Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
Theory Au Naturel
Thread Starter: ats
Started: 07-11-2006 12:49 PM
Replies: 9

Forums » Integral Naked » Theory Au Naturel » Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
« Previous Thread Next Thread »
  11 Jul 2006, 12:49 PM
ats is not online. Last active: 11/23/2007 4:25:15 AM ats



Top 100 Posts
Joined on 01-13-2006
Honolulu
Posts 12
Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!

Hold the presses, Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!  I wrote this out in the span of a couple of hours to flesh out details of an interesting notion I have.

I believe Orange, Green, Yellow and Turquoise are incorrectly described. I can let Spiral Dynamics off the hook, since it is derived from observable data and is thus a historical documentation of social structures that exist today. AQAL, however, is (I believe) intended to be a diagram of healthy human development, and shouldn't take current dysfunctions for granted. It should be a map of how a human could progress without thwarting any developmental lines. It would be an ideal map in theory, not necessarily based completely on current evidence, but partially based on the extrapolation of data in a logical manner.

What's wrong with Green? It's current description makes it a Closed-Loop projection of Orange. What do I mean by that? Let's start with Blue. Blue is a closed loop projection of Red. Blue is pre-rational, mythical, etc. It is not an open feedback loop. Someone in Red figured out his preferrences and figured everyone should be that way. If people resist, it means he has to try harder to force them to agree with him. He doesn't interpret the resistance as evidence against his position, as someone in Orange would. So, part of the current Green dialogue is, "If I am entitled to choose my own morals, then everyone is entitled to choose their own morals." Or, "If I want others to respect me, I must respect them (all)." This is just closed-loop projection of Orange onto the plural. The evidence obviously show these statements to be only partially true. It's not an actual developmental stage. This is Blue meme! This is not Green! This is Blue! Also, it's interior component is not developed, which I will discuss when I get to Yellow and Turquoise.

What, then is Green supposed to be? It's supposed to be open feedback plurality. Orange is open feedback singular. Green dialogue should be more like, "If I practice my moral code in the general public, how will it affect others?", or "What would happen in a society in which everyone practiced my moral codes?". Green is a communal experiment, whereas Orange was a personal experiment.

Wheres an Orange business would say, "How can we best maximize the profits of the company", a Green business would say, "How can we best form a symbiotic relationship with our customers and our complimentary companies we do business with?" Other green business questions would be, "What are the consequences of our business practices on our profits, on our complimentary businesses, on our customers, on society in general, on the environment, etc." "Is the earth currently sustaining itself with our current business practices?" (This is nothing like the "Wallmart is the great enemy!" of the green mantra of today. heh. just joking.)

Yellow currently marks the reacceptance of the interior element. It also marks the trans rational stage. Now, why in the world is there no rational interior component in Orange and Green? Orange has an exterior side, and also an interior. The current Yellow swallows up the Orange rational interior. Where's the rational interior? It would be the "meaning" and "reason" why one makes certain choices, with exterior data to support the choice. It would be the recognition of the "ghost in the machine", the recognition of the interior correlate to the exterior.

Rational Green Interior would likewise be the recognition of the interior element giving meaning to choices, with logical, external data for support. It would be the reason why you could see schools as one of the most profitable businesses out there. They are symbiotic with their surroundings. They benefit their customers and their business practices helps fascilitate an inexhaustible supply of clientelle. They take care of children when parents have to go to work. They educate their children, which helps society prosper, which keeps the supply of children coming.

Yellow would then be purely trans rational interior and exterior. One of the markers I notice is the search for the root design. The search for Big Mind in the exterior and Big Heart in the interior. One intuits a grand design underlying everything and seeks it out. Logic becomes an object instead of subject. Turquoise would be trans rational plurality, in the spirit of how I defined Green. An interacting functional trans rational plurality! Wow.

With a more complete Orange and Green with "healthy" interiors, is there really a second tier? In a model with healthy Beige through Green, there would be no enemies with any lower memes, just with higher memes. All lower memes would be healthily transcended and included, which currently doesn't happen until yellow, which, I think is why it's considered second tier. Yellow is when we go back down and repair the first tier.

The battle between Mythical Interior Blue and Rational Exterior Orange should not taint the AQAL model. The AQAL model should stand the test of time, after all memes become healthy. There should be two models out there. One to document society today, and one to theoretically show ideal human development. The first to see where we stand and how others developed, and the second to see where we missed something, relative to a theoretically "healthy" map.


  
  11 Jul 2006, 2:46 PM
integralschism is not online. Last active: 4/24/2007 9:50:59 PM integralschism

Top 25 Posts
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 278
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
ats,

I'm not feeling the brain power to give a good response right now. But I do appreciate your thinking on this subject. I think the kind of thinking you are doing is important and will hopefully generate good discussion.

Bryan
 
    
  12 Jul 2006, 1:14 PM
girard77 is not online. Last active: 1/6/2007 5:31:09 PM girard77



Top 25 Posts
Joined on 01-15-2006
Land of nod East of Eden
Posts 393
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
With a more complete Orange and Green with "healthy" interiors, is there really a second tier? In a model with healthy Beige through Green, there would be no enemies with any lower memes, just with higher memes. All lower memes would be healthily transcended and included, which currently doesn't happen until yellow, which, I think is why it's considered second tier. Yellow is when we go back down and repair the first tier.


But you see Ats, that’s the point, the lower memes in the first Tier are not enough- energy wise to produce High consciousness. They as balanced as you speak of only lay a groundwork for development that takes place as a human interfaces with higher tiers.

 

Remember the Spiral is constantly moving, just as one achieves a degree of balance in the lower tier (by balancing the male/female polarity of the memes) they can just as well loose it, unless growth to the higher tiers takes place.


  
  14 Jul 2006, 3:03 AM
infimitas is not online. Last active: 12/1/2007 11:02:22 AM infimitas



Top 50 Posts
Joined on 01-13-2006
Nottingham, UK
Posts 158
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
Hello, ATS.  I'm afraid I couldn't follow your logic, but as you have clearly thought about this I'll try to keep up as best I can.  Personally I prefer to emphasise the connections of the memes to the techno-economic levels of society.  I believe that Green fails because it responds to plaurality in the information age by trying to honour and respect everything.  This noble effort brings countless benefits, but eventually, like all the memes, it starts to come into problems.  For example, we cannot respect Osama Bin Laden's right to follow his beliefs AND respect innocents' right to life.  We have to chose one -- sitting on the fence and ignoring the issue does not work.  And yet, postmodernism--a classic Green philosophy--tells us that no perspective has a privelledged right to truth, so we can't logically judge people.  Despite this, most people will side against Bin Laden.  Green can't see this contradiction though.  So when you say that Green is an open loop, perhaps that is overstating things a bit?  Maybe it would be more useful to describe it as a pseudo-open loop?

It seems to me that the only way out of this mess is to bring in heirarchy, and some notion of objectivity -- and that means Yellow.


Gavin -- Man is the measurer of all things
 
    
  18 Jul 2006, 3:36 PM
INManagingEditor is not online. Last active: 12/2/2007 11:15:22 PM INManagingEditor



Top 50 Posts
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 53
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
quick test to determine whether these are in fact sequential developmental stages, as opposed to maybe different 'types' of levels - can you get to "orange" without going through "blue" (amber) first?  Can you get to "green" without going through these other two first?  Same as: can you get to vision-logic without first going through concrete operational then formal operaional cognition?

Remember, the AQAL spectrum is used as general measure of growth across all developmental lines.  Just saying "green" and "orange" in the AQAL context doesn't mean much unless you specify which line(s) you are talking about.  Then the question of how to parse things up properly, where to place the watermarks, will often depend upon what research you are looking at.  Ken, for example, has occasionally mentioned that the SD values line could actually have a level between blue and orange--the point is, there could be three stages or ten, depending upon how closely you'd like to look at the data.

In terms of the relationship between orange and green in particular, i found sidebar c from Boomeritis pretty interesting.

Corey


-<(O)>/^\<(O)>-
Corey W. deVos (dj rekluse)
Brand Manager, Integral Naked
Audio Manager, Integral Institute
Managing Editor, KenWilber.com
  
  19 Jul 2006, 8:39 AM
infimitas is not online. Last active: 12/1/2007 11:02:22 AM infimitas



Top 50 Posts
Joined on 01-13-2006
Nottingham, UK
Posts 158
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
Thanks for that link, I found it really useful.

For the record, I mostly side with Ken on this issue.  And something just occured to me.  You know how critics often complain that Wilber-fans follow Ken blindly?  Well, reading that article, is it any wonder?  Kens article flows nicely; I found it so easy to read.  He made his arguments easy to understand, explained them thoroughly and generally wrote it well.  That was my experience at least.  (My only criticism is that Ken often exagerates by saying things like "all sophisticated developmentalists agree", which to me sometimes gives his otherwise-good arguments a dismissive and biased tone.)

Don and Jenny's replies though?  Ugh!  I had to shift down three gears and read them slowly not to get lost, and I still don't fully understand them now.  (I'll try again later when my brain has rebooted.)  Granted, they were probably writing summaries rather than easy-to-understand answers, but still, I think it's a shame, because their oppinions may be better than Ken's.  But if I can't understand them, Ken wins by default.

That sounded a bit like a rant, but it's hot as hell here and this house has no AC, so I'm not in the most patient of moods. Stick out tongue



Gavin -- Man is the measurer of all things
 
    
  25 Jul 2006, 5:15 AM
ats is not online. Last active: 11/23/2007 4:25:15 AM ats



Top 100 Posts
Joined on 01-13-2006
Honolulu
Posts 12
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
Thank you, Corey for that bar. Here are some quotes: 

    "I would add that, in fact, most of the second-tier people I know went through the pluralistic stage in an agentic fashion (they went through hot green), for the simple reason that if you go through the pluralistic stage in a more typically communal fashion--cool green--then in this day and age you almost always get caught in the herd mentality of politically correct thinking, the mean green meme, and the epidemic of boomeritis, and therefore you never make it to yellow, because cool green, accounting for probably 60% of green, dominates the cultural and academic scene.)

Bwahahahahaha! and yet, so sad...

     "So when I continue to refer to these four stages as blue, orange, green, and yellow, I mean in the more general sense of the values, the morals, and the self-senses correlated with the four basic structures or basic levels of concrete, formal, pluralistic, and integral waves of consciousness. 

Hmmm.... so Red and Blue are concrete, Orange is formal, and Green is pluralistic, and Yellow is integral...  Interesting.  My claim was that Green is just pluralistic formal, and is not a separate stage...  My reasoning was Red and Blue are pre-rational (concrete operational), Orange and Green are rational (formal operational), and Yellow is the onset of trans-rational, so I would be collapsing Green and Orange into one stage, although still sequenced Orange-Green (singular-plural, or agentic-communal).  Also, Ken's cool and hot versions of each is similar to my collapsing Green into a communal version of Orange...

If I were to expand my thinking to include "hot" and "cool" (agentic and communal) version of each color, then the Green I described would be "cool" Orange and "cool" Green.  And I suppose a Green could be a worldcentric view that encompassed all life, and not just humans, in hot and cool versions.  But they would still be formal operational, and thus in one stage, but have substages within the formal operational stage.  Only because that's how I'm categorizing stages.  You could also categorize stages as any kind of significant change, but I feel it would be irregular and would rather organize stages by one factor.  The tricky thing, though, is which factor?

I get the feeling that comcrete and formal are one thing, and pluralistic and integral are another thing, and they were frankensteined together somehow.  They feel like two different categories to me, not one.  Somehow...  Intuitively.  I haven't worked it out yet.

I'm still unresolved about the interior/exterior aspects of each stage.  What would a rational-singular look like with a healthy interior?  What would a rational-plural look like with a healthy interior?

(I know that by using pre-rational, rational & trans-rational instead of concrete, formal, plural, integral, I'm comparing apples with oranges... But how to integrate both and also include interior/exterior and cool and hot...  Now, is that a brain buster, or what!)  I have to take a break before continuing... like a two year break, or something. :P

 What this dialogue reminds me most of is a point I tried to emphasize in Integral Psychology , namely, that it is extremely important not to reify any of these stages, waves, memes, levels, lines, etc. They are just conceptual constructions. They are all snapshots of the Great River of Life, no more, no less, and are useful only if they serve us, and not vice versa....

I agree that these are just coceptual constructions and are useful only if they serve us.  That's why I'd like to see that "perfectly developing human" going through the "ideal, complete stages".  Otherwise, how will we culturally be able to see what we need to work on?  We don't really need a mirror.  We need a "complete, perfect" model to compare our cultural image with. (note: our cultural image will always be just partially expressing that "ideal, perfect" model.)

On a side note, I wish Ken would stop using SD colors all together!  He's not even using Spiral Dynamics like it was designed anyway (thus my confusion).  He should use AQAL terms and find his own tags for his stage categories.


  
  27 Jul 2006, 11:28 AM
infimitas is not online. Last active: 12/1/2007 11:02:22 AM infimitas



Top 50 Posts
Joined on 01-13-2006
Nottingham, UK
Posts 158
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
 ats wrote:
On a side note, I wish Ken would stop using SD colors all together!  He's not even using Spiral Dynamics like it was designed anyway (thus my confusion).  He should use AQAL terms and find his own tags for his stage categories.

Have you read the Integral Spirituality pdf file?  Ken introduces a new colour scheme based on the electromagnetic spectrum.  Unfortunately I don't have the link for it.  Anyone still know it?



Gavin -- Man is the measurer of all things
 
    
  27 Jul 2006, 11:34 AM
infimitas is not online. Last active: 12/1/2007 11:02:22 AM infimitas



Top 50 Posts
Joined on 01-13-2006
Nottingham, UK
Posts 158
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!

Attachment: spectrum.jpg
N/M, here's a screenshot of it...




Gavin -- Man is the measurer of all things
  
  26 Oct 2007, 2:44 PM
italiangold is not online. Last active: 11/30/2007 9:35:29 AM italiangold

Top 500 Posts
Joined on 10-18-2007
Posts 1
Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!
I read this thread with great interest and appreciate the various thoughts. I have nada to add but a plea for some information. My Wilber books are all packed and unavailable at the moment. I'm not even sure which one I'm referring to but hope someone can point me in the right direction. I remember a section in one book that gave very detailed qualities of the color levels and it was tremendously helpful to me as well as mighty humbling. I found myself all over the place. I was a veritable rainbow myself! One level in one line and then BAM down 2 or even 3 levels in another. (I plan to continue my Shadow Work) Anyway, I would love to find that section again or something close to it. Any one have a reference for me? Peace.......
 
    
 Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
Forums » Integral Naked » Theory Au Naturel » Re: Spiral Dynamics and AQAL are wrong!