Here are my comments:
First, your analysis is bang on, I agree ... for the most part... that's sorta my nature...
"... given the right conditions individuals are motivated to explore their own attitudes and reality, feel an emotional release and that, “The individual is capable of discovering and perceiving, truly and spontaneously, the interrelationships between his own attitudes, and the relationship of himself to reality."
To use alcoholism as an example, say there were no consequences of drinking, would you have quit? Would you have discovered or perceived or otherwise spontaneously realized the relationship of your attitudes and your relationship to reality without the consequences?
I use this example because it is one we have in common, and it is also good because it deals with the learning process. I learned drinking was not working anylonger when it started having consequences... i.e. financial, emotional, work, etc. I changed b/c I had no choice. On the flip side, now that I am sober, when I have relapsed, I have learned from that experience, see my recent HALT light bulbs exploding thread. So there is an element of we are able to self actualize and learn spontaneous, however, the idea of HALT came from someone else, I just applied it to myself. This is consistent with what you have written, you could not have learned, etc., but for the society that facilitates it.
An alternate example, slavery, KKK and racism in US or globally. It existed for a long period of time. One group of people actively denied the other group the ability to self actualize. Despite this, some in the controlled group did self actualize, but their progress was seriously limited. I.e. how many black doctors did you see in the 1800's in the US South? Not for lack of interest in health, rather lack of opportunity to self actualize their own drive to improve conditions.
Another example, we see some people as geniuses. However, some say that genius is simply the ability to take what already is and apply it to a new use. For instance, Einstein's theory of relatively was built on the foundations set by those who came before him (i.e. Newton), he needed their theories to be able to come up with relativity. Had they not existed, would Einstein have developed relativity? According to Rogers he would in the right conditions... well the right conditions were the foundation built by those that came before... very circular reasoning.
"the means to realise growth needs no guidance, it is also innate and exists within us." I think this refers to curiousity. Humans as a species have an innate curiousity that is part of our species and it is a means to learning, but it is far more useful when guided. So yes, as it pre exists in humans it doesn't need guidance; however, ask any teacher, if you can capture the curiousity of a child and guide it, the interest will last a lot longer and greater growth and development will occur.
In contrast, I have two cats, one is a kitten, the other is fully grown. They have curiousity, but they don't write books, heck I can't even train them to flush the toilet or use it for that matter... although some can... let me know if you figure out how. The difference between their curiousity, which is also innate, and human curiousity is that our intellect is much greater. They learn from each other through play and by interacting with their world, the same as children do. However, it is clear from watching them that their ability is limited in how far they go with it. In contrast, the abilities of children is not generally so limited. Take the Perry Pre School Study (see below) example, two similar groups of kids, give one an enriched environment and one the same old, the enriched environment group does a lot better. If Rogers' theory is correct, then if I provide a suitable environment (i.e. all the necessaries of life), shouldn't they both self actualize at a similar rate? No, because as you've said, the enrichment of the environment adds something that causes greater development.
The potato example, as you have rightly suggested, is not comparable with humans. A potato does not have a brain. It is a biological form of life that simply seeks nutrients based on a preset genotype and then grows to what it is preset to be, there is no evolution to something new. Just to what it already was programmed to be. As you've said the potato comes with all the information it requires to become a potato. Human beings, like potatos, come with everything they need to grow into human beings. However, while human beings come with a preset set of abilities, including curiousity, what they become is determined by who and what they are exposed to. In contrast, with a potato, you simply get a potato. Let me put it more concretely, the Perry Pre School Project (longitudinal study of disadvantaged youth from ghettos in US were followed over time). Control group received nothing out of their normal range of experiences, other groups received varying levels of early intervention and early childhood enrichment. Data gathered shows those with the intervention experienced significantly greater achievement consistently across their lifetimes. This would appear to be a problem for Rogers' theories.
Hope this is useful, really enjoyed your insights. I really miss not being in university!
Levi