I just listened to Don Beck - finally getting to the basic education, SDi. It was a sweet talk. (It's probably another little piece of helpfulness for my resistant and spasmotic self who appears to be in multivalent turmoil about development.) I've heard that there has been some rift between Ken and Don subsequently. Is Don still alive?

---

Ambo Suno

I imagine it must be hard for Beck and SD to accept their entire theory (values) as being merely one line among many in a broader model of Kosmic development called Integral.

(I have no information about the Wilber - Beck relationship.)  

Hey, Ambo and Shalk,

Yes, I believe Don and Ken have gone separate ways for the last 2 or 3 years, though I'm not sure how hard the "divorce" was, especially for Don.

And Don is very active with lots of travels, projects, presentations, etc.  Just google his name and "Spiral Dymics"and you'll find many links. 

You've lured me from lurkerdom.

MarkD

---

Just enough enlightenment for this time around, please.

Welcome, again, and again, out of lurkerdom. I feel that waxing and waning, coming and going for various reasons in my life and self. I've appreciated your presence and comments in past enterrings . ambo

---

Ambo Suno

I change the title because I just listened to the 2nd Don Beck interview, which was actually a talk. Many of you must have heard these already; me, I went, "Wow, what a condensed tour of spiral dynamics."

Once in the flow of this talk, and it seems that with most persuasive important talks, I start to nod at the system, am moved by its coherent and expandingly convincing tone and high purpose. This must be a good thing, to be in the thrall of something good and true and beautiful.

Along the way, I may have moments of pause where I realize that I have to trust a lot, as with the 'research' that is said to support that in fact what clusters together as red eventually could be factor analytically supported, that, for example, red consistently follows magenta in the ways described, that the specific example of a baby's attachment to a security blanket is powered by magic-animistic impulses as suggested, that social evolution and individual human development are really as tightly analogous as is said, and so on. The pause asks whether though details may not be exactly as presented, is the general story correct, is it not just elegantly beautiful, and good with potential consequences, but is it also true beyond being a plausible and noble storyline. There is somewhat intuitive and rationally moved nodding of the head, and yet occasionally there is the pause about how much is tidily finessed via some gift of language, strong need for cognitive consonance, coherently presented meaning, life purpose or trajectory proffered, individual and collective.

Slowly it seems I am giving up my standoffishness to using the metaphoric and analogous shorthand that is brought through SDi in the form of catch phrase labels and colors. I have feared both that I wouldn't make it to the party, and that I would.

Back from that digression, Don does a nice job. I am looking forward to listening to part 3, and getting more comfortable with the party. ambo

---

Ambo Suno

The Part 3 exchange between Ken and Don felt helpful to me and was a sweet collaboration.

(It turns out that Part 4 is actually a pdf and not an audio presentation.)

Thanks.

---

Ambo Suno

Ambo:

You raise a very good point in your musing about validity.

I am thinking about the AQAL model - the left is interior, the right is exterior.

How does one go about "proving" or validating anything that is properly perceived through the left-side interior quadrants? This is a great question and I think there may be a simple and yet radical twist that Integral provides in this area that would make sense out of a lot of confusion for many of us.

We all know the we have our own subjective worlds and we all know that we share subjective communities. This can be verified by looking inward.

Is it true that the UL is assessed based upon the inward looking eye of beauty, the LL is assessed based on the inward looking eye of goodness, and the UR/LR are assessed based on the outward looking eye of truth?

So, SD calls for us to use a LL perspective to look at collective interiors. And beauty and truth are not the proper barometers for valid knowledge of collective interiors. Goodness/justness is the barometer. And we all have access to that using our inherent subjective skill in that perspective.

But what if two people disagree on what is good?

A physicist and a non-physicist will have different ideas about how to read sub-atomic particle measurements. We trust the physicist to give better truth. Likewise, in the LL quadrant, some may be more qualified than others to assess what is better and what is worse/just and unjust/ethical and unethical.  

Hi, Schalk -

Here's a warmly respectful (I hope) clarification at the outset about my process - I may not have the readiness, the interest or the stamina to pursue some thought as far as you like to or in the directions that you like. I often feel comfortable and sometimes the necessity to raise a question, issue, idea, feeling, or possibility and leave it as a relative unknown to percolate in me or in the social air. I am a little leery of "truth" (and of "goodness" and "beauty") for various reasons, intuitions, and feelings. My inability or unwillingness of mine to agree or accept many assertions may have plenty to do with my limitations of development, of psychological defenses, and maybe also of a good, beautiful, and true application of science and intelligence that is greater than science. [As you'll see below, I don't accept, yet, truth-quality to have exclusive purview of the right quadrants nor be an inapplicable discerning lens for the left quadrants]

I didn't plan to start here but since I'm already heading in this direction I'll continue with saying that I don't say "yes" to your question pasted below nor accept fully the truth of what you say pasted below your question.

"Is it true that the UL is assessed based upon the inward looking eye of beauty, the LL is assessed based on the inward looking eye of goodness, and the UR/LR are assessed based on the outward looking eye of truth?

So, SD calls for us to use a LL perspective to look at collective interiors. And beauty and truth are not the proper barometers for valid knowledge of collective interiors. Goodness/justness is the barometer. And we all have access to that using our inherent subjective skill in that perspective."

Also, I'm not sure that "We all know the we have our own subjective worlds and [particularly this part that I italicize and embolden] we all know that we share subjective communities."

I don't yet nod my head fully to what is sketched out by Ken in the introduction of Integral Spirituality, and therefore I particularly don't like the pie-shaped figure that can be superimposed over the 4 quadrants. I think that these sketching comments of his and yours lead to reification of dynamic and not fully known processes of reflection and discernment. I think that the verbally and visually sketched out theory have a certain elegantly esthetic parsimony, but it is misleading and premature. I actually think/feel it as a finessing and fudging that I don't like.

Sure, maybe these three abstracted and recurrent-through-history-and-cultures quality and value judgments each can be ascribed a privileged relationship to quadrants - but I don't yet feel this to be with the exclusivity that is implied or inferred. I'm not sure that our 'sense' of beauty, geometries, mathematics, and aesthetics, particularly as informed by our basic perceptual faculties that underpin logic and advanced reasoning don't play in intimate and less visible communicating dance with truth - and this may deep down in us be felt as goodness that echoes "This is truth." I'm thinking this must be a huge ongoing area for consideration. And maybe a lot of my reluctance to get onboard has to do with differences in how we define and envision certain words.

Almost needless to say, there is much with this that I hardly have a clue about. But when I hear or look at or think about the taxonomies of interiors and exteriors, individuals and collectives, and then the apparently tidy parsing and overlaying of these three classical terms, I certainly have many unanswered questions and so I can't nod my head yet in acceptance of what you suggest here.

As to subatomic measurements, "We trust the physicist to give better truth." - I agree, certainly in almost all contexts.

As to my post to which you were replying, I wanted to convey, and I didn't do a very clear job of it, that there are some not-yet-understood in me functionings that cause me pause and uncertainty, even while or intermittently with the thrall of explanations' apparent truth, goodness, and beauties. I'm not sure where some limitation, fuzziness, incongruity, dissonance, or uncertainty with what is said has a primary cause in me or in the representations of reality and truth being made. (I suppose that the clever answer would be 'both'.) I think I get that you were suggesting that the proper lens and tool of perception, understanding, and inquiry applied to the appropriate contexts, meaning classic values and quadrants, could clear up some of my difficulties. I spoke to that, and probably not too clearly this time either. This appears to be where I'm at, at this time.

God, please be gentle on me if I'm crazy.

---

Ambo Suno

ambosuno:

I just listened to Don Beck - finally getting to the basic education, SDi. It was a sweet talk. (It's probably another little piece of helpfulness for my resistant and spasmotic self who appears to be in multivalent turmoil about development.) I've heard that there has been some rift between Ken and Don subsequently. Is Don still alive?

:)

---

the fabric begins to tear
and i don't really care

ambosuno:

Hi, Schalk -

Here's a warmly respectful (I hope) clarification at the outset about my process - I may not have the readiness, the interest or the stamina to pursue some thought as far as you like to or in the directions that you like. I often feel comfortable and sometimes the necessity to raise a question, issue, idea, feeling, or possibility and leave it as a relative unknown to percolate in me or in the social air. I am a little leery of "truth" (and of "goodness" and "beauty") for various reasons, intuitions, and feelings. My inability or unwillingness of mine to agree or accept many assertions may have plenty to do with my limitations of development, of psychological defenses, and maybe also of a good, beautiful, and true application of science and intelligence that is greater than science. [As you'll see below, I don't accept, yet, truth-quality to have exclusive purview of the right quadrants nor be an inapplicable discerning lens for the left quadrants]

I didn't plan to start here but since I'm already heading in this direction I'll continue with saying that I don't say "yes" to your question pasted below nor accept fully the truth of what you say pasted below your question.

"Is it true that the UL is assessed based upon the inward looking eye of beauty, the LL is assessed based on the inward looking eye of goodness, and the UR/LR are assessed based on the outward looking eye of truth?

So, SD calls for us to use a LL perspective to look at collective interiors. And beauty and truth are not the proper barometers for valid knowledge of collective interiors. Goodness/justness is the barometer. And we all have access to that using our inherent subjective skill in that perspective."

Also, I'm not sure that "We all know the we have our own subjective worlds and [particularly this part that I italicize and embolden] we all know that we share subjective communities."

I don't yet nod my head fully to what is sketched out by Ken in the introduction of Integral Spirituality, and therefore I particularly don't like the pie-shaped figure that can be superimposed over the 4 quadrants. I think that these sketching comments of his and yours lead to reification of dynamic and not fully known processes of reflection and discernment. I think that the verbally and visually sketched out theory have a certain elegantly esthetic parsimony, but it is misleading and premature. I actually think/feel it as a finessing and fudging that I don't like.

Sure, maybe these three abstracted and recurrent-through-history-and-cultures quality and value judgments each can be ascribed a privileged relationship to quadrants - but I don't yet feel this to be with the exclusivity that is implied or inferred. I'm not sure that our 'sense' of beauty, geometries, mathematics, and aesthetics, particularly as informed by our basic perceptual faculties that underpin logic and advanced reasoning don't play in intimate and less visible communicating dance with truth - and this may deep down in us be felt as goodness that echoes "This is truth." I'm thinking this must be a huge ongoing area for consideration. And maybe a lot of my reluctance to get onboard has to do with differences in how we define and envision certain words.

Almost needless to say, there is much with this that I hardly have a clue about. But when I hear or look at or think about the taxonomies of interiors and exteriors, individuals and collectives, and then the apparently tidy parsing and overlaying of these three classical terms, I certainly have many unanswered questions and so I can't nod my head yet in acceptance of what you suggest here.

As to subatomic measurements, "We trust the physicist to give better truth." - I agree, certainly in almost all contexts.

As to my post to which you were replying, I wanted to convey, and I didn't do a very clear job of it, that there are some not-yet-understood in me functionings that cause me pause and uncertainty, even while or intermittently with the thrall of explanations' apparent truth, goodness, and beauties. I'm not sure where some limitation, fuzziness, incongruity, dissonance, or uncertainty with what is said has a primary cause in me or in the representations of reality and truth being made. (I suppose that the clever answer would be 'both'.) I think I get that you were suggesting that the proper lens and tool of perception, understanding, and inquiry applied to the appropriate contexts, meaning classic values and quadrants, could clear up some of my difficulties. I spoke to that, and probably not too clearly this time either. This appears to be where I'm at, at this time.

God, please be gentle on me if I'm crazy.

alyens, please be gentle on ambo if he is crazy.

what cha up to weeeedo. :))

---

the fabric begins to tear
and i don't really care

Ambo:

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I think I understand you and it seems you are stating very clearly your honest reservations about approving the map.

It is probably a good idea to make sure we understand - what are we even talking about in the first place?

What is it that the AQAL is purporting to do?

What value is the AQAL mapping purporting to bring to us?

How do we validate anything? Are there any orienting principles that allow us to see Order in the Kosmos (and let's remember that the Kosmos is more than the world or the universe).

Is it ever possible to use concepts to provide orienting generalizations that are useful in finding Order?

Are you suggesting that we should remain content to not insist on finding a way to validate anything?

Let's remember - the pie-shaped diagram (I, We, and It) that you are speaking of represents the point that "every event has these three dimensions." No event "belongs" to one of the dimensions. The dimensions are perspectives we use. What other perspectives would you add? Or which would you subtract from the map?

Are you suggesting that we employ the dimensions in unison and that it is grossly misleading to say that any one perspective is truly being employed in an exclusive way?

How exactly is the AQAL map fudging? What in the knowable world have you identified that is being done an injustice by the map?

You express reservation about acknowledging that we each have our subjective worlds. At one point you said: "I didn't plan to start here but since I'm already heading in this direction ..." What perspective did you employ to even come up with this notion? Did you look out into the world and see it sitting in the front yard? Did you talk to me and our dialogue generated your idea that "you didn't plan to start here?" I don't remember that. Or did you look inside your interior self and identify something?

Let's be clear - when we talk about our sense of beauty being informed by exterior realities and our sense of goodness playing into this, etc., what perspective are we coming at this from? How do you validate this? What measure do you use to know whether this is true, or an expression of beauty, or a good idea?

Is your intuition guiding you in this realization? It's hard to imagine that you are seeing this to be true by looking at the exterior world.

I think we need to remind ourselves over and over - no one owns the truth of anything, no one owns beauty, and no one owns goodness. People can be credited with identifying it or reminding of us what we already know.

And, the map is not the thing. The thing is the event, the co-arising perception in a living moment between the witness through the perspective of the event.

What is it about the AQAL map that is failing to identifying anything you or I know to be valid?

My sense is that what you are hesitant to buy into is the "commandeering of the AQAL" map by persons who use it to make arrogant or reifying or marginalizing statements. Is that it?

If not, what is it that you know about the world that is better explained with another map? And what is that map? And if it cannot be shared using words, what mode of discourse would you like to suggest we use to point at it? Poets through the ages have suggested that poetry is a better map of reality or the Kosmos.

What element of the all quadrants, all lines, all levels theory is misleading and how is it misleading and where is the better or more useful map?

Feel free to respond in any mode of discourse, poetry, graphics, music, or anything else that you feel is more clear and guaranteed to be understood than words.

I am not defending AQAL. I am simply asking if there are coherent things that can be said in a convincing way about an alternative that is more true, more beautiful, or better.

You may be onto something, and if so, I sure hope you can put it into words in a coherent way. Maybe with some specific examples.

Hi, Schalk - I don't think that I can present my concerns any better at this time than I have. It might have been more fun for me, if you got what I was getting at, and I can live with that. The image and colloquialism that comes to mind is that we are on different wavelengths not easily brought into immediate recognizable harmony by either of our approaches to this. I celebrated fathers day with one daughter on Thursday, one will be tomorrow - happy Father's day to you, and all us. yo, ambo

---

Ambo Suno

Can do. And Happy Father's Day to you too.

Hi Vulgan - What I'm up to? One thing is to be open to currents, familiar and unfamiliar when I dare that move me hither and thither inward and outward, of course always within my profound limitations. And still learning better to deal with enough effectiveness and harmony in my everyday borderline befuddled fragmented self at work, with friends and family, and with this goddammed disturbing place called integral naked, if you know what I mean. Translating, in other words, I am soaring with the power and elegance of an eagle, who just partook of fermented cacti, and who tends to be drawn to existential crises, like, "Ouuh, should I really be up here? What if something in the fabric of flight and life inexplicably without warning fails? Maybe I better to stay down by those dry bushes." You know what I mean? In other words, what a ride. I was asking god, but thanks for telling others to be gentle with me in my intermittent craziness.

---

Ambo Suno

J said his dreams here have begun to get really bizarre.  M and I (me) stopped having dreams and ive been waiting for the weird ones.  now they are weird!  when i met W, old girlfriend, same thing.... the dreams changed and contributed to the feelings of destablization...  my night time world is normally one place that has been building since i have been dreaming, one world i return to every night, and when it is disturbed i am disturbed... or when i am disturbed it is disturbed... either way.

last night someone i know from the internut web for long time, have been in many conflicts with, was within it and giving me one of his mind attitude changing lessons about the many-ness of the universe. "Look at the blades of grass, the stars above your head." ...i do not remember much more except the dream was in an unfamiliar environment.

if my old world should never return it would be tragedy, i hope it will grow from this however and take the new into itself to make a larger world like it used to do before i stopped life-experiences...

---

the fabric begins to tear
and i don't really care