ixmatus: I like what you said.
As I see it 'spiritual' development can be development associated with a non-physical realm, as most people seem to interpret it. But it can also include pursuits which are arguably wholly physical. Rock-climbing can be a spiritual experience, yet it's not commonly thought of as a specifically spiritual experience. But if you follow that train of thought you'll see that the word 'spiritual' can encompass everything, and so "spiritual development" also encompasses all development. To me that makes it a term that is far too abstract to be useful in understand what is actually involved. I.e., is someone tells me they practice spiritual development, that doesn't actually tell me anything.
But I am aware that similar logic applies to personal/self development.
Marcus: I suspect that's why you seem to take issue with some aspects of personal development. The 'industry' built up around some aspects of self-improvement can be far less helpful, and far more deceitful (intentionally or otherwise) than it seems. But that's not the whole of personal development.
If you've read many of my other posts on this forum you might have noticed that I often try to correct semantically incorrect use of specific terms. Ironically it's only after reading some of Jung's works on symbolism, a lot of which I disagree with, that I can accept the fluidity of the words we use, and the meaning we assign them.
I think that "personal" and "self" are too semantically similar for there to be any truly significant difference in the appeal or understanding of the concepts they refer to, regardless of which word is used. Much more important is an understanding of how they're being used, and what the person using them means. So from your post Marcus, it seems that when you say "personal development" you're referring to development aimed at improving productivity, or enjoyment of material pursuits. And it seems that, to you, "self development" means pursuits focused completely on the individual; internal change.
I think both perspectives are valid. They each have their uses. Personal development aimed at improving productivity is great for the guy who wants to become CEO. Some people want that. *shrug*
Yet both perspectives, if only viewed in a limited sense, are flawed. We cannot avoid the facts of our existence, and one of those facts is that we are social creatures. It is fine for a monk to sit on a mountaintop and meditate for years. However he wasn't born there, and I highly doubt he would be sane if he hadn't received extensive training from others before he began his hermitage.
ixmatus mentioned taking a holistic view of your evolution in life, and I think that is extremely important. Human development is progressive; we interact with the environment and our own minds in different ways as we grow. Over time we learn new ways of seeing the world, new ways of thinking, and new ways of interacting with the world and with other people. Any attempts we make at our own development must take this into account. From what I gathered from your post, Marcus, you'd probably acknowledge this, but you seemed to focus on the present and the future, but not so much the past. Without a solid understanding of how we reached the point we're at now, we don't truly understand where we are.
So a chronologically holistic perspective on development is important for effective progress.
But the holistic view also applies to the environment context of one's development. As social creatures, up until that point at which we embark on our solo trek to the mountaintop, we're constantly influenced by others around us. And let's face it, most of us are unlikely to be making that trek, not the least of which is because most of us are unlikely to benefit from extended periods of solitude. One reason for that is probably because we
carry the influences of others with us. In other words, even our introspection is influenced by other people. If we look to the past we can see why that might be the case. Research has shown that children learn more effectively when guided by other people if they repeat the instructions to themselves. That is, all else being equal, children who talked to themselves, using the words others spoke to them, performed better. They also performed better in the future when performing similar tasks on their own.
There are many other influences we need to take into account. Family, friends, school, work, various kinds of community groups, and local and global cultural influences.
This site provides a good overview of this holistic view of development (and it also considers spiritual development, which a lot of psychological texts don't).
Umm, so basically, whatever you call development, if it is to be comprehensive, needs to take into account your current stage of development, how you got there, where you're going, and all the influences which have and may affect your development.
So, do we need a paradigm shift? No, I don't think so. I think we just need greater contextual awareness.
PS: For anyone reading my blog recently, none of what I've said here should come as a surprise considering I just wrote a series of posts on human development
