I'd be very much interested in your thoughts on the "ladder" of the stages. To me there seems to be a contradiction:
I really wonder if it is possible to claim that the stages are equal in all respects. The human beings obviously can command being treated with dignity and all have the same human rights. But isn’t the likelihood of being “just” or “moral” quite different in the different stages?
The imperial mind is mostly “self-interested”; that seems quite a blocker to a fully moral life.
When I read
“How can people on all sides of an issue transcend their biases and self-interests, feel into others' points of view, and come to the kind of mutual understanding that enables compassionate and concerted action? Entrancement in ego is the key blocker to these ends. […]”
it seems to me that being wiser (in higher stages) makes these traits far more likely. And these traits are better both for oneself and others in that relationships are more fulfilling and contentment or tranquility is much more likely – just as described in buddhist teachings.
But even if we say that that doesn’t improve the likelihood of being moral [as one might argue from the five precepts of moral living in Buddhism that are seen there as prerequisites for further development], the “higher” stages are still “better” if you need change in the world and/or a different behavior. New behavior and new thinking is much more likely to be invented and internalized by a self-authoring or self-transforming person than by someone who orients mostly to the thinking of other people.
What do you think? Are the stages "better" the "higher" they are, because they make morality and adaptability more likely?
I'd be very much interested in your thoughts on the "ladder" of the stages. To me there seems to be a contradiction:
I really wonder if it is possible to claim that the stages are equal in all respects. The human beings obviously can command being treated with dignity and all have the same human rights. But isn’t the likelihood of being “just” or “moral” quite different in the different stages?
The imperial mind is mostly “self-interested”; that seems quite a blocker to a fully moral life.
When I read
“How can people on all sides of an issue transcend their biases and self-interests, feel into others' points of view, and come to the kind of mutual understanding that enables compassionate and concerted action? Entrancement in ego is the key blocker to these ends. […]”
it seems to me that being wiser (in higher stages) makes these traits far more likely. And these traits are better both for oneself and others in that relationships are more fulfilling and contentment or tranquility is much more likely – just as described in buddhist teachings.
But even if we say that that doesn’t improve the likelihood of being moral [as one might argue from the five precepts of moral living in Buddhism that are seen there as prerequisites for further development], the “higher” stages are still “better” if you need change in the world and/or a different behavior. New behavior and new thinking is much more likely to be invented and internalized by a self-authoring or self-transforming person than by someone who orients mostly to the thinking of other people.
What do you think? Are the stages "better" the "higher" they are, because they make morality and adaptability more likely?