Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

Last post 06-18-2008, 7:39 PM by schalk. 37 replies.
Page 1 of 3 (38 items)   1 2 3 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  01-09-2008, 12:01 AM 36015

    Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    This post is a response to another post that stated something like, "Barack is teal, so I support him." I have concern about such labeling, and knowing that MGM often tries to make itself the only view that's correct, I am worried that there could be pathological versions of teal and turquoise that states, "i am integral, and you are not, therefore I am at a higher stage of consciousness."

      The above concern is very real since it happens to me as an internal dialogue. There are so many instances when I meet with people that I don't particularly enjoy, when I audit professors who seem to talk green, the thought judges them as being "at a lower level of consciousness." Most of the time, I simply witness the thought, let it pass like a cloud, because I am not that thought. The best way to judge someone is to judge her twice, because we always don't know what's beyond the skin surface.

      If my analysis is correct, I think such thoughts must arise for numerous others who've read Ken Wilber. For those of us who've read every Ken Wilber's books, maybe developed relatively stable ego-aware witness capacity, can laugh at ourselves when such thoughts arise, and say, "poof, here it goes again!" Indeed, levity often turns the thought on its tail, and reveals the silliness. Because if we were to be ensnared by that very thought, we would be contradicting the very creed of integralism--that is to recognize whatever development is in another person was and is in me, to know that I was once like that person before, but now I am simply better than myself, and I will keep on being better. Transcend and include. Transcend and include. and if I may to introduce a neologism, transclude the very thought that seeks to pigeonhole others w/o compassion. Witness it as an object. For the "subject of this stage becomes the object of the subjec of the next stage." Such is the pathway of higher consciousness, enfoldment.

    Now that was the brighter picture. Every now and then, and I must be the first to conceed, that I could just fall into this trap, to me, it's a kind of Mean Green in turquoise disguise--the whole time when I thought I was acting out from a greater good, a higher consciousness, when in fact I simply did not try to integrate the very truth of the object of my judgement is voicing. That is, we say we are integral, when the instance behavior clearly is not. And often when I finally realize this, I cannot help but lower my chin in wild shake and tremble my lungs upwards in glorious laughter.

    My integral friends, you are indeed the beam of this world. A glimmer of wisdom in murky darkness. Shine through the shadow with your gaze; May you stay lucid in the turbulent Dream.

    Best,

    James


    O chestnut tree, great rooted blossomer,
    Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
    O body swayed in the music, O brightening glance,
    How can we know the dancer from the dance?
    --W. B. Yeats
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  01-09-2008, 12:41 AM 36018 in reply to 36015

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    Just to make sure, this is not an attack on the wonderful person who made the Obama is teal post. The thread simply prompted me to say what I've been long meaning to say. Tread the edge of evolution very carefully.

    Ken eloquently points out that integralism could be easily perverted. The absolute truth twisted into a kind of nihilism. Just remember instances when fanatics say, "if everything's spirit, how could I do anything wrong?" Mysticism perverted to so low could be the most dangerous force in the decades to come, particularly in a mind of high cognition. Anyone who is not able to simultanesouly entertain the Absolute truth AND relative truth is not genuinly mystical.

    the Same goes for structure-stages. When it's perverted, every person you meet becomes vessel to pour in different colored dye in. Just imagine to hear somebody say, "oh my mom's blue, she believes in that mythic religion, I'm better than her; my professor is green, I'm turquoise, therefore it's not my fault that I got a bad grade, turquoise is simply not apprciated by lower wave of development. The candidate I support must be 2nd-tier, after all, I am 2nd-tier, how could I possilby support a candidate that is 1st-tier? and so on..."

    Again this is not an attack, but simply a pointing out to the inherent problem with the claim that the candidate I support is 2nd-tier, centauric, vision-logic, teal, systemic, or cross-paradigmatic. Thus remember, we still want ourselves to be rational, and evidence must be first presented as part of our argument that a politician is integral. Has Obama ever quoted integral philosophers? Has Obama ever pointed out that jumping straight to democracy in Middle East might not work? Has Obama ever said that we need to raise the level of consciousness of this country in order to be truly energy-sufficient, because lower waves of development simply don't see nor care about the planet in the long run? To be fair, it must be pointed out, neither has Hillary made ANY of the points above.

    Any discussion about a politician's level of development is more or less meaningless unless we are very specific about what we mean by it, and show evidence, following perhaps a variation of the Three Strands, rather than simply claiming so. In fact, if about 7% of the Americna population is teal or Middle-vision logic, or paradigmatic, doesn't it make sense that political leaders are likely to be in that category? I don't think 7% of our population is running for the presidency.

    The above statement was simply a tease. Many integral folks want to stay out of the political mess and be in the psychological heaven whithin. (so that kinda explains why we have so few integral presidnets :D ) But let's be sure, probably most of the candidates have 2nd tier cognition! They know immediately when you use the term "cross-paradigmatic" means even w/o looking up the dictionary. They probably have a mental picture already in their heads that exactly fit the "dynamically interconnected GlobalFlex view", already!

    2nd tier center of gravity is so much more difficult to determine among the candidates. Even if the candidates are in private, when is the last time your heard the media making a big deal out of a politician doing vipassana? They talk about wives and mistresses sure a lot. (tease) Obama, because of his heritage in Kenya, it leaves me with no doubt that he cares about the people who suffer, he must be very compassionate. In fact, I can see a blaze of bravery in his eyes that showed the determination to clear out every obstacle so that he could fulfill the promise that the nation had bestowed on him and the conscience he has availed to himself.

    But where's the integral guarantee? Is there any evidence that Obama is pluralitis-free? When is he going to explain to the public that there is a massive difference between our very own Ken Wilber and let's say...Sylvia Brown? I know, Ken can talk to ghosts too... hehe.

    Alas, friends, these are merely my concerns from the bottom of my heart. I hope I'm not a dreadful lone soul who is haranguing about a concern that nobody elses felt. So...Do you have a vivid encounter with the "lower-consciousness" label too? Do you think it's valid for me to say that a candidate is 2nd-tier w/o first offering the evidence?

    I look forward to hear from you.

     

    "Black rain on Capitol Hill,

    May the Spirit be awaken in you."

    James


    O chestnut tree, great rooted blossomer,
    Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
    O body swayed in the music, O brightening glance,
    How can we know the dancer from the dance?
    --W. B. Yeats
    • Post Points: 50
    • Report abuse
  •  01-09-2008, 12:44 AM 36019 in reply to 36018

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    Here is the my original response to "Obama is Teal" thread:

     

    Ladies and gentlement, let's be very careful with the political labeling. Indeed be very very careful. One of the thing that still concerns me, and I think Ken knows this concern well, is how many people are going to jump on the "I am turquoise bandwagon." I am glad that Ken Wilber has shown in some of the videos that he acknowledges the structure-stages model can be abused, just imagine how many people in the mainstream will say that "I am integral, therefore my view is better than yours, you are at a lower level of consciousness..."

      Remember, as Ken points out politicians usually have 2nd-tier cognitive development, at least teal for most, but their center of gravity may vary. By labeling a politician teal, and thus making the candidate seem integral while w/o addressing which line we are really talking about, it's indeed committing Level/Line fallacy, confusing "talk" with "walk".

    I have no doubt that Mr. Obama has high cognitive development; and seeing his grandmother on TV and realizing that Obama, due to his heritage. is likely to have a higher sense of empathy with those who suffer. His speech on 1/08/08 is most inspiring indeed.

    But let's recall that Bill Clinton, now as an ex-president, knows, that is he KNOWS integral philosophy, explicitly; he factors development of consciousness into equation. If Hillary were to be elected, it's highly likely that Bill will have a considerable influence, and if Bill were to be able to make Integral politics recommendation--perhaps we would not see the world yet so fragmented.

    What is a level of development? It's a wave, or in Ken's words, a probablity wave, not a strict level. I am not convinced until I see evidence that Obama has read integral politics, I am not in full support--because there's no guarantee that Obama will act out an integrally-informed decision every time a bill comes to his desk! You see?! He could act out from Turquoise, which I believe is his cognitive development, that global-systemic, cross-paradigmatic mind that sees the world in a dynamically interconnected manner. Or he could act out from Greem some of the time, which tries not to marginalize anybody, including the Terrorist, be it protestant, muslim or New Age. He might resort to the same old cliche, "a terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," while disregarding that there are people from the other group (eg Middle East) who condemn such action. Remember, a leader who does not consciously know integral politics gives you NO guarantee that all his public behaviors will be 2nd-tier.

    Of course, there is the argument that knowing integral politics does not mean that a leader would apply it. Indeed, that's a very important truth, and that must be taken into account. Thus by realizing both the probablity wave factor AND no guarantee of application even if a politician were integrally-informed can we truly arrive at an integral analysis of politics.

    Many of us predict that the next president will be a Democrat, and all current indicators seem to point to that trend. (eg huge demand for change, large disunified voices in Republican party, for example, the Republican debate is much more fractured among Ron Paul, the libertarian, Huckabee, a social conservative, Romney, a flip-flopper :), Giuliani, national defense. In contrast, on 1/6/08, the Democratic debate showed that the Democrats were much more unified. ignoring the Green/Orange disagreements)

    If Barack were elected, I hope he has the courage to be truly bi-partisan, transcending caustic attacks from both liberals and conservatives. If Hillary were elected, I hope that she will act out from an integral-wave consciousness, use her husband and Al Gore as much as she can, moving into a beginning phase of a true 2nd-tier politics.

    Thus friends, let's not forget, a label is just a label, anybody can claim to be 2nd-tier or integral. Development is a wave, not a cut-off line. Only by treading carefully, honoring all previous waves and views can we move on into a 2nd-tier world community that transcends and includes waves that are yet the expressions of Spirit whithin you.

     

    ps I hear Ken Wilber's urgent cry for integral politics, Ken, I look forward to seeing you in 3 years.

    best,

    James


    O chestnut tree, great rooted blossomer,
    Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
    O body swayed in the music, O brightening glance,
    How can we know the dancer from the dance?
    --W. B. Yeats
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-09-2008, 3:28 PM 36077 in reply to 36015

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    bump. in need of replies.

    I would love participants in forum to check out Ken's audio titled "The War in Iraq." under politics in IntegralNaked.

     

    Thank you!


    O chestnut tree, great rooted blossomer,
    Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
    O body swayed in the music, O brightening glance,
    How can we know the dancer from the dance?
    --W. B. Yeats
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  01-09-2008, 7:24 PM 36094 in reply to 36077

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    Ken's presentation of a utopic 2nd Tier World Federation is admirable, to say the least.  My impression of  how this would work struck me as did the film, "Minority Report," with pre-rational (or super-integral?) telepaths serving the federation with limited omniscient perception of  life in the surrounding area, announcing in-the-moment activities that are undermining the integrity of the federation.  If the laws are truly integral laws that transcend-and-include all first tier meme values, the only danger I can see here is whether or not the pathological sides to these 2nd or 3rd tiers will be so transparent to those presumed integral law-makers that what passes as AQAL in sum and substance fails to recognize its own pathology.   If the cognitive line is super-integral but the moral line is somewhere in first tier, how easy would it be for those who are empowered with the responsibilty of "watching the watchers" (monitoring the telepaths), and sending instant mandates, to act on the infringers in ways that might misuse the information if their own pathological condition remains undetected by both themselves and their collegues?

    Your true intention came through for me, James.  And your genuine concern for the issue that you've raised, when seen within the larger context of the thread, revealed the inoffensive nature of the intent.  You weren't attacking the "Obama is Teal" thread-starter, but only using the thread as a catalyst for your own thoughts on the dangers of indiscriminantly assuming someone's level of being or stage of growth.

    Thanks for the heads-up,

    JD


    The yoga of light and sound is really only one event. It's the frequency of their vibrations that is different.

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  01-09-2008, 8:10 PM 36101 in reply to 36018

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    IMO, well said, James. All these cautions sound, at least, appropriate. Yes, I also can personally relate to many of these mental short-cutting schticks.

    Jondavi, yeah, agreed, ambo

    Ambo Suno
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-09-2008, 11:22 PM 36115 in reply to 36094

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    jondavi:

     

    Your true intention came through for me, James.  And your genuine concern for the issue that you've raised, when seen within the larger context of the thread, revealed the inoffensive nature of the intent.  You weren't attacking the "Obama is Teal" thread-starter, but only using the thread as a catalyst for your own thoughts on the dangers of indiscriminantly assuming someone's level of being or stage of growth.

    Thanks for the heads-up,

    JD

    Thank you ! JD.

    This issue of course, I would love Ken to address. I myself have been integrating many systems of thoughts before I encountered Ken Wilber. I look forward to share some of them.

    Does anyone know any way to alert the staff at I-I so that Ken or any IS teacher may hear some of my constructive criticism on some issues?


    O chestnut tree, great rooted blossomer,
    Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
    O body swayed in the music, O brightening glance,
    How can we know the dancer from the dance?
    --W. B. Yeats
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  01-11-2008, 8:08 AM 36231 in reply to 36115

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    Well said.  I recognize myself as part of the problem and I will do better next time.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-14-2008, 7:46 PM 36541 in reply to 36018

    • rocco is not online. Last active: 07-08-2008, 9:55 PM rocco
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-28-2006
    • Posts 22
    • Points 420

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    Windowless Wind just to let you know I did not see it as an attack. I am just curious what the big deal is with me thinking that Obama is Teal? I may be wrong but your post gives me the impression that you are not comfortable with referring to anybody as any color. Saying Obama is Teal does not mean i think he is 100% teal all the time and that he will revolutionize America and make everyone integral! Like Ken has said before that considering one is at a certain stage they are typically operating from that stage 50% of the time and 25% of the time is spent a stage below or above that. And I never said nor did I think or imply that Integral means better, although it is.

    Just because there are lines of development and we can have different lines at different stages does not mean we can't be a "color". I also want to say that you don't have to read Ken Wilber to be integral and i get the impression from this post and other posts that you think you do, AQAL is a by-product of Integral it is not Integral itself.

    Now I understand your feelings about how Integral can be abused but I am going to say something that will I am assuming bother you....ready?......I think I am Integral!!!  Yes I actually narcississtically think I am at a better and higher stage now than I was 1 year ago thanks to the stress of health problems, corrupt doctors and peices of shit health insurance companies, plus the challenges of reading Ken's book Integral Spirituality and doing some serious mindfulness meditation. How do I know? I don't but I know a tremendous no TREMENDOUS amount of fear and anxiety and the SERIOUSNESS of which I used to approach everything has dwindled down to almost laughable nothings in my mind. Now when I say I was Serious about things I mean it with everything from the evolution of consciousness of the planet, to my career and image, the state of world affairs, as well as my view of myself and the paths I choose. Man did I take though things serious yet now as an everyday occurence they have become secondary things in my mind, this is not a state but a permanent stage development that has been with me and growing since for well over a year, and as they say the most notable difference between first tier and second tier is the great leap in fear. Now it is not enlightenment but the next step (stage) to it. Something else I definitely took serious was Stages,colors,  waves, probablility clouds or what have you. Everyone I have read Boomeritis ends up taking them seriously too, too seriously which I personally think is a first tier reaction. Then when I made what I feel is the Leap I began to approach them sincerely but not seriously so now I can talk about them as well as judge people according to them without limiting them or pigeonholing them in my mind. Just as the waves become very fluid but very real so does your approach to them.

    By the way have you read Wyatt Earpy? Did you really read it? What did you think? Did it transform you a little? Did it inspire you a little?  Did you actually get what it meant? Do you still take Integral so serious now because of it? There is nothing wrong I feel with me asking anyone on this forum on whether or not they think they made that leap. Now Ask Yourself have you made a Great Leap beyond much of the fear or anxiety you have or the seriousness of which you approach life? If you don't know then I'm sure you haven't. I sure think I did and nope I have no personal Ken Wilber or amazing 2nd or 3rd tier teacher to varify for me but guess what?  I don't care to have one.

                                     Thanks if you read this and please I am not saying you will, but don't take this too seriously because You Might Shoot Your Eye Out!


    Rocco
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  01-16-2008, 11:34 PM 36725 in reply to 36541

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    rocco, i enjoy your levity, but i caution you to not become attached to your detachment. sometimes things come along in life that are very serious (death being one of them, I think) that require a serious attitude and treatment-- if not for ourself and our own personal healing, for those around us. (another area that requires seriousness is scholarship). i am curious as to your criteria for considering yourself integral, and what benefit you gain by making that distinction for yourself? i will be honest here: i am terribly skeptical of anyone who proclaims themselves to be integral, primarily because the word has so many connotations. slowly trailing to the point of this thread, then...

    rocco, you have conveniently alluded to the Wyatt Erp incident in your post, though I get the idea that you think Ken was in the right.
    I want to say outright that agree with Cowan in his appraisal of the episode and have been increasingly disappointed with Ken's treatment of the issue. Why do I agree with Cowan and not Ken? there is a fundamental misunderstanding of values (memes) and "stages" (vMemes) that I see all over this forum, and have always been puzzled by it. It is damaging. I have also been confused by what seemed like Ken's misunderstanding of the whole thing. In reading Cowan's reponse, i am comforting in these notions, but it really has made me feel quite disturbed about the state of integral (particularly, the simplification of these issues).

    Here is a link to Cowan's response (sorry I can't get this link to work, just copy-and-paste):

    http://www.spiraldynamics.org/faq/faq_KWblog.htm

    Here are a few quotes from this response that I find pertinent to this discussion:

    "vMEMEs don’t talk; people do. vMEMEs are attractors; memes are the ideas and content. The systems are in people; people are not in a system. This is a critical distinction if one is to deal with the premise that human systems change, that humans can change systems, and the SD premise that several systems can coexist within a person."

    "The question is: how does this person think about this thing at this time? Not: what color is this thing?

    "
    How a person thinks about a phenomenon and reacts to it is what matters, not that phenomena are locked to levels, or that this is a spiritual hierarchy. (There are different spiritualities and paths to various kinds of "enlightenment" at each of the levels.) This approach is equivalent to creating a catalogue of values and beliefs, then sorting them hierarchically. While it’s done all the time, it’s not what Spiral Dynamics is about. Yes, higher levels are ultimately more option-rich than lower ones and it’s a good thing to open the doors to them. But the challenge is to make existing systems healthier and more functional in addressing the problems at hand while facilitating growth as new problems arise." [please re-read if you think he is being "green" and denying hierarchies, he isn't; he is simply saying that integrality respects all levels of the hierarchy. integrality doesn't say "get integral or else;" Ken does! I wonder why!]

    "It is always useful to look at the original materials Ken reinterprets since his renditions sometimes leave a bit to be desired when compared to the sources." [if you are interested in understanding what "integral-aperspectival" consciousness is truly all about, I suggest the tome from which Wilber was inspired: Jean Gebser's The Ever-Present Origin.]

    "As we say over and over, our issues are not with integration or the idea of integral thinking; it makes all the sense in the world. Our fuss is with lousy representations of SD and abuse of a valuable model by people who don’t seem to care what damage they do in building up their own movements."

    I truly do recommend you read his lengthy response to Ken at the above link. It is simply smarter and has more depth than anything Ken has said publicly on the matter. I have not seen a response to this response by Ken. I cannot help but feel disappointed in Ken by this -- why no response? too immature for Ken to waste his time on? And honestly, I do not want to hear that I am "being too serious" or that "I don't get it" in saying Ken was immature in his comments. If you are going to tell me that I am just "too green", then you haven't read Cowan's response and I doubt if you understand vMemes any better than Ken apparently does(n't). It was simply disrespectful. Cowan's response is as respectful as I could imagine it, reading what Ken had said to him and about Cowan's life work.

    Back to the "teal label" discussion, and how it pertains. People are not "colors"! We need to lay to rest this idea that people can even "be a color." We think and act from different systems of thinking within our own being. The point of SD is not to marginalize people by saying "she is mythic blue because she believes the bible is the absolute truth," but rather to say, "her interpretation of the bible seems to be arising from the mythic blue structure of consciousness which is absolutistic in thinking." This also dispels with the notion that "green cannot hear turquoise" or "green cannot even see turquoise facts" that Ken seems to always be pounding in to our brains, because it shows that a person is not green! A person is a person. And I don't think this is solved by Ken's one-sentence disclaimer of, "we have to remember these states are fluid, clouds, etc." He certainly does not talk, on average, if ever, with this fluidity in mind.

    I am also confused with phrases like, "well he may be 2nd-tier/turquoise cognitivly, but not in other lines of development." Aside from my objection to labeling anyone a color, where was it stated that the colors apply to all lines of development? Are we refering to Ken's uber-cross-referencing which uses the colors as the y-axis, plotting all those developmental hierarchies along the x-axis? This is my biggest objection-- where is the research that shows these "colors" apply to anything other than Value Structures, to the vMemes? It is okay for Ken to copy and revise these things, but where is the evidence? I "simply" don't find life to be as simple as Ken seems to portray it to all of us... colors versus colors all struggling to the "best" color, turquoise. (or indigo, 3rd-tier? to which I have to say, where on earth is the research for the evidence of these structures? and how are they differentiated from the as-yet little-understood turquoise...?)

    I hope this has not sounded like an attack on any of you participating in this thread. I admit it is an attack on Ken. I am really just curious to see what you all have to say about this topic; I hope you do read in length and with an open mind Cowan's response, if you've not before. To James, I would agree with rocco in that it seems like you see Ken as the say-all for integral. This is just not at all the case. The encounters you have with "lower-consciousnesses" and your mental ticks of thinking you are better than them is because Ken has not accurately portrayed this information. It is a tragedy that we spend a half-hour in conversation with a professor and say, "what a greenie, he will never understand me." I think the root of this problem is thinking we are ourselves a certain color, or integral, or however you wish to say it. Integral has, at least to my eye and in certain sectors, become a label of superiority. We should only recognize where a person is thinking from so that we can better relate to them, better understand why they think what they happen to think. It should not be a tool of the ego. I can only wonder how tragic this misconstruing of the integral-aperspectival consciousness might be for our poor, humble God...

    in being honest with myself and with you,
    hoping for any/all honesty in return,
    god bless,
    Tim

    "identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

    Nine Ways Not to Talk about God
    • Post Points: 80
    • Report abuse
  •  01-16-2008, 11:35 PM 36726 in reply to 36541

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    [accidently posted twice. editing to erase. sorry!]

    tim

    "identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

    Nine Ways Not to Talk about God
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-17-2008, 7:36 AM 36752 in reply to 36725

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label



    Thanks so much for that link, Tim. It presents a cogent argument that Ken's take on Spiral Dynamics is no improvement at all on the subtleties of the original Clare Graves model. Despite, or because of, this I actually find it rather heartening. That's to say, fantastic!;  the underlying model is as sophisticated and mobile as instinct says it should be to meet the realities of human selves, interactions, and circumstance. It is all about the containers, not the content.  To quote from below: 'the systems are in the people; people are not in the system ...  and several systems can coexist within one person'. Halle-f#*%*g-lujah!  It's wonderful to learn that the base system is this sane and intelligent.

    Most of what I say below is repeating, more or less, what you've already said, but it's worth the emphasis.

    Here's an excerpt on Integral/Ken's view of the  colors:

    Language like “4’s do this” and “Greens do that,” while common, misses the notion that people are not at a level; they are not necessarily fixated; and there are not set behaviors which attach to systems. Better phrasing is “when centralized in level 4, the person” or “when thinking in a green way about a thing, this person…”. The systems are in people; people are not in a system. This is a critical distinction if one is to deal with the premise that human systems change, that humans can change systems, and the SD premise that several systems can coexist within a person.


    And to underscore this here is another short excerpt from, 'The Basics' section of the same Spiral Dynamics site linked to.

    The SD/Graves model is not a typology for categorizing people into eight rigid boxes. These are ways of thinking about a thing that reside in varying proportions within human beings and which ebb and flow, not labels for kinds of human being. The question is not how to deal with a person at a given level, but how to deal with the thinking of the level when it is activated in its particular way in that person.


    And here's some comment highly relevant to the $64,000 question suggested above and that Ken speaks of in interview with the Israeli magazine Haim Haicem (spelling?) That question being how do higher levels speak with lower levels. The quote below emerges from a discussion of Ken's misplaced antipathy towards 'Green'. I note it because the same counter question framed below has always niggled at me.

    This next jibe against green is based on several false assumptions. It begins with yet another absolute – “nothing…that will make it happy.” Let’s ask how authentically higher levels which subsume a lower level could not have the potential “to make it happy?” If it is part of their developmental track, people actually functioning in these ways should have an understanding of the previous states and have solutions to their existential problems in their repertoires, no?


    In other words Teal should have a good feel for the concerns of Red,  Blue, Amber, Orange, and Green because its been there, and now includes those stages within itself. Teal should have a natural feel for the concerns of these groups and be able to communicate from within while directing towards open spaces beyond.

    As to you concerns about the state of Integral, Tim, here's a suggestion where Integral Institute might actually reside on the fabled color hierarchy:

    Now, returning to “indigo” as another vertical plane: the fact that Wilber continues framing himself as trans-turquoise is both laughable and a little sad, given his performance. Perhaps he is convinced of prior turquoise-ness because his work was included in a weak and dated list of examples in the 1996 book, Spiral Dynamics, which should be deleted. First of all, the reference was to the kind of work he was exploring, not to Mr. Wilber. (He still explores good stuff.) Second, were that book to be rewritten or even properly revised (something not possible because of the authors’ pathetic deadlock [referring here to Beck and Cowan]), he and his Integral movement would not appear as a model of turquoise; more likely, as a stretch of orange stuck in the transitions through green with spirituality ebbing and flowing, though some of his more worshipful followers fit the characteristics of the DQ to ER transition remarkably.....


    I don't know about that last comment, but whatever the case, I do feel  heartened that behind the sketchy Integral color dynamics is something far more nuanced at work. And while I think Ken is to be treasured, I am also of the belief that not only is 'Integral' larger than Integral Institute, Integral Institute is larger than Ken Wilber. That's how it should be.  I think its all gonna pull through (I hope).
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-17-2008, 10:43 AM 36765 in reply to 36015

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    Thanks James. I've picked up on the same thing myself. To sum it up in my own words - Bloody Fucking Arrogance!!

    Of course I acknowledge that it takes one to know one. And I don't think of Teal as "Teal" - but instead I think of Teal as "Infrared-Magenta-Red-Amber-Orange-Green-as-one". And of course, we all need to remember that we invented these arbitrary distinctions, like santa clause and baseball, to be useful in somehow serving our deepest aspirations for love and creativity, and when we make them into a kind of conceptual prison they rapidly cease to be useful. So if you see someone (like me) being an arrogant bastard, help them get back in touch with their most authentic purpose. Can't honestly be present to that - and be an arrogant bastard - at the same time.

    Cheers!

    egg

    Something does not become real by talking ABOUT it, it becomes real by being it; only then does that possibility exist in physical reality. So live your life as a being of integrity; your words and actions as one.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-17-2008, 1:14 PM 36772 in reply to 36725

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    "The systems are in people; people are not in a system."

    This is an obvious quadrant absolutism. "Systems" and "people" are 2 parts of a 4 quadrant tetra-arising.  Neither can be reduced to the other.  It is just this sort of misunderstanding that points to how very valuable AQAL is.

     

    -Jeffrey    

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  01-17-2008, 2:28 PM 36776 in reply to 36772

    Re: Let's tread carefull with the Teal label

    Jeffrey-- I find your response to be unthoughtful, given the effort others are putting in to make this issue clear. Quadrant absolutism? The "system" he is referring to here is the SD system which is designed to think about how people think. SD is a 3rd-person perspective on the 1st-person interior life. Both are in the UL. But more importantly, you did not explain in any way HOW that statement is a "reduction" as you call it (it is not "obvious"...and why would you assume that it is?). I suggest you re-read some things and cease using Ken's simplifications. I will also mention a common quote that points to Ken actually agreeing with this comment. Ken says in Integral Spirituality that you cannot see these "systems" by sitting on the meditation mat. Well, why do we think that is?

    livingegg:
    of course, we all need to remember that we invented these arbitrary distinctions, like santa clause and baseball, to be useful in somehow serving our deepest aspirations for love and creativity, and when we make them into a kind of conceptual prison they rapidly cease to be useful.


    I could not agree more. A person's thinking occurs in the UL. This is exists plainly. Spiral Dynamics is a map of how this thinking in the UL occurs. It exists "secondarily" (quotes because I am sure someone will misunderstand what I mean by this...). This is not to discount it as a valuable perspective! Of course it is!. But it is a perspective on a perspective, and the primary perspective with which it deals with is UL phenomena. No one (Not even Cowan! wow!) is denying that there are four quadrants (If you read the whole response, Clare Graves developed his system by paying attention to four criteria: Psycho-Bio-Social-System.. see any resemblance?). If you think that this statement is saying that people are not in social system, biological systems, or cultural systems, then you are missing the point. It was by paying attention to all of these "quadrants" that Graves was able to build his theories. He is saying that SD is derived from the phenomena of thinking. The color system is in people. The point of that comment is to make it entirely clear that "Green" and all these colors do not fundamentally exist until we conceive of them, research them, and make clear their properties as they arise in people. People are not colors!

    To those of you who see the arrogance of Ken and are tired of his simplifications of other's theories, I commend you. It takes time and some seriously scary moments (everyone find Ken to be an uber-genius, at first), but as Castel says, it truly is heartening to know that the TRUE theories and research underlying SD understands all these things we have been upset with Ken for not understanding. (Namely: "
    The SD/Graves model is not a typology for categorizing people into eight rigid boxes. These are ways of thinking about a thing that reside in varying proportions within human beings and which ebb and flow, not labels for kinds of human being. The question is not how to deal with a person at a given level, but how to deal with the thinking of the level when it is activated in its particular way in that person.")

    This is an edit for a further note. I think that livingegg's comment applies to AQAL and the so-called "tetra-arising" as much as it applies to any convention we use to understand, further the cause of love and creativity, including SD, or any developmental model. The great part is that these conventions are incredibly useful, if we use them correctly and accurately and back up what we are saying with knowledgeable and thoughtful research. But if we throw these words around without meaning we are just killing the usefulness and truly turning them into intellectual prisons. I would also like to add that the recent "Blackjack" Blog, which seems obviously to be Ken, just shows how reductionist Ken's thinking about these stages are. No one walks into the casino with only one "color"!

    Bless,
    Tim


    "identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

    Nine Ways Not to Talk about God
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
Page 1 of 3 (38 items)   1 2 3 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help