I swear I promised myself I would spend 5 minutes on this and write short answers o_O

I could go on for hours and hours but this time I swear I'll try keep it very very short.

(LOL well it was my intent (I'm writing this bit after having spent more than a few hours writing ))

While reading this blog,

Myth Busting & Metric Making

Refashioning the Discourse about Development in the Integral Community

Contributor: Zachary Stein

Which you can find here

integrallife.com/learn/deep-end/myth-busting-metric-making

I would like to comment or at least express how I feel / think about certain points in order :

That is, I offered a map of how thinking unfolds in this knowledge domain [...] levels in thinking about levels.

It struck me that you could justify mapping levels of anything at all, in all directions. Honestly, anything I can think of has levels and stages that integrate the preceding ones. They could theoritically all be modelled. In fact, the more altitude you gain generally, the more potential levels you could map as you become aware of them.

I challenge you to provide me with an example of something that is "done" by the human body as a whole (at any level and for "including anything related to "us"" (i.e. including mind, heart, feelings, skills etc) that does not potentially evolve and grow in stages.

In fact, even anything that is created by us or through us (including concepts and communications, connections with people) and has some kind of movement and a relationship (or potential relationship if only someone would "connect) has that potential since it is through the relationship that the growth happens.

Now, the way I see development (i.e. Fischer's Neo-Piagetian perspective) suggests that we roam up and down these levels all the time, depending on context and support, etc. No one is at a level; we inhabit levels only for certain periods of time and in certain company.

The way I see it the "roaming up and down" bit is very limited. I would agree that no one "is at a level", but would suggest that everyone is mostly, most of the time, at all the levels he has grown into. So it's not a case of a small focused center of gravity moving up and down according to the context, I think you inhabit almost all the space leaving very little possibility for roaming.

It is growth, expansion into a wider space that integrates the space you occupied before (maybe like water flowing into a larger container though I am aware it's not a perfect example), not simply access to a higher space which gives you a larger area to "roam" (as your body would in a larger house with more rooms).

My intuition tells me we inhabit all the levels all the time but only focus our awareness or attention as required by the context. So when a child learns its culture's rules and norms and grows into the conventional stage of morals (for example (paraphrase of integrallife.com/learn/levels-development/stages-or-levels-development)), rather than exclude anyone who's not part of his ego, it simply excludes anyone not part of it's group. But when dealing with anyone from within that group, or its ego, that relationship is constant, in fact in absolute terms, there would be no difference in terms of positioning between a relationship with the ego, with someon from his group, or someone else from his group. It's not a question of being in one tier or the other, it's dependent on the subject of focus. It can focus or "access directly" values that are specific to each stage just as you would focus your attention, or look at a detail in a picture, but it doesn't inhabit one or the other, it inhabits both.

I realise now it sounds like I'm being very picky and playing on words, but I got a feeling it's important because these two different views bring about different conclusions in my thinking. It's also very likely that this is dependent on the nature of the subject. With this in mind, maybe a flowing subject (such as your overall "being" or a "collective stage") would evolve in this way while specific functions (such as interpretation skills) may roam... not sure...

However, I'm also thinking that there is a very high chance of me being completely mistaken on this one, so suggest this with the utmost humility :) I also realise that all this blah blah I've splattered out is kind of irrelevant to Zachary's point (yes, don't worry, I'm aware of that lol, was just branching off :))

Current global socio-cultural conditions are resulting in an increasingly uneven distribution of capabilities between people and an increasingly dangerous stratification of cultures according to the complexity of world-views

I wouldn't be worried about that at all. And the reason not to worry is because ultimately, how people get along is, or at least shouldn't, be dependent on the stage of development. The reason for this is because someone who is higher can (or should) always adapt his position within the contect of an interaction with someone who is lower. The only issue is if the "lower" person may have difficulty in grasping concepts that exclusive to the higher tier.

But though grandparents are usually at a much higher stage than their grand children, this doesn't stop them getting along. "Getting along" and "communicating effectively" is more a question of attitude and positioning from the guy or girl that's reached a higher stage. In fact, from his or her view point, this should be obvious. It's a totally different issue if someone who has a world view does not adapt his discourse to someone who has ethnocentric view, it's not because he can't, it's because he won't.

Many who consider themselves developmentalists think it is valid to make holistic developmental assessments that determine the essence of a person. Moreover, because higher-levels are hypertrophied it is thought that more developed people are better people. Generally, it is thought that we use developmental assessments to find out how good people are so that we can then give them the acclaim, trust, and responsibility they deserve.

I could not strongly disagree more, not with the fact that people think this, but that this is wrong. Higher stages that reach further to not change the inherent value of the subject if there is any value at all even, cause that depends on the subject, not the process that it undergoes when growing.

I'll do my best to develop my intuition :
 

Here's an example of a subject that can not be judged - that has no "value" in the sense that I meant.

intelligence is a valueless subject, it is a capacity, the capacity to intellectualise :

the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience  (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence)

According to Ken's basic principles, it is a capacity of a being, a branch of a tree, therefore if the "being" (you) has not reached a sufficient level of development, the capacity is limited.

My point was originally to show an example of something that could go through stages but could not be judged (as being good or bad). I hit Ken's principle that the stages that that capacity can grow into are dependent of the level of development of the "being" like I was running into a brick wall. The wall being that the "person" that the capacity is linked too has value...

From there, I see three possible ideas :

a) all things that "grow", or "integrate new stages", share the same principles. If so, then the relationship between intelligence (as a capacity of a person) can and should be found in the preceeding line. What I mean is that "intelligence is to a person what a person is to (to what???? Intelligence is born by a person, it comes from a person, but the person is born from what? mother + father right? So it's a gene thing?)

At any rate, going back to the "essence" of something, that which has value, which can be judged; In path "a)", the essence of the intelligence is clearly flowing from the person. So the essence of the person would flow from his genes (if that is the correct previous relationship which I am not at all sure about). 

Ok so then intelligence does have value to start with, the value it is given by the person. The starting value given to intelligence will not change as this capacity becomes more efficient, it simply will be able to solve more complicated problems. From this perspective, the growing person will not shift it's essence either, it simply will become more efficient in the things that it does.

I think maybe the mistake could be in thinking that being good or bad is something that you are from the start. (I know you're thinking that's obvious), since all babies seem to share a similar level of innocence, but what's not so obvious is that the factors that influence you into becoming more or less good or bad is not the event of growth itself. And the "essence" I was speaking of earlier, actually is not measured in goodness or badness, it is the core of what you really are in this world, which in my view can not be good or bad.

b) there is a mis understanding on the term "good".

What Zachary speaks of in the quoted paragraph is efficiency. What actually happens is people judge your efficiency (whether your good at something) according to your development level. This is precisely because (according to Ken), capacities are dependent on the altitude of the person.

This has nothing to do with the essence of a person, or you would not ever find evil geniuses. It's confusing because in the same sentence, Zachary is speaking of being good at something (capacity) and being a better person. A kid that is good at something is a kid that has developed capacities, a kid that is a bad kid, is one who shows "bad" attitudes, feelings, and actions, independently from his capacities. They are two entirely different concepts that should (in my opinion) not be judged in the same way.

c) Capacities, whether they have value or not can evolve through higher stages irrespective of the level of development of the person.

To step in this direction, I had to define what "the person" was, and boom, a person is AQAL.... which I havent researched...

By reading in diagonals as we say, I find on this website that a person is "it", "we", and "I". with all 3 aspects being interdependent.

Where, amongst these 3 concepts, can I find the "essence" of a person?

It's not the "it", because with good organs and arms and legs, or bad ones, my "essence" is still the same.. or is it?

Here's my feeling, the "it" is the vehicule through which the essence expresses itself although the essence is directly dependent on the "it". For instance, drugs and medication alike can make a person aggressive, or affectionate, subdued, or independent, sensitive, careless, unaware, unconscious, also change emotions, also change so many things that would make you think that the person has changed, but I am convinced that the core, the essence remains unchanged, it simply is canalised in different ways through the "it", the body, mind etc.

If you affect the body, you can change the point of view of the person as well, just as the point of view of the person has a direct impact on the body. In addition, how healthy the body is has a direct impact on how we relate to things and people, or, as defined in the "we", how we treat each other, and vice versa.

To me this is what we are judging when we are saying a person is good at something.

Take away the "it" and there is no person, but this is not because the essence was "it", it is because the essence could not be materially without the "it"... That was the Beautyful. :xD

The "you/we", is how we treat each other, morality, or our attitude to people, maybe our personality. To me this is what we are judging when we are judging whether a person is a good person or not (superficially, with regards to the person's actions) (within the context of this discussion). However it is not the essence either, it is the actions resulting from the "canalisation" provided by the "body" and the point of view ("I").

Take away the  "you/we" and there is no essence, but only because it has no method of being canalised in relationships.  That was the Good... (which can obviously be bad as well :p).

Finally, the "I", is the self and self expression, it is the point of view. I think many people would mistakenly believe this is where the essence lies, that this is "the core" of a person, and the ultimate value of a person through which it can be judged, the essence. But this is only because it is a subjective concept, so, when observing or even communicating with someone, (analysing to be judged) never clear, never whole, never complete in its expression. It is obviously dependent on the body and also on the "you/we" since relationships and communications are what allows the "I" to evolve and grow.

However, it is only the positioning of the person, the point of view. To me, this is particularly what most people think of when they think of someone that is "high tier" or "high altitude", since he has a "high point of view", "broader perspective", consciousness, awareness. This is also what people judge when they are judging whether a person "has a good heart", or rather, is really "good deep inside". Since people can see bad things done by a person, but feel that he is good deep inside (like the bad guy (I'm thinking of Billie the Kid) in movies who does terrible things but who deep inside, is really a good guy).

But it is only, once again, a tool that allows the person to see, to position himself, through emotions, feelings and imaginary visions provided by the "Good", through the senses and material vision provided by the the "Beautyful". 

Take away the "I" (and yes, it is possible for example with neuroleptics (and that's just one example of many)) and the essence is no longer, but only because it is dependent on a positioning in time as without that positioning, there can be no perspective.

So the essence actually preceeds all 3 of these, but it comes into being because of these. They act as a way to allow its manifestation in the world that we know, in this reality. Without any one of them, and of course, without all of them, it is no longer, but not because it is created by them, they do not "give birth" to your essence, they do not collectively "make what you really are, or who you really are", not realllly, not at the very core, not the essence."

And ya, I know I've gone left right and center while writing this, but basically, the conclusion of all of this is that irrespective of how any of those parts of you are born and grow, through stages and time, your essence still remains the same essence that it was when it was born. I guess the question is where did it come from? When was it actually created? How was it born? Well I believe that is a question of faith, and so to a discussion to be taken outside of this topic. :p

But I think I've managed to find an answer to the original question. It is probably very rare for anyone to be able to judge the essence of a person. I'm pretty certain most of the time, no matter how developed or intuitive or whatever a person is, he will judge someone else according to the 3 concepts that make up a person :

When we are saying a person is good at something. We are judging the "it", the Beautiful.

When we are judging whether a person is a good person or not (superficially, with regards to the person's actions or the way he treats people). We are judging the "we", or the Good.

When we are judging whether the person is "good deep inside" (translation from the French expression, "avoir un bon fond"), we are judging the True.

And of course, a mix of all of these will affect our judgement, whether we know it or not.

But these 3 pillars of what we are in this reality can all reach higher stages of development while retaining their inherent "goodness" or "badness". Of course they can change value, the may shift, but due to other factors provided by the environment, the context, basically, experiences. Whether a person is good or bad does not depend on his stage, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to change people (of course, I mean this without helping them evolve to the next stage).

And the true value, the core of what we all are, the essence of a person, never shifts. At least not in this lifetime.

Conclusions of conclusions, do not judge a person according to his stage of development.

We love the knowledge, but could care less about how it was made.

Meh, after all this thinking and writing, I got to admit I'm knackered :xD So I'll simply say that that depends on the person. I think the trouble is, if people spend too much time with similar people, (which is something that we are all attracted into doing), and this includes people who are interested in things like Integral thinking, or stages of development, they tend, over time, to uniformise their behaviour and attitude.

Thinking about how I approach the aquisition of knowledge and whether I care about how it was made, I have to be honest. I don't really care that much. I think though, that was is important is why.

The reason I don't really care much is because my knowledge is not only aquired cognitively, it connects, communicates (in both directions), feeds off and nourishes other parts of me, such as my intuition, and the empiricial application of this knowledge. Basically, if the whole thing fits, then it's good and as long as I'm more or less aware of the reasons that allowed me to make that judgement, as long as I consider that this "system" is functioning properly, then there is no need for me to look any further.

But that is only because my intention is not to analyse and develop and teach, which is kind of what researchers do for instance. My intention is entirely selfish in that respect.

Basically you only need to make sure you understand how knowledge is made if you care about showing other people. It's not that I don't care, it's that I have no intention of doing so.

So from Zachary's perspective, this is vital, and I believe he's absolutely right to point it out if it's the case. From mine, it's no biggie :p

________________________________________

So what was this? What is this?

Well, I started off only with the intention of sharing my reactions to the blog that Zachary made. Not because I have a particular high esteem of myself and think people should learn form my reactions lol, but because I'm pretty sure we all have to learn from all of our reactions.

So I just highlighted a couple points and copy pasted them, then proceeded to express my point of view. However, in the process, I had to do a lot of thinking, even did some research lol, if you can call it that. I mean I went clicked on "learn" and did some quick reading and before I knew it, I was swept by a sort of wave of insights.

To be honest, it's probably served me more than it will ever serve anyone who reads this, but maybe some of what I wrote may be, in some way, thought provoking :)

Of course, if anyone has anything to say or share (in public or in private messages), I'd be more than happy to "keep talking" as Steven Hawkins said, cause after all, if that's all we have to do, then it isn't that hard hehe :)

__________________________________________________

Stand by me : www.youtube.com/watch

A wise man does not need advice, and a fool won't take it.