.
"In this regard, it is helpful to think of developmental change processes in terms of vertical and horizontal coactions that occur within multiply-embedded epigenetic systems (Bidell & Fischer, 1997; Gottlieb, 2004). We can think of epigenetic systems as organized both horizontally and vertically. Vertical coactions occur between embedded 'levels' of the epigenetic system. Horizontal coactions occur within individual 'levels' of system functioning. From an epigenetic or systems perspective, the processes that organize development are not separate and distinct forces, but instead mutually influencing systems that produce both stability and order as well as flux and variation (Molenaar, 2015; Rose & Fischer, 2011). Ultimately, within such a view, the distinction between process and structure begins to erode (Giordano, 2017). There are not processes that operate on structures; there are only dynamically emergent systems -- structured processes that mutually regulate each other over time (Sawyer, 2002)" (14).
* www.academia.edu/44981984/Dynamic_Skill_Theory_An_Integrative_Theory_of_Psychological_Development
Unfortunately, it does not seem like people against domain-general theories like DST and MHC have actually studied their literature or done a scientific evaluation of their work. As a person who has worked directly with Michael Commons and coauthored a paper on it's axioms, I'm willing to engage in a good faith conversation if someone wants to demonstrate how the MHC axioms are falsifiable with evidence. I think a lot of Nora's ideas are correct, but it just seems like she makes false equivalencies ("more" conflated as "industrial" and "eugenic"). I do not see how her core ideas invalidates coordination of behaviors producing orders of complexity as also being true. For example, if stacking complexity was not true, then we would expect babies to be generating scientific innovations right out of the womb. And if we carry the notion that measuring people as invalid, then we would not be able to have standards for professions, e.g. determining if a person is capable of doing life saving surgeries. I'm sorry if someone's feelings were hurt because they didn't measure up to a test [edit: for clarity, I'm not being sarcastic], but if we carry that argument over to medical education, we can't be letting people become doctors just because their feelings were hurt because they failed an exam.
Fischer's model has empirical validation. And it includes hierarchical complexity. For me it just expands on it in a more fleshed out (embodied, embedded, enactive and extended) way. And by doing so it does seem to address Nora's criticisms and concerns. So it might be a version of development with which she can at least partly agree.
PS: As I am one who has achieved a consistently high skill level in a few domains I certainly get that argument. I don't know for sure but I don't think Nora would argue that point.
As to a good faith, detailed comparison of the minutia between dynamic skill theory and the MHC I am not qualified for that. However I'd suggest that Mascolo and Stein would be so qualified. I'd like to see a discussion of that comparison with either or both or them with you and/or Commons. Perhaps Brendan could arrange for that on his UA-cam channel?
I can though provide here a relevant excerpt from a Zak Stein interview* below on hierarchical complexity:
"And specifically in the work of Kurt Fischer’s dynamic skill theory, you see what is a very abstract, almost mathematical construct as articulated by Michael Commons, put in the context of a richly dynamical embodied and embrained person. And so I think the important thing to get that the model of hierarchical complexity is like a thermometer or a ruler. It’s not a rich, descriptive psychology, it is a uni-dimensional invariant property of psychological life that’s been distilled and is measurable, but you have to put on that very abstract skeleton, a whole bunch of psychological and even biological theorizing to have that construct makes sense of human behavior in medius res, right in the middle of things."
* jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-113-zak-stein-on-hierarchical-complexity/?fbclid=IwAR0Shp1RtmxQN47_nab1oNHtnqvpJzaNT3YmtKqgMPMpzDpBzU5tWeMi41o
Finding underlying properties, this is what Theo Dawson was doing with Lectica. There are other papers, but I'll post one. Dawson, T.L. (2004). Assessing intellectual development: Three approaches, one sequence. Journal of Adult Development, 11(2), 71-85.
In the same interview cited above Zak is talking about comparing general intelligence with HC levels. It's where he said something similar to Nora:
"So general intelligence is often used and spoken about as if this entire person is basically smarter than that entire person. And you’re not saying like in this domain of the linguistic and spatial manipulative and mathematical intelligence, he’s smarter than this person. [...] And that’s just bullshit. And it’s bullshit that’s actually a holdover from a eugenics and a very misconceived way of understanding the nature of human psychology and the genetic transmission of intelligence."
Thank you Nora. I came to know your work through Dave Snowden. If one needs some scaffolding or framework-type data driven modeling as reinforcement to these ideas have a look at the Cynefin Centre's from-nature desiged concepts. Warm data concepts dovetail nicely. I went through Kohlberg then Keagan before stumbling into Integral Theory. This over some twenty years and it land me feeling nauseous. I've got my personal disability that had a bullying and other-ing early life experience. I'm grateful for my recent dive into complexity science and the straight shooting Bateson and Snowden. They welcome the debate as should all.
The map is not the territory. A stage assessment tells you little of an individual's personhood.
Not trying to be ironic with this observation, yet there is irony here in the sense that Nora has clearly spent a lot of time inhabiting Daniel's perspective and then subsequently moved to a "level" of theorizing that is much more granular, open to paradox, and oriented towards discovery. She's also, perhaps as a result of that work, a far more interesting listener and speaker. One gets the sense that she is alive in this conversation and actively learning within it, while Daniel drops dismissive analytical judgements that assume the listener inhabits his own thinking process (and thus Brendan, empathic enough to track on the part Daniel doesn't bother to explain to listeners has to interject so that the rest of us understand the basic logic behind Daniel's dismissals). Daniel's communication expresses a cool, smart, normal academic-declamatory style. It's interesting and informative, and I like it. But again, I get the sense Nora's been there, done that, and wants to *communicate.* Thanks to all for this. It's really good.
From Sri Aurobindo's The Life Divine, echoing Nora's comment about isolating a tree from its environment:
"A tree evolves out of the seed in which it is already contained, the seed out of the tree; a fixed law, an invariable proc- ess reigns in the permanence of the form of manifestation which we call a tree. The mind regards this phenomenon, this birth, life and reproduction of a tree, as a thing in itself and on that basis studies, classes and explains it. It explains the tree by the seed, the seed by the tree; it declares a law of Nature. But it has ex- plained nothing; it has only analysed and recorded the process of a mystery. Supposing even that it comes to perceive a secret con- scious force as the soul, the real being of this form and the rest as merely a settled operation and manifestation of that force, still it tends to regard the form as a separate existence with its separate law of nature and process of development. In the animal and in man with his conscious mentality this separative tendency of the Mind induces it to regard itself also as a separate existence, the conscious subject, and other forms as separate objects of its men- tality. This useful arrangement, necessary to life and the first basis of all its practice, is accepted by the mind as an actual fact and thence proceeds all the error of the ego.
But the Supermind works otherwise. The tree and its proc- ess would not be what they are, could not indeed exist, if it were a separate existence; forms are what they are by the force of the cosmic existence, they develop as they do as a result of their re- lation to it and to all its other manifestations. The separate law of their nature is only an application of the universal law and truth of all Nature; their particular development is determined by their place in the general development. The tree does not explain the seed, nor the seed the tree; cosmos explains both and God explains cosmos. The Supermind, pervading and inhabiting at once the seed and the tree and all objects, lives in this greater knowledge which is indivisible and one though with a modified and not an absolute indivisibility and unity. In this comprehensive knowledge there is no independent cen- tre of existence, no individual separated ego such as we see in our- selves; the whole of existence is to its self-awareness an equable extension, one in oneness, one in multiplicity, one in all conditions and everywhere. Here the All and the One are the same existence; the individual being does not and cannot lose the consciousness of its identity with all beings and with the One Being; for that identity is inherent in supramental cognition, a part of the supramental self- evidence.
34:00 - 35:20 The only way to make sense of this and to find a throughline here, that I know of, is actually the Integral framework with its distinction between structural developmental stages, separated into surface structures and ground structures, and nondual states that point to an absolute truth. - Its true that there are only a small minority of overall countries that would promote self expressive needs and drives of individuals - those are the devoted countries (Europe, Canada, USA, Australia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) while inner directed self-expression is look down on by economically and socially authoritarian systems. - It needs a certain amount of economic and social stability to create a context where sharing your feeling would be even wanted or desired. - The ground structures of those developmental stages are universally given, that's why you can take a child from any place and raise it in a modern and postmodern world, and it will grow up to be part of this world. The surface structures differ from culture to culture where there are different symbol sets, languages, norms.
Take North- and Soutkorea for example - one has its leading edge from mythic to rational (Northkorea) one from Postmodern to Integral (Southkorea) - same culture same people, different Systems and different levels of overall developmental center of gravity. - The more developed society (Southkorea) gets you Oscar winning movies, smartphones, K-Pop and Squid Game. The lesser developed society (Northkorea) constantly tries to prove its strength by threatening the rest of the world with their nukes. - There are countless general ways to measure the overall development of societies. - The Integral Model would say regarding those transcendent states that premodern cultures where masters of those (like Korean Zen) and they plug in to an absolute truth that is just as valid at any structural stage. It's actually a completely different kind of development that is in its nature non-linear. - So that's why in a premodern context people don't care about your feeling - they don't developed the need for it. And why verbal expression of absolute truth might be a sign of relative immaturity, but it's a different type of immaturity that doesn't touch on the potential maturity of highly developed linguistic and symbolic thinking.
Bateson got knocked about halfway through and never quite recovered. She did a poor job of defending her corner here, which is a shame because I lean more towards her view of things. I've always found her to be quite a superficial thinker and have no idea why she is held in such high regard (other than the obvious).
Really enjoying this conversation.
Speaking as a white African, its my experience that, post the Enlightenment, Westerners do zoom in before zooming out whereas in Africa the out zoom is often all there is i.e. "a deep and saturated understanding of relational contexts'. Africa's challenge is that it is part of the global economy and is increasingly consumerist (wanting to enjoy the goodies those industrial linear thinkers have produced), meaning there's a need for specified balance sheets while balancing familial loyalties.
Subtítulos porfavor, desde Colombia.
Lol "You need to develop your gang line." So fuckin funny.
Nice discussion.
I thought Daniel talked over norah quite a bit, especially at the start.
I thought he wasn't as persuasive as norah, to my ears any ways.
I was into stage theories, but have now grown skeptical over the past year or so.
Thank you
I am glad it ended with the idea that we still need to come up some sort of new framework for development. In a sense it could be a renewed stage theory.
thanks for this amazing content
Ty. Got that
the Integral is the product of a certain time and place - and that time is 20 Years in the future in the more pleasant and reasonable places in the world
it sounds like one is taking about the stage theories through the lens of epistemology (cognitive development bias) and the other through the lens of ontology (complexity bias). both and, depending on the context and application?
also, the sequences are a graphical representation, which help to explain / narrate within a context, rather than representations of actual sequential (linear) progression, or defining an optimum.
The problem I have with stage theory especially Spiral Dynamics is that is gets really narrow at Tier 2, its like you're either a non-dual saint or a systems thinker, wheres the variety? Basically if you don't align with either of those interests you can't reach Yellow or Turquoise. Its silly really.
I would like to know the context of Noras social media post. Generally speaking though, and as much as I respect and love her I wonder if she fell into the same trap of social media dysfunction as so many have.
I see she eventually mentioned this survey, I would still like to have as much context as possible including the entire thread of the post.
It's difficult to listen to Gorski, I haven't read his book(s) but I suspect his ideas would be better communicated in print than a live conversation.
or Gortz. Sad that he had to respond with I disagree with x and agree with y, I would think anyone of this caliber on this topic doesn't have to resort to that.
Some of the context is her research into eugenics and statistics and their deep connection. Stats was born out of the ideas that we need to label and measure (and de-contextualise) human information to progress society in a 'productive' direction (and to reinforce the ideas of eugenics).
Another context is she, as a very young child, learnt about integrative, transcontextual and complex thinking, as opposed to 'knowledge' like standard school does. Which disproves stage theory to some degree - albeit in a unqiue learning environment of her childhood.
Felt the discussion was aim at my current situation…..We we’re growing in every way.
3rd party connections and jealousy destroyed us.O ya. I yell and dominate conversations
What stage is it when you use your hair to hold your sun shades? he funhouse mirror stage maybe? Stages like all ideas, concepts, theories and generalizations and even words themselves are fuzzy. What is the phenomena of good ideas passed on to others then others first just slightly deflecting from the original intention behind the ideas yet in time it can even turn into its opposite? It is related to such bits of wisdom as "the road to hell is paved by good intentions". They are like possible tools but the tool is always dependent on who is using it. A hammer in the hand of a master carpenter is a very different thing than a hammer in my hand. Piaget: What kind of intelligence, vision and consciousness was reflected in such a man that does not get passed on in the work? The key is in the "ecology of the whole" so to speak. There are wholes within wholes and there are relative wholes. The human being is made in the image of the One Whole. We need to teach ourselves that parts of wholes can work well, even very well when dealing with physical objects or even going to the moon. However to use this kind of thought structure to deal with a human being does a kind of violence that we don't notice. We can have bad breath and not be aware of it. Check out the phrase "Look at my book".....this is weak; you are much better than that but better you don't yet notice it in the mirror. We can causally use words like "industrial" and it can have a well crafted precise meaning in our mind but it is not of much use for communicating to another. We need to be able to mark the sign points along the way as to what is a good conversation and what is one that is more non-communicative. So Nora what is the deeper question here......I'd say it is related to Martin Buber's ideas of I-Thou rather than I-It. As of yet we each do not have a clear understanding of what we are as a human being. We need to have direct perception that a human being is sacred. I'll end this with a quote from Chan Buddhism "The basic essential nature inherent in all people is clearly evident when you constantly perceive it within yourself." Yuan-hsien (1618-1697) When this is the case.....how will be treat human beings? Is it by chance that Georgy Batson near end of his life had some contact with Zen in America.....and this is is not specific to Zen.....it has to do with anyone who is able to directly perceive the sacred.
Reductionism v. Anti reductionism. Substance & Structure
SUPERB, Nora!
Like a horribly mismatched champion boxing match...( and so a little sad to watch the mismatch but the artistry of Nora is Exquisite and a Joy to watch!
What she deosnt see ,is that she , with her background and upbringing started on a very different spot and so she cant understand what a hart task it is to een be able to understand what she says. She started on a totally different level of complexity understanding.
S its a matter of privilege not to understand the development it takes for most humans and only a small percentage even has the chance to get close.
Its a " when they dont have bread, why dont they eat cake " issue. Not her fault and what she says is inspirational and makes total sense ( on this leel of development).
I read books of her father when I was young and a new worldf opened to me.
Actually , as I´m just in her intro statement I have to say, that she doesnt even understand the most simple map like Spiral Dynamics or hast read about it, as it says excactly that stages are adequate to the contexts people live in and sc. lower ( I prefer " previoius") stages are vital and beneficial in certain contexts. And by that she even applies Stage theory.
So thumbs down for not even prepare for such a discussion in the least possible way.
And they both havent read Gebser, as he doesnt talk of stages but structures and his Integral is valuing all structures and sees them equally important and valuable and we should detect them and bring them into surface ourselves.
AND ...he was talking about humankinds and societies developments and not of the individuals and giving them grades from a limited and even less from a hierachical POV.
And a theory isnt violent, but when you take violent action based on the theory .
Is a knife violent? A theory is a tool and can be valid or not valid in a certain context and can be applied violently.
Bravo Nora for pointing out words to what is nearly impossible to describe.
🙏
Perhaps change theory would be more palatable
Lol. What if our structures (Industrial, Modern, Stage Theory,...) are simply expressions of natural human tendencies?
Nora makes good points on the levels assessment of others that is so common so prevalent in "meta" communities. But are we forgetting that it's all "made up", a theory, a hypothesis where we forget that's its a theory - just another map - of reality, not reality itself.
Folder of time
25:03 plenty meta, that father context
26:43 where is what's going on? Well, here it's in the conversation
27:27 well, that's the tautological nature of being (however it's not an infinitely plastic)
27:50 if you knew where you were coming from, you would know you don't know where you're going
28:28
Statistical truth and subjective truth can coexist
Why does he denigrate the nationalists so much? Some of them are probably just tired of the green meme.
Quarter million b nice
Nora just explained why integral theory is a joke!!!! thanks for sharing this video it basically proves every thing I’ve ever thought about this unintelligent and unimportant philosophy. You can’t categorize people based off a silly color chart. There are far more developed theories and way better groups to be involved with than integral theory. You’re wasting your time people! Nora is amazing and I love how she just thoroughly dismantled the entire system. And then you shared it on your podcast like it didn’t......
What are the far more developed theories and way better groups?
@@nikomitropoulos5292 waiting for it too
@@nikomitropoulos5292 I am also waiting for an explanation of the "far more DEVELOPED theories" :-D
"you can't be neutral on a moving train"
"4 real
2 weeks ago (edited)
There is BOTH “both/and” AND “either/or”."
👍
🙏
💃🕺☯️꩜ DanceOn . . .