Tommy:
These are not some arbitrary levels of a video game that we go through to get a reward.
Calling them "maps" is even a misnomer
There is nothing more than deductive logic.
Look at the stages carefully and you will see a linear progression, not unlike something Descartes might lay out:
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=16_stages_of_Insight_Knowledge
1) I see everything in the universe is either mind or matter - Namarupa nana
5) I see that if I do not react to the bad feelings they dissolve on their own, never to return. I am so happy! - A&P
6) If everything dissolves, What am I? I will dissolve. I am terrified - Terror Dukkha Nana
7) Everything vanishes after some period of time,I cannot hold onto anything, life is so unsatisfactory -Unsatisfied Dukkha Nana
9) I want out of this - Deliverance
10) I am out - Fruition
Please see the stunning beauty in this. It is an elegant universe.
All you're doing is aligning one conceptual model with another, that doesn't prove objective existence and, contrary to your suggestion, I can assure you that I never implied anything about "video game"-like levels in my replies. Also, you've basically shoehorned two models together in an attempt to bolster your argument, doesn't that demonstrate something here?
Any and all conceptual models, whether it's the progress of insight or the Leary's 8-Circuit Model can be described as "maps" since a map is just a symbolic representation and, given that the actuality of moment-by-moment 'subjective' experience cannot be conveyed between two human beings without the use of symbols/language, your assertion that "calling them maps is even a misnomer" is incorrect. Based on your statement, calling anything by any name is a misnomer, but that's only correct to say from an absolute point-of-view, not the relative level from which we all communicate.
I know what you're saying, much as it may not seem to be the case, but to posit that these states and stages have some objective existence is nonsense. They are convenient descriptions of phenomenological experience which, while common to many people, can't be truly said to have any sort of objective existence.
As far as "seeing the stunning beauty in this" goes, I thoroughly enjoy studying various models and seeing the similarities between the symbolism involved and the phenomenological experiences they represent. This has been a huge part of my practice in the last five or six years in particular, and continues to be of immense interest to me, but has also confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that none of these systems can be said to exist objectively in the way you suggest.
Two words: Dependent. Origination.