Interfaith Thoughts Requested

[Windwalker]

Metaphors can serve purpose. But here they serve to obscure.

You don't think someone saying "my heart knows the truth" has any actual value? Of course, literally, the heart is not the brain, but we say that to convey the meaning that in essence, "I don't understand with my mind why, but something inside me knows this already, even though I can't reason it." This is obscure to you?

Sounds like you don't like stage 7.

If it were a valid stage, I'd like it fine. Can you show me supporting research that it exists?

I tipped my hand at the beginning. I pointed out that your argument was playing the I have x, and you don't, so you can't comment.

Tipping your hand means what you've been hiding, not what you've been saying. For instance, betting a full house in the play, while only having a pair of deuces. When someone resorts to ad-homs in conversation, that indicates they are holding a weak hand and trying to distract from that by attacking the other person, throwing the bowl of potato chips at them out of embarrassment. I always find that, well first, annoying and offensive, but then ultimately, sadly disappointing to find out I wasn't playing cards with an adult I thought I was having an enjoyable game with.

Just look at the smilies you offered: an educated man speaking and an uneducated man not. A parent speaking and a child not.

Those are valid points to make. I however do NOT intend to make them as put-downs on intelligence or development to bolster my ego above others. If I were doing that, in fact I would be less mature than those who you think I was putting down. I consider taking things like developmental theory as weapons for the ego to feel better about itself as highly weak. But you can't deny that we as individual do in fact grow, and that higher stages of development do in fact offer greater perspectives. If you deny this, then you may as well deny evolution exists.

My actual views on these things, in case you cared to ask first rather than assume some ego-motive as you have, is that I honor and respect everyone for exactly where they are at, as it is necessary and important for all of us to be at the various stages in our lives. It would be like me calling myself "an idiot" for thinking as I did when I was 13 versus what I do know in my 50s. Such a view of earlier stages of one's own live is ludicrous! I was a Stage 2 and I learned a lot. I developed to the next, and it was great and learned a lot there, then grew to the next, and learned a lot there, and so forth. Why the F* would I put those stages down? They are teachers! And every stage is perfectly adequate for each of us to be in, whatever stage that is for what lessons we need to learn within them.

Forgive me, but it sounds to me that the only one doing the ego-comparison stuff here is yourself. I'm sorry for that, but I'm not doing that to you. You are doing that to yourself, and then projecting it on to me. The real person here at the other end of that, does not look like this image you are holding in mind. That is not my actual reality, the person who I am.

Then we move on to your focus of stages where you note that others are at a lower stage and therefore are less knowledgeable.

I would say they are adequately knowledgeable for that particular stage. Obviously, higher stages are "more", contain more, see more, process more. Why is this a problem? Do you wish to say that a freshman in college is equal in knowledge to someone in a doctoral program? How would you note the differences in depth of knowledge? Ignore it because you are afraid it may hurt their feelings?

All of this stemming from your want to rationalize the view that some shouldn't even "weigh in" on a conversation about spiritual matters.

Please don't try to psychoanalyze me. You will fail. I already said, it was not my intention to dismiss others weighing in, about five times now. It was a communication failure on my part. But, I do stand by saying that in conversations, while everyone has a right to express and discuss their views, there are naturally weighted scales that have to be taken into account, such as an expert on evolution discussing the finding of his research with someone who has only read about it in books. The two are not equal, and that is simple a fact, not an emotional valuation of a person's worth, which you seem to take it as. Can you rationalize that?

Take a step away from the argument. I am not trying to say that I know more or that my experience and reasoning is invalid. All I am saying is considered what you said. Consider what you are still saying. I see know other way to point out your hierarchical take on Fowler's stages and your want that people less "experienced" sit down and shut up.

Maybe I am wrong. You can always hold on to that.

Yes, you are wrong. And I am hoping if you can resist whatever knee-jerk reaction you've been coming from in discussing with me can ultimately be set aside to see what I'm saying. A word to hierarchies here may help. There are two types that are being dealt with. Natural, or growth hierarchies, and power hierarchies. Power hierarchies are such that say this is "worth" more, or is "more valuable" or less important. That would be someone who is evaluated as being a Stage 5 for instance, saying "I'm better than a Stage 3!". First of all, that's highly immature. And secondly, it's not true! Power hierarchies are what are used to dominate others.

Then you have Natural, or "Nested" hierarchies, like a smaller bowl fits into a larger bowl, which fits into a larger bowl than itself, and so on. These are developmental in nature, and they are explanatory models for what we observe in nature. These actually do exist. They are not made up, like power hierarchies. Each higher level includes the previous level before it, bring what it offers into a new, higher order of complexity, from cells to molecule, to bodies, to minds, and so forth. None of this is a value judgment of their worth, but an acknowledge of the stages of growth into complexity. So when you talk of a five year old compared to a ten year old, you don't say being five is "wrong". That's absurd. Being five is necessary, in order to eventually become ten. And so forth. Each stage offers its own truths, and is perfectly adequate for where it is at.

Hopefully this helps, and please, show me the respect that if you doubt my intentions, ask me for clarification rather than slinging what amount to personal insults.

 

[Curious George]

You don't think someone saying "my heart knows the truth" has any actual value? Of course, literally, the heart is not the brain, but we say that to convey the meaning that in essence, "I don't understand with my mind why, but something inside me knows this already, even though I can't reason it." This is obscure to you?

It is not obscure to me, however it only serves to obscure in the context of what was our conversation.

If it were a valid stage, I'd like it fine. Can you show me supporting research that it exists?


Tipping your hand means what you've been hiding, not what you've been saying. For instance, betting a full house in the play, while only having a pair of deuces. When someone resorts to ad-homs in conversation, that indicates they are holding a weak hand and trying to distract from that by attacking the other person, throwing the bowl of potato chips at them out of embarrassment. I always find that, well first, annoying and offensive, but then ultimately, sadly disappointing to find out I wasn't playing cards with an adult I thought I was having an enjoyable game with.


Those are valid points to make. I however do NOT intend to make them as put-downs on intelligence or development to bolster my ego above others. If I were doing that, in fact I would be less mature than those who you think I was putting down. I consider taking things like developmental theory as weapons for the ego to feel better about itself as highly weak. But you can't deny that we as individual do in fact grow, and that higher stages of development do in fact offer greater perspectives. If you deny this, then you may as well deny evolution exists.

My actual views on these things, in case you cared to ask first rather than assume some ego-motive as you have, is that I honor and respect everyone for exactly where they are at, as it is necessary and important for all of us to be at the various stages in our lives. It would be like me calling myself "an idiot" for thinking as I did when I was 13 versus what I do know in my 50s. Such a view of earlier stages of one's own live is ludicrous! I was a Stage 2 and I learned a lot. I developed to the next, and it was great and learned a lot there, then grew to the next, and learned a lot there, and so forth. Why the F* would I put those stages down? They are teachers! And every stage is perfectly adequate for each of us to be in, whatever stage that is for what lessons we need to learn within them.

Forgive me, but it sounds to me that the only one doing the ego-comparison stuff here is yourself. I'm sorry for that, but I'm not doing that to you. You are doing that to yourself, and then projecting it on to me. The real person here at the other end of that, does not look like this image you are holding in mind. That is not my actual reality, the person who I am.


I would say they are adequately knowledgeable for that particular stage. Obviously, higher stages are "more", contain more, see more, process more. Why is this a problem? Do you wish to say that a freshman in college is equal in knowledge to someone in a doctoral program? How would you note the differences in depth of knowledge? Ignore it because you are afraid it may hurt their feelings?


Please don't try to psychoanalyze me. You will fail. I already said, it was not my intention to dismiss others weighing in, about five times now. It was a communication failure on my part. But, I do stand by saying that in conversations, while everyone has a right to express and discuss their views, there are naturally weighted scales that have to be taken into account, such as an expert on evolution discussing the finding of his research with someone who has only read about it in books. The two are not equal, and that is simple a fact, not an emotional valuation of a person's worth, which you seem to take it as. Can you rationalize that?


Yes, you are wrong. And I am hoping if you can resist whatever knee-jerk reaction you've been coming from in discussing with me can ultimately be set aside to see what I'm saying. A word to hierarchies here may help. There are two types that are being dealt with. Natural, or growth hierarchies, and power hierarchies. Power hierarchies are such that say this is "worth" more, or is "more valuable" or less important. That would be someone who is evaluated as being a Stage 5 for instance, saying "I'm better than a Stage 3!". First of all, that's highly immature. And secondly, it's not true! Power hierarchies are what are used to dominate others.

Then you have Natural, or "Nested" hierarchies, like a smaller bowl fits into a larger bowl, which fits into a larger bowl than itself, and so on. These are developmental in nature, and they are explanatory models for what we observe in nature. These actually do exist. They are not made up, like power hierarchies. Each higher level includes the previous level before it, bring what it offers into a new, higher order of complexity, from cells to molecule, to bodies, to minds, and so forth. None of this is a value judgment of their worth, but an acknowledge of the stages of growth into complexity. So when you talk of a five year old compared to a ten year old, you don't say being five is "wrong". That's absurd. Being five is necessary, in order to eventually become ten. And so forth. Each stage offers its own truths, and is perfectly adequate for where it is at.

Hopefully this helps, and please, show me the respect that if you doubt my intentions, ask me for clarification rather than slinging what amount to personal insults.

I hope I am wrong as well. But this is not a knee jerk reaction.

Cheers

 

[Windwalker]

? Your last post doesn't make any sense. Editing issue?

 

[Curious George]

? Your last post doesn't make any sense. Editing issue?

How so?

 

[Windwalker]

How so?

Oh, I see you fixed it. Nevermind. It was those editing issues where the /quote bits get messed up.

 

[Windwalker]

It is not obscure to me, however it only serves to obscure in the context of what was our conversation.

I'm not sure why it obscures it. To say the heart knows something is the voice of experience. And not just history of experience, but the felt sense of a thing, an intuition, etc. That has, and should have a voice at the table to keep one's reasoning mind in check. That's how it was meant to be applied.

I hope I am wrong as well. But this is not a knee jerk reaction.

So you acknowledge the difference between power hierarchies and natural growth hierarchies? And yes, to automatically leap to the assumptions you have been that this is my ego, is in fact a knee-jerk reaction, not a reasoned positioned based on the facts I have been presenting.

 

[Curious George]

.


So you acknowledge the difference between power hierarchies and natural growth hierarchies? And yes, to automatically leap to the assumptions you have been that this is my ego, is in fact a knee-jerk reaction, not a reasoned positioned based on the facts I have been presenting.

I understand you want to believe my argument was a knee jersey reaction.

Regarding natural hierarchy and power hierarchy, I disagree. Natural stages are not hierarchies but simply stages. Hierarchy is Hierarchy.

 

[Windwalker]

I understand you want to believe my argument was a knee jersey reaction.

Do you understand the basis why I do believe that? It's not a case of I "want" to believe it. You find this necessary to tell yourself? You assumed something about me. You were wrong. And you are unwilling to acknowledge that. That to me, is where the ego is being injected into this discussion.

Regarding natural hierarchy and power hierarchy, I disagree. Natural stages are not hierarchies but simply stages. Hierarchy is Hierarchy.

There are lots of different types of hierarchies, such as dominator hierarchies, actualization hierarchies, nested hierarchies, inverted hierarchies, and so forth. If you look at growth stages as one stage built on top of the next, that is a hierarchy. Stages of development are hierarchical in nature. The next stage builds upon the previous stage in a pyramid shape, with the earliest stages having the greatest span, with the highest stages having the greatest depth as it includes all the stages before it. It's not all one big flat pancake.

 

[Curious George]

Do you understand the basis why I do believe that? It's not a case of I "want" to believe it. You find this necessary to tell yourself? You assumed something about me. You were wrong. And you are unwilling to acknowledge that. That to me, is where the ego is being injected into this discussion.

You said what you did, then used the analogies that you did. You are the adult, they are the child. You are the educated they are the uneducated, you are the senior, they are the freshman. It is what it is. You now say that you didn't mean that they shouldn't weigh in. That you were merely denoting an advantage that you have over them.

There are lots of different types of hierarchies, such as dominator hierarchies, actualization hierarchies, nested hierarchies, inverted hierarchies, and so forth. If you look at growth stages as one stage built on top of the next, that is a hierarchy. Stages of development are hierarchical in nature. The next stage builds upon the previous stage in a pyramid shape, with the earliest stages having the greatest span, with the highest stages having the greatest depth as it includes all the stages before it. It's not all one big flat pancake.

Not all stages are hierarchical. Hierarchy implies superiority, rank or authority.

 

[Windwalker]

You said what you did, then used the analogies that you did. You are the adult, they are the child.
You are the educated they are the uneducated, you are the senior, they are the freshman.

When did I say I was this and they were that? When did I say I was the senior and they the freshman? When did I say I was educated and they were uneducated? Where? When? The only thing I referenced to where I was at was only in speaking of where I fit into Fowler's stages. Nothing outside that. I acknowledge that in many of these lines of stage development, I in fact am the child and others are the adult. That is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed, or defensive about, such as you are doing. It is not a matter of "better" than. I've said that. Yet you seem to hear a value judgment, somehow for some reason. Why is that? Why do you think I'm judging you?

It is what it is.

Which is something other that you are perceiving as true.

You now say that you didn't mean that they shouldn't weigh in. That you were merely denoting an advantage that you have over them.

I said those with experience are at an advantage. I did not say me, though you could infer that if you wish. It was not about me though. It is about the fact of the matter that applies to anyone who has experience over anyone without experience, and that can include me too. Not just you. There are plenty of areas where I will humble acknowledge my own limitations. To not do so, means I stand little chance of learning from others anything that may help me grow. And that, would in fact be an act of the ego suffering with low self-esteem, unwilling to face not knowing something.

Not all stages are hierarchical. Hierarchy implies superiority, rank or authority.

No it does not. It has become distorted to mean that. All stages are hierarchical. They don't just come into being based on nothing coming before them. There is no magical special creation happening here. You are mistaking all hierarchies as "bad", as if they are dominator or power hierarchies. This is a over-reactive stance taken by postmodernism in looking at social structures. While there is some truth to this, it has nothing to do with what you see in nature.

I just scraped this out of a Wiki article to maybe, somewhat convince you to consider the use of the world in other applications as it is in fact used:

"Empirically, we observe in nature a large proportion of the (complex) biological systems, they exhibit hierarchic structure. On theoretical grounds we could expect complex systems to be hierarchies in a world in which complexity had to evolve from simplicity. System hierarchies analysis performed in the 1950s,[19][20] laid the empirical foundations for a field that would be, from 1980's, hierarchical ecology.[21][22][23][24][25]"

So how does this above fit in with your, "implies superiority, rank or authority"? It doesn't. It just means that one thing is built upon the other. Atoms to molecules to cells is a heirchery. Sensorimotor, to preoperational, to concrete operational, to formal operational is hierarchical. You cannot jump from one stage over another on the way to the top. And nor when you get there can you claim superiority. They are built one upon the other. That's what a hierarchy is, not "I'm better than you", bunk.

 

[Curious George]

When did I say I was this and they were that? The only thing I referenced to where I was at was only in speaking of where I fit into Fowler's stages. Nothing outside that. I acknowledge that in many of these lines of stage development, I in fact am the child and others are the adult. That is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed, or defensive about, such as you are doing. It is not a matter of "better" than. I've said that. Yet you seem to hear a value judgment, somehow for some reason.


Which is something other that you are perceiving as true.

I said those with experience are at an advantage. I did not say me, though you could infer that if you wish. It was not about me though. It is about the fact of the matter that applies to anyone who has experience over anyone without experience, and that can include me too. Not just you.

You implied the inclusion of yourself in the superior group when you separated yourself by using the they pronoun instead of the we pronoun in your first post. Do not pretend to have said other than what you have.

No it does not. It has become distorted to mean that. All stages are hierarchical. They don't just come into being based on nothing coming before them. There is no magical special creation happening here. You are mistaking all hierarchies as "bad", as if they are dominator or power hierarchies. This is a over-reactive stance taken by postmodernism in looking at social structures. While there is some truth to this, it has nothing to do with what you see in nature.

I just scraped this out of a Wiki article to maybe, somewhat convince you to consider the use of the world in other applications as it is in fact used:

"Empirically, we observe in nature a large proportion of the (complex) biological systems, they exhibit hierarchic structure. On theoretical grounds we could expect complex systems to be hierarchies in a world in which complexity had to evolve from simplicity. System hierarchies analysis performed in the 1950s,[19][20] laid the empirical foundations for a field that would be, from 1980's, hierarchical ecology.[21][22][23][24][25]"

So how does this above fit in with your, "implies superiority, rank or authority"? It doesn't. It just means that one thing is built upon the other. Atoms to molecules to cells is a heirchery. Sensorimotor, to preoperational, to concrete operational, to formal operational is hierarchical. You cannot jump from one stage over another on the way to the top. And nor when you get there can you claim superiority.

Sounds like it is founded upon notions of greater complexity equals greater superiority. This is a commonly found belief. We absolutely are asserting get superiority in Piaget's stage development. Each stage presents a a new cognitive method of interpretation for the world. Each stage is seen as more advanced and more capable. This does not prove that stages need hierarchies though. Hierarchies are not necessary for stages.

 

[Windwalker]

You implied the inclusion of yourself in the superior group when you separated yourself by using the they pronoun instead of the we pronoun in your first post. Do not pretend to have said other than what you have.

Did I? As I said before, the principles apply to me as well as anyone else. I did not once say I was superior to anyone, not once said others are beneath me, not once said I'm educated and others uneducated. That you assumed that what I was implying, reflects your projections.

The only thing I have said was that experience matters, and it does. The only place I put myself was where I saw myself at in my personal stage of faith development. Notice, I did not claim the highest position of stage 6? How come, if this is about ego for me? Why wouldn't I have said I'm at the level of Gandhi?

Actually, I'm really more at the beginning stages of Stage 5, more a Stage 4-5'ish stage. so in other words, not the top at all. And you can construe arrogance in this? That's like me saying I'm far more physically fit now than I was a year ago, which is true, but for me to recognize and state that must somehow be my ego speaking? Really?

Sounds like it is founded upon notions of greater complexity equals greater superiority.

Wow. Really? Again, I think this reflective of your own thinking about how things are in the world. It doesn't reflect my thinking. Do you believe humans are superior to all other life forms? I'll bet you do!

No, for me, complexity does not mean superior at all. I do not view humans as the top of the evolutionary pile, that we are better than, higher than, hold power over, superior to, all other life forms. I consider such a view highly arrogant and unfounded. I personally see the dragonfly as the pinnacle of God's creation, and us, we'll we're hanging on the end of just one little branch of the tree of life which is about to snap off with our own extinction. Superior? Hell no.

Hierarchies are just models to represent how things are structured. There is a hierarchy within myself, yet am I supposed to say my spleen is inferior to my mind? Hah! That's ignorance and arrogance on parade. This is nothing I do. I do not think in these terms. Do you?

This is a commonly found belief. We absolutely are asserting get superiority in Piaget's stage development.

We are? So, you say that your six year old is superior to your three year old, do you? Why do differencent stages of development up a hierarchical ladder have to be value judgments for you? That's really twisted, actually. I would consider that to be an example of overcompensating for one's own lack of self-esteem, imaging they are better than someone less developed than they are, like pointing a finger at someone who is still a teenager and saying "ha ha, loser!" That reflects their immaturity only. In that case, I'd say the teenager is probably more developed than they are!

Each stage presents a a new cognitive method of interpretation for the world. Each stage is seen as more advanced and more capable.

Yes!!! Exactly! This is all I am saying. "More capable", or as I put it at the outset, a greater context. That is all I have been saying in every single thing I have been laying out, which you called my ego.

This does not prove that stages need hierarchies though. Hierarchies are not necessary for stages.

This is nonsense. You speak of these things in hierarchies, and then say they aren't. They are hierarchical in nature. They progress from less complex to more complex, building upon what the previous stage laid out. That is what a hierarchy is. You are confusing these with social power structures which exert value and power. While that happens, it does not define what a hierarchy actually is. You just don't like the word. That's not an actual argument.

 

[Curious George]

Did I? As I said before, the principles apply to me as well as anyone else. I did not once say I was superior to anyone, not once said others are beneath me, not once said I'm educated and others uneducated. That you assumed that what I was implying, reflects your projections.

Yes, you did. I am fully aware that you acknowledged the principles applied to you as well. That does not change the other words. It underscores them.

The only thing I have said was that experience matters, and it does. The only place I put myself was where I saw myself at in my personal stage of faith development. Notice, I did not claim the highest position of stage 6? How come, if this is about ego for me? Why wouldn't I have said I'm at the level of Gandhi?

Actually, I'm really more at the beginning stages of Stage 5, more a Stage 4-5'ish stage. so in other words, not the top at all. And you can construe arrogance in this? That's like me saying I'm far more physically fit now than I was a year ago, which is true, but for me to recognize and state that must somehow be my ego speaking? Really?

No. That is not what I said.

Wow. Really? Again, I think this reflective of your own thinking about how things are in the world. It doesn't reflect my thinking. Do you believe humans are superior to all other life forms? I'll bet you do!

It is merely an observation.

No, for me, complexity does not mean superior at all. I do not view humans as the top of the evolutionary pile, that we are better than, higher than, hold power over, superior to, all other life forms. I consider such a view highly arrogant and unfounded. I personally see the dragonfly as the pinnacle of God's creation, and us, we'll we're hanging on the end of just one little branch of the tree of life which is about to snap off with our own extinction. Superior? Hell no.

Hierarchies are just models to represent how things are structured. There is a hierarchy within myself, yet am I supposed to say my spleen is inferior to my mind? Hah! That's ignorance and arrogance on parade. This is nothing I do. I do not think in these terms. Do you?


We are? So, you say that your six year old is superior to your three year old, do you? Why do differencent stages of development up a hierarchical ladder have to be value judgments for you? That's really twisted, actually. I would consider that to be an example of overcompensating for one's own lack of self-esteem, imaging they are better than someone less developed than they are, like pointing a finger at someone who is still a teenager and saying "ha ha, loser!" That reflects their immaturity only. In that case, I'd say the teenager is probably more developed than they are!

I suggested that Piaget's stage development was based on superiority. And is it so much a surprise? Piaget was very much a product of western society. He helped develop IQ tests and had a career in science when eugenics was burgeoning. For better or worse his stages are very much hierarchal. The idea that a person grows to a more superior form is present in his stages.

Yes!!! Exactly! This is all I am saying. "More capable", or as I put it at the outset, a greater context. That is all I have been saying in every single thing I have been laying out, which you called my ego.

Yes and this idea that one is more capable and the other is less capable is a way to suggest one is superior in one respect to another. But that is not where the ego comes in. The ego comes in when one makes some capability a qualification such that the more capable to include oneself has a right the less capable does not.

This is nonsense. You speak of these things in hierarchies, and then say they aren't. They are hierarchical in nature. They progress from less complex to more complex, building upon what the previous stage laid out. That is what a hierarchy is. You are confusing these with social power structures which exert value and power. While that happens, it does not define what a hierarchy actually is. You just don't like the word. That's not an actual argument.

I never said they were not hierarchies. They are. I said it was possible to have stages without hierarchies.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes and this idea that one is more capable and the other is less capable is a way to suggest one is superior in one respect to another.

Wow. But who the F is doing that? What you fail to see is that what someone at a "higher", or more developed stage is doing is not superior to those at the earlier stages! It doesn't fit their worlds. It would not translate it adequately for them. Each stage has its own realities, to be clear about that.

I'm ramping this up a bit since it's clear I'm dealing with someone who has been, or is recently in college dealing with these areas in more postmodernist schools of thought.

To lord one's maturity, and that is what this all is, over another is not a sign a maturity at all. It is actually a sign of immaturity. That other's are fearful of this judgment by would-be superiors, is a projection of ones own insecurities on others they themselves imagine as "superior" to themselves.

Granted there are ******** who take this "hierarchical" stuff as ways to imagine themselves as over others, but they are in the end exactly two sides of the same coin of insecurity. You're right. They aren't superior. They're just as insecure.

All of that psychological BS is an abuse of actual, legitimate research that looks at developmental theory as a tool to understand the nature of who we are. Turning this into power issues, is frankly sad. It's beneath rationality, to be blunt. It's just ego in fear of losing it's own idea of significance.

They are. I said it was possible to have stages without hierarchies.

How? Explain this.​

 

[Curious George]

Wow. But who the F is doing that? What you fail to see is that what someone at a "higher", or more developed stage is doing is not superior to those at the earlier stages! It doesn't fit their worlds. It would not translate it adequately for them. Each stage has its own realities, to be clear about that.

I'm ramping this up a bit since it's clear I'm dealing with someone who has been, or is recently in college dealing with these areas in more postmodernist schools of thought.

To lord one's maturity, and that is what this all is, over another is not a sign a maturity at all. It is actually a sign of immaturity. That other's are fearful of this judgment by would-be superiors, is a projection of ones own insecurities on others they themselves imagine as "superior" to themselves.

Granted there are ******** who take this "hierarchical" stuff as ways to imagine themselves as over others, but they are in the end exactly two sides of the same coin of insecurity. You're right. They aren't superior. They're just as insecure.

All of that psychological BS is an abuse of actual, legitimate research that looks at developmental theory as a tool to understand the nature of who we are. Turning this into power issues, is frankly sad. It's beneath rationality, to be blunt. It's just ego in fear of losing it's own idea of significance.


How? Explain this.​

This is not nestled in any postmodern thought. It is accepting something as it is. That a hierarchical structure is perceived and encouraged is just that. While I posed the question to you, isn't it dangerous? I made no claims regarding the rightness or wrongness of such concepts.

It is true that I do not think it is beneficial to us that we exclude based on access, but that is ultimately irrelevant.

Your objection to my observation is curious. When we categorize such that one is capable and another incapable we are in fact noting superiority, if only in the realm of the category.

You may be faster than I in a foot race. We could then say you were superior at completing the foot race within some arbitrary time. That is hierarchical. We are ranking us with respect to time taken to complete the race. Denying that such rankings and hierarchies denote superiority is more post-modernist than observing that they do.

It is not the system to which I object or question. It is the emphasis on the system to give weight and place in a discussion. With my degrees, since you brought up college, one could give more weight to my words than to the words of another. Indeed, such a practice is encouraged in many systems. But is such a system dangerous? When we take a closer look at the accessibility of education and the reasoning for the emphasis, I would conclude that the answer is yes.

Can you wedge this thinking in the post-modernist view? I suppose. But it is not necessarily. In fact, such a position could not be maintained without the assertion of both an objective reality and objective morality. However, I acknowledge that it has more of a fluid concept of morality.

Cyclical stages usually do a good job at representing stages that are not hierarchal. For example we have the stages/phases of the moon or menstruation. But non hierarchical structure could apply to linear stages as well. The distinction being that each stage is considered complete and whole and differentiated by the next stage not by inferiority or superiority. Eriksons conflict theory comes to mind, where while he notes distinct conflicts that are associated with chronological age, the resolution or the lack thereof respecting one conflict does not necessarily lead to the next nor prevent access the next stage. The conflicts that arise certainly can build upon one another or complicate each other, however we do not see a strict hierarchical structure.

The problem is not with hierarchies it is with emphasis on hierarchies. An issue which you intuitively alluded to when you challenged my observation by asking would I say that a 6 year old is superior to a 3 year old.

The point you were trying to establish is that ability is not determinative of overall worth. Yet, your own examples challenge this with respect to particular areas. The educated vs the uneducated. The experienced vs the inexperienced. The parent vs the child. The capable vs the incapable. This is not collaboration you are describing. It is rigid order denoting higher value and lesser value.

Sure, you can take a step back and say, "yes, but lack of value in one area does not entail lack of value in another." I would point out that I never accused you of suggesting that. It is objectively true that if you are faster than me you will likely do better in a foot race, but let us not deny that this denotes superiority, which is based on assumptions of what is "better."

Systems which denote superiority are not in and of themselves dangerous or wrong. If our goal is to win the foot race then, by all means, it is better if you run the race than I. However this becomes less clear when our objective moves from a competitive "winning" to a collaborative "understanding."

If we all have pieces to the puzzle, it does not matter who has what pieces, we must work together to complete the puzzle.

 

[Windwalker]

This is not nestled in any postmodern thought. It is accepting something as it is. That a hierarchical structure is perceived and encouraged is just that. While I posed the question to you, isn't it dangerous? I made no claims regarding the rightness or wrongness of such concepts.

I'm glad I suggested ramping our discussion up a bit more. This is easier for me to look at and understand in these terms. You make some good points and I think we can narrow this down more now, without any unnecessary posturings on either part.

It is true that I do not think it is beneficial to us that we exclude based on access, but that is ultimately irrelevant.

Your objection to my observation is curious. When we categorize such that one is capable and another incapable we are in fact noting superiority, if only in the realm of the category.

You may be faster than I in a foot race. We could then say you were superior at completing the foot race within some arbitrary time. That is hierarchical. We are ranking us with respect to time taken to complete the race. Denying that such rankings and hierarchies denote superiority is more post-modernist than observing that they do.

Yes, to wish to get rid of hierarchies, to deny they even exist because they denote superiority is a trait of certain strains of postmodernist thought. That is what I have been rebuffing against.

There is nothing wrong to say one is more capable than another as you point out later. It's obvious. To try to achieve "equality", or "access" to all without qualification by such means is wholly unrealistic, and leads to all manner of distorted reasoning, such as saying "superior" means others are "inferior", and being "inferior" is a reflection of worth and value.

In my eyes, it is not a reflection of worth and value. It is not necessary to give everyone a ribbon at the race so they feel good about themselves when they go home finishing in last place. That to me is a distortion of what postmodernism hopes to correct exuding out from the underbelly of modernity which does rank someone's worth and value in a society based on individual successes. That is ugly, and should be corrected. There doesn't need to be this devaluation of self or others when we acknowledge rankings.

Each participant is of equal value in my eyes, even if they lack the same level of capacity or skill sets as others. I say, let's just get ego out of the equation as the solution to this abuse of rankings, be that ego for the winners, and ego for the losers of that race you bring up later. It is easier to acknowledge one's own limitations with grace and humility, to not berate or tortue one's own self for not be "as good" as others, than to deny differences in a hope to elevate self-esteem, which act will ultimately fail to satisfy that need.

It is not the system to which I object or question. It is the emphasis on the system to give weight and place in a discussion. With my degrees, since you brought up college, one could give more weight to my words than to the words of another. Indeed, such a practice is encouraged in many systems. But is such a system dangerous? When we take a closer look at the accessibility of education and the reasoning for the emphasis, I would conclude that the answer is yes.

Yes, it can be if it is abused. The solution to me is get rid of the abuse, not the system, which in fact has merit. Achievement is a good thing, excellence is a good goal. Throwing oneself off a bridge because you got a C in class and can't face the shame of your family back home, is in fact not the fault of the system of education, but the social expectations surrounding getting good grades. I wouldn't target the system. I'd target the abuse of it.

I think a true spiritual principle is what is called for. "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the Wisdom to know the difference". Acceptance, with grace, is the key to dealing with one's sense of self worth in the face of failures, not making sure everyone ranks the same at the finish line of whatever goal one holds. The goal is being a whole person, warts and all, not a wart-free body. The goal is to accept yourself, and hopefully others just as we all are with all our strengths and limitations wherever those may individually lie.

Cyclical stages usually do a good job at representing stages that are not hierarchal. For example we have the stages/phases of the moon or menstruation. But non hierarchical structure could apply to linear stages as well.

I'm going to grant something here so you know that I'm not necessarily a huge fan of strict hierarchical thinking either. It can in fact be detrimental to imagine reality follows these apparent linear lines that these hierachical models appear to impose. Anyone living life can tell you that we don't always move in a straight line, and that when we find ourselves somehow back where we were before, thinking we had grown beyond that, it can be rather disconcerting to the expectation that we somehow "should" (moral judgement) be beyond that now. And then taking that, we judge ourselves somehow against this artificial line. I get that very much, not just theoretically, but practically with experience.

That doesn't however mean the models are "wrong". It more means our expectations that they are how we find personal answers to our own lived realities is what is a misconception of them. Nothing follows a straight line like this in nature, but as an overall map it does reflect trends. It maps patterns, such as the stages of cognitive development. Those are true, and observable anywhere.

Nature does in fact create and follow patterns, and that is what theorists search out and model using such things as hierarchical classification systems. They are valid and valuable, but imaging that two-dimensional models are the same thing as a multi-dimensional reality is a mistake of the mind. As the saying goes, "The map of the territory is not the same as the territory itself." The problem isn't the science or it's models. The problem is our thinking about them, how we hold them as representing reality. Understood 'lightly' they are useful and practical in predictive terms. Held "tightly" they distort reality. The same is true of any of the sciences and its models of the universe and reality. Scientism is equally as obnoxious and detrimental as rigid ranking hierarchies; in fact they are kind of the same thing.

 

[Windwalker]

continued.....

The distinction being that each stage is considered complete and whole and differentiated by the next stage not by inferiority or superiority.

Actually, that is what I am saying that each level is perfectly adequate for that level. But, each higher level is "more adequate" overall for that new level. What that means is that what was adequate at an earlier stages is brought forward up into the next stage, and built upon, added to, and given more. So it can deal with the territory of the earlier stages using the same tools, but adding newer tools to deal with the territory of the new stage and the overall, holistic body that includes these earlier levels or stages.

You had mentioned "reason+", and in this case that would be true. For instance, sensorimotor stage is a process of learning and discovery. When you move to the preoperational stage, you don't get rid of sensorimotor development, you bring it forward and add to it. It is now "more adequate" than just putting something in your mouth. You now start interacting with it using mental images, and mental images are more capable at interfacing with the world than just putting things in your mouth. The mind can go places and see things the body alone cannot.

Is that 'superior"? Yes, relatively speaking. It is superior to one who is developmentally at that stage, but it is NOT superior to someone at the sensorimotor stage. Mental models have no use or value to someone not at that stage. So "better than" is relative to the higher functioning child. It's not "better than" to the earlier stage which has neither the capacity not the use for them. Holistically speaking though, when you look at the fully developed person, then yes, higher mind is more capable. It doesn't mean using your body to discover the world is "inferior".

Eriksons conflict theory comes to mind, where while he notes distinct conflicts that are associated with chronological age, the resolution or the lack thereof respecting one conflict does not necessarily lead to the next nor prevent access the next stage. The conflicts that arise certainly can build upon one another or complicate each other, however we do not see a strict hierarchical structure.

And this is true as well. But, I look at it like this. This cyclical pattern, and it does exist, is like rearranging the furniture on a floor of a building. It is trying to find the most efficient means to make use of the space of the given needs. BUT, at a certain point, you move into what Gebser referred to as the "deficient" phase of a particular epoch (the floor of the building in my example). It's when that happens, and that something new emerges.

The needs have outgrown what can be done cyclically on that space of that floor, and it need to be expanded to accommodate more utilities to meet the growing needs. And so you expand, you move up to another floor above it, and now inhabit two floors. When that next cycle completes, when it exhausts its efficient phase and moves to the end of its deficient phase, you move up another level, and then another, and then another.

All of the floors are still in operation, all still functioning, all still included, and all still being rearranged. Instead of being only one floor now, you inhabit and operate out of many floors, five or six, or even seven. It's a much more complex operation at that stage of growth, clearly, and requires greater and greater levels of sophistication to keep the whole thing operational. It has to be looked at holistically, respecting each floors functional systems, while holding them all together "from above", so to speak. This of course is hierarchical, yet holistic in nature.

What I just described here is combining the cyclical with the linear models. When you do that, you end up with a spiral pattern, sort of like what you see in the double-helix pattern of the DNA strand, interestingly enough. To me, this is a little more what reality looks like than either of these systems as strictly representing reality in themselves, one or the other.

The problem is not with hierarchies it is with emphasis on hierarchies. An issue which you intuitively alluded to when you challenged my observation by asking would I say that a 6 year old is superior to a 3 year old.

The point you were trying to establish is that ability is not determinative of overall worth. Yet, your own examples challenge this with respect to particular areas. The educated vs the uneducated. The experienced vs the inexperienced. The parent vs the child. The capable vs the incapable. This is not collaboration you are describing. It is rigid order denoting higher value and lesser value.

And I challenge your assumption that that is what I am in fact doing. It is not a matter of worth or value to acknowledge someone is less qualified than another for certain jobs. It's just acknowledging with respect where someone's gifts and contributions do exist, and where they do not exist. One doesn't consult a teeanager in long-term financial planning goals for his family. The parents are usually better qualified than he is having experience in economic matters. It doesn't mean Billy is an idiot or a worthless member in the family. Love acknowledges limitations with grace, and rightly sets boundaries when appropriate. Setting someone up to fail is not a good thing to do to them either.

Systems which denote superiority are not in and of themselves dangerous or wrong. If our goal is to win the foot race then, by all means, it is better if you run the race than I. However this becomes less clear when our objective moves from a competitive "winning" to a collaborative "understanding."

If we all have pieces to the puzzle, it does not matter who has what pieces, we must work together to complete the puzzle.

And this appears to come to the heart of the issue to discuss, which is good. I like your analogy of pieces of the puzzle, and I do agree with it in this context. However, I will still stress that while someone may have some legitimate pieces of the puzzle, which I agree when it comes to the "big question" of life and existence, we all do in one form or another, not everyone has the same number of pieces in their piles. Some have entire sections of the puzzle where they can make out distinct shapes, colors, and patterns emerging, where others just have a single black piece with little to go off of.

That doesn't mean that "Karen" is a loser. That means her piece she has has very limited information from which for her to draw from to make pronouncements of what she thinks the puzzle picture is (assume the box with the whole picture doesn't exist). Were she to proclaim, "There are no sailboats in this picture as you claim. Based on my sound deductive reasoning looking at this piece, there is no big image at all! It's all black. You're all wrong!"

Now, I'll grant that the others who have a lot more puzzle pieces at their disposal, i.e, experience, should be more gracious with such posturings to falsely exert the value of their perspectives to others at the table, it does get a bit wearying when they are convinced they are right and others who don't see what they see are not seeing things correctly. Admittedly, at times, one would rather just tell them to go home if they don't want to work on the puzzle together with others and listen to what they have to say when they are challenged. But that is not a problem of models of reality. That is not a problem of ranking. It is a problem of maturity and human patience.

How best to deal with that when it comes up is not to attack the systems around which one hangs all that and creates controversy. It's really more a matter of being human and learning how to show grace in such situations. "God grant me the serenity...". I don't always handle that the best I can.

 

[Curious George]

continued.....


Actually, that is what I am saying that each level is perfectly adequate for that level. But, each higher level is "more adequate" overall for that new level. What that means is that what was adequate at an earlier stages is brought forward up into the next stage, and built upon, added to, and given more. So it can deal with the territory of the earlier stages using the same tools, but adding newer tools to deal with the territory of the new stage and the overall, holistic body that includes these earlier levels or stages.

You had mentioned "reason+", and in this case that would be true. For instance, sensorimotor stage is a process of learning and discovery. When you move to the preoperational stage, you don't get rid of sensorimotor development, you bring it forward and add to it. It is now "more adequate" than just putting something in your mouth. You now start interacting with it using mental images, and mental images are more capable at interfacing with the world than just putting things in your mouth. The mind can go places and see things the body alone cannot.

Is that 'superior"? Yes, relatively speaking. It is superior to one who is developmentally at that stage, but it is NOT superior to someone at the sensorimotor stage. Mental models have no use or value to someone not at that stage. So "better than" is relative to the higher functioning child. It's not "better than" to the earlier stage which has neither the capacity not the use for them. Holistically speaking though, when you look at the fully developed person, then yes, higher mind is more capable. It doesn't mean using your body to discover the world is "inferior".


And this is true as well. But, I look at it like this. This cyclical pattern, and it does exist, is like rearranging the furniture on a floor of a building. It is trying to find the most efficient means to make use of the space of the given needs. BUT, at a certain point, you move into what Gebser referred to as the "deficient" phase of a particular epoch (the floor of the building in my example). It's when that happens, and that something new emerges.

The needs have outgrown what can be done cyclically on that space of that floor, and it need to be expanded to accommodate more utilities to meet the growing needs. And so you expand, you move up to another floor above it, and now inhabit two floors. When that next cycle completes, when it exhausts its efficient phase and moves to the end of its deficient phase, you move up another level, and then another, and then another.

All of the floors are still in operation, all still functioning, all still included, and all still being rearranged. Instead of being only one floor now, you inhabit and operate out of many floors, five or six, or even seven. It's a much more complex operation at that stage of growth, clearly, and requires greater and greater levels of sophistication to keep the whole thing operational. It has to be looked at holistically, respecting each floors functional systems, while holding them all together "from above", so to speak. This of course is hierarchical, yet holistic in nature.

What I just described here is combining the cyclical with the linear models. When you do that, you end up with a spiral pattern, sort of like what you see in the double-helix pattern of the DNA strand, interestingly enough. To me, this is a little more what reality looks like than either of these systems as strictly representing reality in themselves, one or the other.


And I challenge your assumption that that is what I am in fact doing. It is not a matter of worth or value to acknowledge someone is less qualified than another for certain jobs. It's just acknowledging with respect where someone's gifts and contributions do exist, and where they do not exist. One doesn't consult a teeanager in long-term financial planning goals for his family. The parents are usually better qualified than he is having experience in economic matters. It doesn't mean Billy is an idiot or a worthless member in the family. Love acknowledges limitations with grace, and rightly sets boundaries when appropriate. Setting someone up to fail is not a good thing to do to them either.


And this appears to come to the heart of the issue to discuss, which is good. I like your analogy of pieces of the puzzle, and I do agree with it in this context. However, I will still stress that while someone may have some legitimate pieces of the puzzle, which I agree when it comes to the "big question" of life and existence, we all do in one form or another, not everyone has the same number of pieces in their piles. Some have entire sections of the puzzle where they can make out distinct shapes, colors, and patterns emerging, where others just have a single black piece with little to go off of.

That doesn't mean that "Karen" is a loser. That means her piece she has has very limited information from which for her to draw from to make pronouncements of what she thinks the puzzle picture is (assume the box with the whole picture doesn't exist). Were she to proclaim, "There are no sailboats in this picture as you claim. Based on my sound deductive reasoning looking at this piece, there is no big image at all! It's all black. You're all wrong!"

Now, I'll grant that the others who have a lot more puzzle pieces at their disposal, i.e, experience, should be more gracious with such posturings to falsely exert the value of their perspectives to others at the table, it does get a bit wearying when they are convinced they are right and others who don't see what they see are not seeing things correctly. Admittedly, at times, one would rather just tell them to go home if they don't want to work on the puzzle together with others and listen to what they have to say when they are challenged. But that is not a problem of models of reality. That is not a problem of ranking. It is a problem of maturity and human patience.

How best to deal with that when it comes up is not to attack the systems around which one hangs all that and creates controversy. It's really more a matter of being human and learning how to show grace in such situations. "God grant me the serenity...". I don't always handle that the best I can.

Two very well written replies. That said we still seem to have a level of disagreement concerning the original issue. I am not saying that systems need discarding because they are wrong, I am saying that we need to apply critical thought to how we employ systems because we often use systems that are inconsistent with our goals. Generally, more competitive based goals will align with more hierarchical systems and more collaborative goals will align with non-hierarchical systems.

This does not mean that hierarchical systems need be discarded even for collaborative goals. However, the emphasis is key. There is little point to emphasizing speed if my goal is to encourage everyone to be healthier and go for a run.

I agree that goals are not so cut and dry that we can always label them as wholly competitive or wholly collaborative. That should not stop us from applying that critical thought. For even when a goal is primarily one or the other we still come across people wanting to apply the wrong system.

An example of this would be choosing the runner based on shoes or body size. Certainly we can note correlation within these domains to speed, but it isn't causal. That is, neither factor necessarily dictates speed. And even were we to focus in on speed, speed alone isn't necessarily the only variable that matters. Endurance might be a deciding factor as well.

I cannot tell you how many times I have come in contact with someone who on innate ability alone would succeed where I would not despite my training or education. While they are few and far in between people exist who regardless of there seeming lack of experience can accomplish the most wondrous feats: While I imagine Picasso at 25 was superior in skill to Picasso at 5, I imagine either would be my superior in painting a picture for a contest. So too are we all skilled to lesser and greater degrees.

Though we are objectively not equal in knowledge, experience and skills does not then mean that regardless of our pursuit we should see disparate treatment. Favoring disparate treatment when the emphasized characteristic is only slightly related or wholly unrelated to our goal is very much ego related.

Wanting the person with a single puzzle piece to go home because they are less worthy or are assumed to have less to offer, is very much ego related. In your example you offered you added the additional characteristic of their insistence. It is here where the scenario changes. You have now made the situation one of wanting a person whose behavior is inimical or destructive to the goal to go home. To then conclude that this is an issue of patience disregards the fact that the situation turns on this insistence rather than the persons number of puzzle pieces.

I do not think you would have found our discussion the same were you to have only suggested the exclusion of people who are unproductive towards and antithetical to understanding. Having different opinion, experience, or reason will not necessarily make a person so.

 

[Windwalker]

I am not saying that systems need discarding because they are wrong, I am saying that we need to apply critical thought to how we employ systems because we often use systems that are inconsistent with our goals.

You have my attention.

Generally, more competitive based goals will align with more hierarchical systems and more collaborative goals will align with non-hierarchical systems.

I can see this. Good food for thought as well.

This does not mean that hierarchical systems need be discarded even for collaborative goals. However, the emphasis is key. There is little point to emphasizing speed if my goal is to encourage everyone to be healthier and go for a run.

Good example. One I can relate to as someone who has been getting himself into shape physically.

I agree that goals are not so cut and dry that we can always label them as wholly competitive or wholly collaborative. That should not stop us from applying that critical thought. For even when a goal is primarily one or the other we still come across people wanting to apply the wrong system.

I'm going to venture a wild guess here, and let's see if this toss lands anywhere near the target. Do you do HR work, or perhaps training for companies that hire you to understand managing employees better, such as a cultures and value training program?

I'm just curious if my pre-rational gut feeling is right, or I'm way off the mark. I could be, but if I am, you may wish to consider a career in it. If I am right, I can see some more in depth and interesting discussions with you. I think that holds true regardless, actually.

I cannot tell you how many times I have come in contact with someone who on innate ability alone would succeed where I would not despite my training or education. While they are few and far in between people exist who regardless of there seeming lack of experience can accomplish the most wondrous feats: While I imagine Picasso at 25 was superior in skill to Picasso at 5, I imagine either would be my superior in painting a picture for a contest. So too are we all skilled to lesser and greater degrees.

I'm going to throw something in here which you may be familiar with, but if not might find intriguing. Howard Gardner identified 7 distinct lines of development, which in themselves follows the same developmental patterns as you might in Piaget's work addressing the cognitive line of development. Others have identified other lines, such as kinesthetic, aesthetic, moral, spiritual intelligence, and quite a number of others as well.

What this means, and how it relates to what you just said is that someone can be very advanced in one line, while quite undeveloped in others. The difficulty and the challenge for these hierarchical models being applies, and to your overall point and one I agree with, is that in looking at one line, such as cognitive intelligence we may be dismayed and confused to understand that someone who is highly intelligence, believes superstitious ideas when it comes to God. "How can they be so smart, yet so dumb?" we might think. Or the other way around, someone who has absolute incredible insights into the nature of the divine, yet be a complete moral pig, having sex with his students, wearing bling jewelry, lying on taxes, and so forth.

The different lines go a long way to addressing this apparent contradiction. There isn't one. And that applies not only to ourselves, but others we encounter. We, or they, are not overall idiots, or geniuses, because in one area we don't shine nearly as brightly as in others. When it comes to spatial intelligence for me, well, my partner has promised to get me a t-shirt with "Spatially Challenged" emblazoned upon it. Perhaps to just warn people not to listen to me about my nonsense proclamations about distances. (Hah, see, even I project that I want to say something to an area I'm dumber than a bag of hammers in).

Though we are objectively not equal in knowledge, experience and skills does not then mean that regardless of our pursuit we should see disparate treatment. Favoring disparate treatment when the emphasized characteristic is only slightly related or wholly unrelated to our goal is very much ego related.

I would agree. And what I said above about the different lines would support this.

Wanting the person with a single puzzle piece to go home because they are less worthy or are assumed to have less to offer, is very much ego related. In your example you offered you added the additional characteristic of their insistence. It is here where the scenario changes. You have now made the situation one of wanting a person whose behavior is inimical or destructive to the goal to go home. To then conclude that this is an issue of patience disregards the fact that the situation turns on this insistence rather than the persons number of puzzle pieces.

Oh, I'm not disregarding this. It doesn't have to do with what they have to offer. I has to do with me not having the patience, sometimes, that I generally do extend. Sometimes, when you've bent over backwards, shown grace, genuinely been respectful; at a certain point you drop the ball in your humanness and then you just dismiss them and move on. Not my ideal response, but sometimes, maybe, being hard on them is the right response - for them. Hard love, you could say. But I'm not claiming sainthood here, as much as I'd like to see that halo when I look in the mirror.

I do not think you would have found our discussion the same were you to have only suggested the exclusion of people who are unproductive towards and antithetical to understanding.

I think you were hearing the cynic in me coming out. I'm not normally that harsh. But there still is validity to the point I did make that people who have experience in a given area, especially if they have devoted major portions of their lives to the area, are not fair game for hacks, so to speak. If someone has never looked through a telescope, they can't make pronouncement on the moons of Jupiter, and tell Galileo he is wrong. (There's an interesting story behind this).

But you are right, if the goal is to have a discussion of opinions, then saying they are unqualified is not conducive to that, and I'll continue to bear that well in mind. Thank you.

 

[Curious George]

I'm going to venture a wild guess here, and let's see if this toss lands anywhere near the target. Do you do HR work, or perhaps training for companies that hire you to understand managing employees better, such as a cultures and value training program?

I'm just curious if my pre-rational gut feeling is right, or I'm way off the mark. I could be, but if I am, you may wish to consider a career in it. If I am right, I can see some more in depth and interesting discussions with you. I think that holds true regardless, actually.

No, HR is not my field of practice. I imagine I am too disagreeable to have survived in such a profession.

I'm going to through something in here which you may be familiar with, but if not might find intriguing. Howard Gardner identified 7 distinct lines of development, which in themselves follows the same developmental patterns as you might in Piaget's work addressing the cognitive line of development. Others have identified other lines, such as kinesthetic, aesthetic, moral, spiritual intelligence, and quite a number of others as well.

What this means, and how it relates to what you just said is that someone can be very advanced in one line, while quite undeveloped in others. The difficulty and the challenge for these hierarchical models being applies, and to your overall point and one I agree with, is that in looking at one line, such as cognitive intelligence we may be dismayed and confused to understand that someone who is highly intelligence, believes superstitious ideas when it comes to God. "How can they be so smart, yet so dumb?" we might think. Or the other way around, someone who has absolute incredible insights into the nature of the divine, yet be a complete pig moral, screwing his students, wearing bling jewelry, lying on taxes, and so forth.

The different lines go a long way to addressing this apparent contradiction. There isn't one. And that applies not only to ourselves, but others we encounter. We, or they, are not overall idiots, or geniuses, because in one area we don't shine nearly as brightly as in others. When it comes to spatial intelligence for me, well, my partner has promised to get me a t-shirt with "Spatially Challenged" emblazoned upon it. Perhaps to just warn people not to listen to me about my nonsense proclamations about distances. (Hah, see, even I project that I want to say something to an area I'm dumber than a bag of hammers in).

I am very fond of Gardner's work and his Wife's continuation of that work.

Oh, I'm not disregarding this. It doesn't have to do with what they have to offer. I has to do with me not having the patience, sometimes, that I generally do extend. Sometimes, when you've bent over backwards, shown grace, genuinely trying to be respectival, at a certain point you drop the ball and then you just dismiss them and move on. Not my ideal response, but sometimes, maybe, being hard on them is the right response - for them. Hard love, you could say. But I'm not claiming sainthood here, as much as I'd like to see that halo when I look in the mirror.


I think you were hearing the cynic in me coming out. I'm not normally that harsh. But there still is validity to the point I did make that people who have experience in a given area, especially if they have devoted major portions of their lives to the area, are not fair game for hacks, so to speak. If someone has never looked through a telescope, they can't make pronouncement on the moons of Jupiter, and tell Galileo he is wrong. (There's an interesting story behind this).

And I do see your point. I was trying to underscore that by acknowledging that goals are not wholly competitive or collaborative. Your point about complex systems that combine both hierarchal and non hierarchical was well received. I do not think anyone can take exception, save theoretically (or perhaps idealistically) to such a notion. But such systems are ahead of our current understanding. We are still trying to describe basic foundational aspects of the self. Using Gardner, it may be that some interpersonal and intra-personal prodigy will come along and develop such a system for us to employ, but that is unlikely. For not only would a person need those skills, they would need additional skills as well; then, also be lucky enough to find the right circumstance that would supply the necessary education and opportunity to be heard/published. In the meantime, those who can recognize these aspects will have to make do with patchwork systems and critical thought.

And while you may have demonstrated your impatience earlier, you have also displayed a great patience in the subsequent conversation with me. And for that, I thank you.