What if the indiginous are the more developed ones?

Continuing this post, in some ways this is akin to Lakoff's distinction between real and false reason. The latter also comes from the Enlightenment while the former appears to be inherent to the indigenous. And given our unconscious acceptance that the indigenous are labeled as less cognitively complex and lower on the developmental scale, which this book is proving to be an absurd conclusion, it does question the very basis and motivation of some developmental models.

As I've suggested long ago and I can't find exactly where yet, if we accept the distinction between real and false reason, and that false (formal) reason is the pivot point for so-called higher developments, it corrupts what those higher developments in fact really are. Or as Gidley so giddily noted,* all of that might just be so much deficient rational complexity. And perhaps the indigenous are much more integral-aperspectival? As Alanis Morissette sang: "Isn't it ironic, don't you think?"

* "For Gebser, integral-aperspectival consciousness is not experienced through expanded consciousness, more systematic conceptualizations, or greater quantities of perspectives. In his view, such approaches largely represent over-extended, rational characteristics. Rather, it involves an actual re-experiencing, re-embodying, and conscious re-integration of the living vitality of magic-interweaving, the imagination at the heart of mythic-feeling and the purposefulness of mental conceptual thinking, their presence raised to a higher resonance, in order for the integral transparency to shine through" (111).