An alternate title, because I couldn't choose: The ghost of a model built directly on top of Graves' Spiral Dynamics. 

This post will talk about four models of human self actualisation, and I use such a broad term because 'want/need model', 'orientation model' or something similarly less elegant does not encompass the vastness that I sense. The aim of this post is not to assert a stance, although the stance may be clear, but to light a flare/spark a flame on something I sense as 'true' ('truer' than current consensus theories), so that it might be illuminated. 

First, I will talk a little bit about myself because I believe that it is very difficult to assess the value of an argument without first knowing the nature of the speaker, especially since this is conjecture. If you disagree with this, feel free to skip this paragraph. The next warning is that this post is based almost entirely off my own belief system, observations, and intuitions with little supporting evidence. Don't like that, probably skip the whole post. I am a rationalist. I believe myself to be a rational agent - like the people in the popular riddle about blue eyes. I have no disclosable relevant ulterior motives apart from the one aim I have stated in the first paragraph. I provide fully honest signalling without being transparent. I am someone who operates off of sense and intuition more than empirical evidence when empirical evidence is missing, because I believe most things can be extrapolated by someone with sufficient computing power. I am not familiar with the culture of this site, and I apologise for not taking the time to do that. And I have (mostly, but not entirely) built parts of this model based on myself because I have the ability to track my internal state - the way people know when they are hungry. If you couldn't tell, I love analogy as a form of communication. I invite people to point out any contradictions they see in my logic, and invite different frames on the matter if the stance is discussion, not attack. My preferred mode of communication is dialogue between two people, so this post might not be the most optimized structure, but hey, you can't have it all. 

Here is a broad trajectory I see on the models of human psychology that relate to human self actualisation: 1. Freud on Id, Ego, and Superego 2. Maslow's hierarchy of needs 3. Graves' Spiral Dynamics and 4. My theory, which I name down below. I personally believe the first three are the most precise existing consensus-accepted theories on the matter, in ascending order of truth value (alternative lens: 'completeness'). I am mostly going to talk about and reference Graves' theory(ies) in this post. Mostly popularized interpretations of it, I haven't done extensive research on what he actually said verbatim. I think Maslow is right about base needs being fulfilled first before higher order ones, but Graves is more right about 'self actualisation' being a long, drawn out process rather than a prize at the top of a pyramid. 

I personally believe Graves is bang on the money about having 'levels' of being self actualised although the levels idea comes from Maslow, and Graves is definitely right about the position that each level is defined by at least one core tension. I don't agree with the accuracy of his definition of what a level is or which level is what. (Levels = the colors: beige, turquoise, etc.) Where my theory differs is that he calls his shape a spiral - I call mine a branching unidirectional (upwards) fractal, so my working theory name is Tree Crown Theory. There are certainly tensions between two values that must be resolved before one moves on in the path of self actualisation. But I believe the tensions differ for everyone, and the difference is not a matter of personal taste, but a matter of the orientation of the person themselves, or what Aristotle might call telos, or in Tree Crown Theory, the 'Sun' (what the entire crown grows towards.) I'm not quite sure whether the analogy of a tree crown is about the shape of the individual, or the shape of the theory that encompasses all individuals (shape of society itself, similar to what Graves posits) but I suspect it actually refers to both, like Graves. Sorry if that gets confusing. 

So at the base of the crown of the tree of the individual we have core tensions that arise from us being animals. Sleep vs. Wake, Hunger vs. Cost of resource gathering, Mating vs. Cost of finding a mate. These are literally the same for everyone, although they may be expressed in different ways and with different amplitudes. Next, we have core tensions that arise from us being mammals, etc. Then we have core tensions that arise from us being social animals, such as Being in a pack vs. Solitude, Being cared for vs. Being controlled. As rough examples. Then we have core tensions that arise from us being in a capitalistic society, etc. This is why it is a branching fractal, because the tensions are to my knowledge infinite but bounded, and branched according to a fixed reality that the agent lives in, which necessarily leads to different individuals having different core tensions. Unidirectional because 'connecting branches', or resolving a tension, leads you higher. Those with taller trees generally have higher competency. More power, more agency to change reality. Less cognitive dissonance by definition. Not necessarily 'better' or 'smarter', or even 'more *good*', merely more potential realized. The branches also shift and move and reconnect, but the degree to which this happens is unknown to me. Now you might be thinking: how the hell do several pairs of opposing tensions turn into the shape of a tree? Honestly, no idea - that's just how it feels like to me. If you're a visual person, I might've lost you. But just pretend it's a metaphor, please. 

What Graves does not emphasize, to my knowledge, is that individuals do not 'stay' on any particular layer. This is where Freud's instincts on Id, Ego, and Superego come in. Most of our decisions are made with the Ego. Probably. I didn't do much research on Freud. But to my knowledge, decisions are mainly made with the prefrontal cortex (Ego), with some unconscious stuff happening in the background (Id and Superego). If the individual is a tree crown, the Ego is like a little rat climbing and hopping between the branches. Maybe the rat is consciousness. Dunno, but they're probably related. Anyway, which system 'dominates' and becomes the Ego depends on which mode you're in - exploration, fight or flight, stress, hypnagogic states, etc. And I think this is what genius inspiration is - the little rat hopping further up the tree than it usually lives in due to some special alignment of variables. Basically the rat hops down to animal survival mode when you're under duress, and climbs up to self actualisation pursuit mode when you're happy and all your below needs are fulfilled. 

I know there's literature on the actual neuroscience behind this - global processing theory, prefrontal cortex vs. limbic system type beat, but me not hashing that out is why this is more conjecture than theory. Anyway, I also personally believe the shape of the individual's self actualisation implies the direction of society, like Graves implied, and that there exists an objectively correct direction to head in, but probably multiple paths towards it. Maybe I'll write more about that if I find things I want to say about it. Hope you were at least mildly entertained reading this. Thanks for reading!

(To moderators: I don't think the wikitags Rationality and Conjecture(org) are correct, but I don't know how to remove them! Sorry! ;-;)