Setting this up as the main thread for discussions of early drafts of the Deliberately Developmental Spaces course.
Course materials available here:
1 Like
Historical Parallels to Science:
Developmental science is akin to early alchemy evolving into chemistry or the initial integration of Newtonian physics into society. Just as 19th-century Germany saw a cultural shift that embedded science into societal norms, there is potential for a similar transformation in how developmental insights are valued. However, this requires greater dissemination, resources, and societal buy-in to reach a tipping point.
The comparison to alchemy and 19th century, while interesting, may be overambitious at this point - you’re effectively positing a cultural evolution/second renaissance. Perhaps more plausible at this stage in the course to simply say it is pre-paradigmatic in the kuhnian sense.
Regarding the treatment of Wilber’s four dimensions of development, a couple of suggestions.
-
May be good to outline more than one way of carving out the dimensions, eg Freinacht’s as well, to avoid coming across as just another application of integral.
-
It would be great to see a distinction between ‘dimensions’ and ‘domains’, the latter being the application of a particular stage within a dimension to a particular domain of reality, eg personal relationships, local community, humanity, nature etc (this notion of domain is used here (and I think elsewhere): Natural misunderstandings of adult stage theory | Meaningness.
This makes for a richer multidimensionality (hyperdimensionality?), where each dimension has its own subdimensions.
s There Such a Thing as Development?
Development implies movement between “locations” or stages…
This is an interesting question. I’d like to know what suspends, keeps people at stages of development - is it the realisation and the embodiment of the ideas, principles, values or the context of the relationality with the external world.
I’d say that the problem of “not being able to conceptualise higher levels of psychological/consciousness” can only be resolved through self-actualisation, but the permanency and a lasting self-validation of “being” within a certain stage will be dependent on relationality with the other.
When it comes to defining development as a movement - that’s not enough because these movements can be fleeting, chaotic, fragile… There needs to be an element of permanency attached.
1 Like
Cleaning Up: Psychological and emotional healing, addressing shadows and unresolved issues
How do you envisage this working? Emotional cleaning can only take place inside a sanitised environment which will ensure that additional trauma won’t be incurred.
Even if it’s possible to “cure” or “clean” within a safe environment (of the DDSs?) - once people are “released” back into the world - what will protect them from being harmed again?
There’s probably a “resilience” clause envisaged, but is it enough?
1 Like
Is reaching higher levels of individual psychological/consciousness development compatible with society and practicalities of concrete living in the world?
Mystics and individuals ranging towareds higher levels of psych/consc dev were historically seeking asceticism, solitude and sheltered existence as the right type of environment for their developmnt
1 Like
I’ve already cognitive complexity as a dimension in there (i just don’t have that material up).
I think we can mention others though i don’t buy Freinacht’s at all (they are a worse version of Wilber IMO). And i also note Wilber had more dimensions/domains than those 4. I just find those 4 super helpful.
It would be great to see a distinction between ‘dimensions’ and ‘domains’
OK, for me i am using domain as close to a synonym for dimension. It’s not about the area of application. Useful distinction to make though perhaps a subtle one …
1 Like
[Jeffrey] Martin at least is pretty clear that his evidence suggestions Location 4 and beyond make it pretty hard to keep functioning in mainstream/conventional society.