More on where you at

Continuing from this post, that was the point of my providing the actual developmental research. Stating that one is 'at' a level overall is not supported by the research and per Stein more a dysfunctional, ideological interpretation. This dysfunction is ironically more a leftover from our capitalistic, competitive, self-involved 'orange' level, so the accusation of Frank being orange is more a shadow projection from this unconscious malady. Which is not to say Perez or the kennilinguists are 'at' orange overall, just in this context when defending their ideology through this particular pathology.

Recall this from Cook-Greuter's ITC '13 paper:
"I suggest that a more complex view must include notions of fundamental 'uncertainty', existential paradox, and the nature of interdependent polar opposites as a basis for making its claims. In terms of its understanding of humans, integral evolutionary assertions sound more as coming from a formal operational, self-authoring, analytical, and future-focused mindset than a truly second-tier one
despite 'postconventional' content and worldcentric values" (17-18).

Plus the metaphysical basis of egoic-rationality, the mind-body (and every other dichotomy) split, is still insidiously and unconsciously with us despite our meta-models. The latter in fact are still tainted by it, as I made in the lengthy case about the model of hierarchical complexity in the IPS real/false reason thread. Also recall this from Cook-Greuter in "Mature ego development," posted in that thread.

"Commons and Richards’ (1984) General Model of Hierarchical Complexity, for instance, includes stages of metasystematic and cross-paradigmatic reasoning in its scheme. However, the higher stages in this latter model remain wedded to symbolic codification. Complex cognitive behavior is represented as mathematical formulas (operations upon operations upon operations - almost ad infinitum). Purely cognitive models (Commons and Truedeau, 1994; Stein, in progress), for instance, do not realize and/or acknowledge the incommensurability between symbol and that which is symbolized. Their creators do not recognize the limits of rational analysis and of symbolic representation, and thus, they cannot discover the hidden assumptions and paradoxes that they enact in their models" (10).