InDeep

Still trying to figure out how to only quote a piece of something, haha, sorry, I'm coming back to address Serotoninluv's statement that "Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or". I think that at first tier every level is engaged in the binary thinking--and judgement--of "My way of thinking is the right way (obviously) and if everyone else would just see this, everything would be fine, great even!" (haha) And it's simply not true. Serotoninluv equates Blue with racism. Tribalism exists at every level of the Spiral, it's just that who is seen as being in the "tribe" is seen in different ways, e.g. in some pockets of Green it's "other progressives, like me". It's not a matter of color, but people-who-think-like-me, and as with any tribe, there is a sense that "my people" are morally superior, see things in the right way. That's the danger. It is in Blue meme religion that, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" arose.--healthy. And yes, there is sometimes fear/distrust of the "other" at this level--but that exists at every level in first tier. We've got to be very careful to not mix apples and oranges, not compare our (supposed) healthy/more "evolved" stance to unhealthy expressions of other levels (whether up or down the Spiral. But that is tricky to do (or not do) at first tier because each level in first tier insists it (only it) sees things clearly and therefore correctly. The jump to second tier has been described as a "great leap in consciousness" and it is, one that allows one to see how, again, all the levels of first tier are valid and have something to offer the human experiment and that it's about working to ensure that each level is helped to operate in healthy ways. Higher on the Spiral, again, does not mean "healthier" or "better". Someone can be at Blue center of gravity, or Orange, and be operating in much healthier (and more loving, compassionate) than another at Green center of gravity. (For more on this, read Ken Wilber on "Boomeritis". There is a heck of a lot of narcissism and egocentricity at Green (as there can be at every level)! Let me give another example for how second tier might relate to someone coming from another level, first tier, vs. how someone in first tier might respond. A Jehovah's witness comes to the door and asks (as they do), "Have you been saved?" Unhealthy Green may (as unhealthy, mean Green meme often does) reply with outrage: "Don't you dare try and shove your religion down my throat!" and perhaps adding, "This is cultural imperialism!" A second tier thinker understand that Blue is coming from love, that this Blue meme individual is experiencing the joy of being "saved" and wants to do whatever they can to help others to also feel the joy of "salvation". How might a second tier thinker respond? "Thank you, yes, I have been saved!" The Jehovah's witness might very well exclaim--joyfully--"Praise the Lord! May I pray with you?" The second tier thinker, having no need to defend against this might say yes and...close their eyes and allow the Jehovah's witness to pray with them--and take this as a blessing. Each can then part with a greater sense of love and UNITY. And isn't that what it's all about?

Not sure I agree with you that "Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or" in the way you seem to speak of it. But in any case, I'm wondering what you, at Green, may see as something valuable of Blue that Green has lost sight of and, having lost sight of, contributes to Green turning "mean" (the mean Green meme" which contributes to the ugly and toxic polarization that is happening in the country and society? Andrew Sullivan, a conservative second-tier thinker, addresses this in the article I posted the other day (though not in SD terms, not sure if he is aware of SD). It's a good exercise, to move up the Spiral (as it were) to try and argue the points of various memes--in a sympathetic way. Take the role of Blue or Orange or whatever and speak from its value system: what does it see that other levels have forgotten or have missed, the "blind spots"? It's important to remember that even if someone's center of gravity is at Blue or Orange (or whatever), this does not mean that they can't understand the values of other levels. That's all addressed quite extensively in Beck and Cowan's book. We all, as individuals and collectively, move up and down the Spiral as circumstances, and therefore needs, change. It's not a progressive (no pun intended) linear progression. The system is actually much more complex than how many understand it. Wondering what is so important about Mom needing to understand the "gradations of racism", by the way? Healthy Blue, say in healthy Christianity, can see the "binary" that you speak of as, "we either love each other--all--as children of God, or we don't". Whereas toxic Green often puts some people in categories of being deserving of compassion and understanding--while others are excluded from this, undeserving of this as current or historical "oppressors". People feel this and, naturally, resist this. They feel pain because of it.

Thought I'd post this link to a report on the "Hidden Tribes" in America for anyone who might be interested. A fascinating read, I think, and very much related to Spiral Dynamics. Here are a few excerpts: "Here's a quick snapshot of each group: "Progressive Activists (8 percent of the population) are deeply concerned with issues concerning equity, fairness, and America's direction today. They tend to be more secular, cosmopolitan, and highly engaged with social media. "Traditional Liberals (11 percent of the population) tend to be cautious, rational, and idealistic. They value tolerance and compromise. They place great faith in institutions. "Passive Liberals (15 percent of the population) tend to feel isolated from their communities. They are insecure in their beliefs and try to avoid political conversations. They have a fatalistic view of politics and feel that the circumstances of their lives are beyond their control. "The Politically Disengaged (26 percent of the population) are untrusting, suspicious about external threats, conspiratorially minded, and pessimistic about progress. They tend to be patriotic yet detached from politics. "Moderates (15 percent of the population) are engaged in their communities, well informed, and civic-minded. Their faith is often an important part of their lives. They shy away from extremism of any sort. "Traditional Conservatives (19 percent of the population) tend to be religious, patriotic, and highly moralistic. They believe deeply in personal responsibility and self-reliance. "Devoted Conservatives (6 percent of the population) are deeply engaged with politics and hold strident, uncompromising views. They feel that America is embattled, and they perceive themselves as the last defenders of traditional values that are under threat." "Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives together comprise just 14 percent of the American population—yet it often feels as if our national conversation has become a shouting match between these two groups at the furthest ends of the spectrum. Together with Traditional Conservatives (who share values and tribalism like the Devoted Conservatives, just less intensely), they compose the 33 percent of people in the groups we label the Wings. "Combined, the members of these three tribes comprise just one-third of the population, but they often dominate our national conversation. Tribalism runs deep in their thinking. Their distrust and fear of the opposing side drives many of the people in these groups, and they have especially negative opinions of each other. When people today speak about how Americans seem to hate each other, they're usually talking about the opinions and behaviors of the Wings. (emphasis mine) "The Wings are also the most unified internally. On many of the most contentious issues—race, immigration, guns, LGBTQI+ rights—the people in these three tribes express high levels of unanimity. Often more than 90 percent of people in one of these groups holds the same view about a controversial issue, and typically, it will be the reverse of whatever the opposing wing believes. In contrast, the remaining two-thirds of Americans at the center show more diversity in their political views, express less certainty about them, and are more open to compromise and change—even on issues that we all tend to consider highly polarizing. "Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives together comprise just 14 percent of the American population—yet it often feels as if our national conversation has become a shouting match between these two groups at the furthest ends of the spectrum. Together with Traditional Conservatives (who share values and tribalism like the Devoted Conservatives, just less intensely), they compose the 33 percent of people in the groups we label the Wings. "Combined, the members of these three tribes comprise just one-third of the population, but they often dominate our national conversation. Tribalism runs deep in their thinking. Their distrust and fear of the opposing side drives many of the people in these groups, and they have especially negative opinions of each other. When people today speak about how Americans seem to hate each other, they're usually talking about the opinions and behaviors of the Wings. "The Wings are also the most unified internally. On many of the most contentious issues—race, immigration, guns, LGBTQI+ rights—the people in these three tribes express high levels of unanimity. Often more than 90 percent of people in one of these groups holds the same view about a controversial issue, and typically, it will be the reverse of whatever the opposing wing believes. In contrast, the remaining two-thirds of Americans at the center show more diversity in their political views, express less certainty about them, and are more open to compromise and change—even on issues that we all tend to consider highly polarizing. "Why do the Wings dominate the conversation? A key reason is that polarization has become a business model. Media executives have realized that they can drive clicks, likes, and views, and make money for themselves and their shareholders, by providing people with the most strident opinions. This means that the most extreme voices―no matter how outlandish―often get the most airtime. In addition, people with the most extreme views are often the most certain of their positions. They are willing to argue with anyone and avoid moderating their opinions or conceding points to the other side. All this can make entertaining television and viral social media content. But it is distorting how we see each other, fracturing our society, and adding to distortions in our political system that give undue weight to the most extreme views." Of course there are others who also stand to benefit from this continuing polarization... Here's the link which includes a link to a pdf of the entire research study: https://hiddentribes.us/

The way I see it, however, is that these values don't build on each other. They are whole and complete at every level and transcended and included as one moves up the Spiral. A nation, for example, is not "superior" to a family or a clan and so does not need to "teach" the family or clan anything; a nation may actually learn, from these less complex (when healthy) systems, about what works and what doesn't work where human relationship dynamics among people are concerned. (Another example of holons that might be helpful by the way is thinking of atoms coming together into molecules and molecules coming together to form cells. Each level transcends and includes the lower, less complex, level. A molecule doesn't need to think of itself as superior and having to "teach" the atom from its "superior" position. And it's very important for the atoms and molecules to be healthy for a cell to be functioning in a healthy fashion.) Part of the problem (imo) that we are getting into in our society, for example, is that Green is trying to "teach" Blue (the "racists", "sexists", "homophobes", the so-called "deplorables") from a stance of thinking itself more enlightened and looking down at Blue, while Green actually has no comprehension of what Blue is actually speaking to; Green is completely blind to it. And of course people at Blue get offended and lose patience with what is actually quite an arrogant perspective (actually a projection). It would behoove Green to actually listen and try and learn from Blue, hear a truth that Blue retains and has privy to that Green sometimes (especially the mean Green meme) loses sight of. It would be great for Blue to listen and try to hear the truth that Green has privy to, but since one cannot see "up" the Spiral it would be helpful for Green to state its truth in Blue language (I gave an example or two earlier of how this might be done). An article to read: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/andrew-sullivan-the-limits-of-my-conservatism.html (By the way, I have tended in recent years towards voting with the Democrats.)

>>someone could definitely gain insights into Truth and yet use it all for hate instead of love. Yup! :-) Ken Wilber (I think it was Ken Wilber, perhaps it was Don Beck) has stated that there is nothing to prevent a second-tier sociopath utilizing second-tier insights towards his or her own ends! (A scary thought.) Going back to the conversation Serotoninluv and I have been having, people from different levels on the Spiral can have similar behaviors and even views. What distinguishes them is the underlying value system. For example, a Blue meme Christian (a true Christian, not a sociopath calling oneself a Christian as a means to his or her own ends) can abhor racism and violence towards anyone regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. because coming from the Blue meme Christian's value system everyone is a child of God and therefore deserving of love and compassion. This Blue meme Christian, following the teachings of Christ would not judge anyone as that is God's business not there's (Judge not lest ye be judged.) There is not need to qualify this across the board compassion. Green meme fights against racism and all the isms from a value system that emphasizes its idea of "fairness" and "equality". Blue meme Christians--and they are out there--are often "green" as far as the environment is concerned, taking stewardship of the earth seriously as a demand of God to protect the earth God created. Behaviors can look the same. To guess at the level on the Spiral, look to see where someone is coming from as far as the value memes go. And please, let's stop equating Blue with "bad" and Green with "good"--and vice versa--as well as "liberal" with "bad" and "conservative with "God-fearing/good". There's good/love and evil, potentially, on all levels of the Spiral.

I'm not talking about I'm not talking about "trying to integrate within Tier1" nor attempting to "stretch Blue beyond its developmental stage". I am talking about speaking to the value memes within each level in the language of the level--and each level does have something of value that they see that other levels lose sight of and has something of value to say. In your grade school analogy, it would be like eighth graders forgetting foundational mathematics as they have moved up the grades. Something else that often gets conflated when people are discussing Spiral Dynamics is that Green must necessarily mean Left while Blue is necessarily Right. Even the terms Left and Right are misunderstood. From Ken Wilber: "In the last chapter of Up from Eden ("Republicans, Democrats, and Mystics"), I [Ken Wilber] made the observation that, when it comes to the cause of human suffering, liberals tend to believe in objective causation, whereas conservatives tend to believe in subjective causation. That is, if an individual is suffering, the typical liberal tends to blame objective social institutions (if you are poor it is because you are oppressed by society), whereas the typical conservative tends to blame subjective factors (if you are poor it is because you are lazy). Thus, the liberal recommends objective social interventions: redistribute the wealth, change social institutions so that they produce fairer outcomes, evenly slice the economic pie, aim for equality among all. The typical conservative recommends that we instill family values, demand that individuals assume more responsibility for themselves, tighten up slack moral standards (often by embracing traditional religious values), encourage a work ethic, reward achievement, and so on." Second Tier thinking: "The important point is that the first step toward a Third Way that integrates the best of liberal and conservative is to recognize that both the interior quadrants and the exterior quadrants are equally real and equally important. We consequently must address both interior factors (values, meaning, morals, the development of consciousness) and exterior factors (economic conditions, material wellbeing, technological advance, social safety net, environment)—in short, a true Third Way would emphasize both interior development and exterior development. "Let us therefore focus for a moment on the area of consciousness development. This is, after all, the hardest part for liberals to swallow, because the discussion of "stages" or "levels" of anything (including consciousness) is deeply antagonistic to most liberals, who believe that all such "judgments" are racist, sexist, marginalizing, and so on. The typical liberal, recall, does not believe in interior causation, or even in interiors, for that matter. The typical liberal epistemology (e.g., John Locke) imagines that the mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate, that is filled with pictures of the external world. If something is wrong with the interior (if you are suffering), it is because something is first wrong with the exterior (the social institutions)—because your interior comes from the exterior. "But what if the interior has its own stages of growth and development, and is not simply piped in the from the external world? If a true Third Way depends upon including both interior development and exterior development, then it would behoove us to look carefully at these interior stages of consciousness unfolding. And here some surprises await the typical liberal." This is from http://www.integralworld.net/wilpert0.html in case anyone would like to read more of Wilber's thoughts on this. You know one of the best ways to spot a second-tier thinker? Both Blue and Orange get upset with them (think back to President Obama and the guff he got from both the Left and the Right, from Blue and from Green). Orange just keeps truckin', working on its own success. :-D Of course Orange uses the means at its disposal--money--to get what it is seeking out of politics and policy. (Unhealthy Orange is called the "Only money matters" meme.)

Serotoninluv wrote (for some reason, this didn't all get in the quote I was going for): "Consider the collective conscious level/values of red, blue, orange and green. Which has the most expansive level of collective conscious? What is an example of "community" to a conservative and an example of "community" to a liberal? Which is more expansive? An average liberal has a more expansive sense and embodiment of community at the collective conscious level than a conservative. "Similarly, consider modes of thinking. Being in green, liberals can operate in logical and a basic level of relative. Being in Blue and Orange, conservatives are contracted within binary and logical thinking - they lack understanding and embodiment of relativistic thinking - such as cultural relativism. Liberals are much better able to see other POV's and empathize with others because of this expanded consciousness." This is a perfect example of how each level believes that what it sees is the entirety of the picture, they see rightly (actually it's more "self-righteously") and yet each has its blind spots. In Serotoninluv's above response, Green believes that it "has a more expansive sense and embodiment of community at the collective conscious level than a conservative" and yet, conservatives are not included in the community. In fact, anyone who does not think like Green is excluded. So much for diversity which for unhealthy Green stops at diversity of thought. Healthy Blue actually is able to include many that Green projects Blue will not include in Blue's sense of community (e.g. people of whatever color or sexual orientation)--if these folks express appreciation for Blue's concern with cultural cohesiveness: "We're all Americans, no matter what color, creed, political affiliation, sexual orientation (etc.) I'm proud to be American!" Look at Pew research studies to see how there actually is a lot of consensus among Americans where all kinds of things are concerned, including a valuing of racial equality, marriage equality, gun control, etc. It all depends on how one defines "inclusiveness". There are Blue meme black Americans, Latinix Americans, LBGTQ Americans, etc. And Green meme Americans who love their country (the good ole USA!) There are many second tier Americans (and people all over the world) who are concerned with unhealthy expressions of Red, Blue, Orange, and Green. I recommend to everyone interested in Spiral Dynamics to read "Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change" by Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan.

Had to join just to jump in on this conversation in hopes of helping with some of the confusion. Synchronicity stated: "I don’t really like that liberals are ranked a whole stage higher than conservatives. In my opinion, conservatives have just as many good points as liberals. Similarly, just like conservatives, liberals have a lot of negative traits" and later, "However, there’s stuff that Conservatives are more adept at. Most conservatives, at least the ones I’ve seen) are generally more well-mannered. That is, they present their points in a more calm and logical tone." Higher on the Spiral in no way means "better", and people can be well-mannered and kind (or complete jerks) on any level on the Spiral. To quote from Beck and Cowan's book "Spiral Dynamics" on the topic of the various levels/memes on the Spiral: "These are not inherently 'better-than' or 'worse than' states, but they do reflect different perspectives on what the world is like and the complexity one finds in it". But, there are potentials for healthy and unhealthy expressions of the value memes at each level on the Spiral. In first tier, each level is in conflict with other levels on the Spiral (e.g. in this discussion, Blue and Green). At second tier, there is an intuitive understanding that kicks in that it isn't about either-or, but about having all first tier memes present and operating in healthy ways, e.g. healthy Blue, healthy Orange, healthy Green. Throw healthy Blue out the window and it's easy for Orange and Green to turn toxic. An analogy may be helpful to understand what is meant by complexity in Spiral Dynamics. The Spiral is holonic, meaning that each level encompasses and transcends the levels below it, but a more encompassing level does not negate the value and necessity of the lower levels. They are all relevant and the entire system works better when each of the levels is respected and helped to work better. Think of human history. Once upon a time, humans lived in small families. Families then came together to form clans, then clans came together to form tribes. Tribes eventually came together to form nations and nations then organized under civilizational umbrellas (e.g. Christian, Islamic, Sino, etc.) At Orange, these civilizational groupings are encompassed and transcended under the umbrella of science and technology. Anyone from any of these world civilizational groups can go to UCLA to study biochemistry while also continuing to hold affiliations with their national and cultural identities, their clan (extended family) and nuclear family affiliations. What, I believe, Synchronicity is speaking to is a desire to buttress healthy Blue in the system. And sorry, Leo Gura, your statement, "A conservative's cognitive and moral development are objectively lower and less truthful" comes from what is called a "mean Green meme" stance which is totally off-base and is part of the problem that is currently having the USA locked in this polarization.