Faux-Green @F-L-O-W


the book @F-L-O-W No Thanks Member Login


Faux-Green @F-L-O-W


A deeper look into Spiral Dyanmics and ValuDynamics Systems


The following is part of the continuing discussion in Mike R. Jay’s Inner Circle (you may want to consider joining this group – learn more HERE).

*****************************

How FS-Green and Faux-Green are a bad fit for most…

The final lines of your post I find intriguing (highlighting the passages in CAPITAL LETTERS)

“JUST ONE CHANGE — paternalism — mandated, but instead, WE ARE SPENDING LARGE AMOUNTS OF RESOURCES ON THE OUTCOMES, NOT THE CAUSE… it’s the same in Egypt in my opinion related to telling people what they must do to re-orient themselves to the new conditions — the exhaustion of natural resources.

Egypt is a canary for limit’s to growth, and what happens when the carrying capacity is exceeded WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT IT DOES TO "CONDITIONS." It’s really THAT SIMPLE, IMHO.

Yet, we are SPENDING BILLIONS ON THE WRONG THINGS, THE EFFECTS, RATHER THAN THE CAUSES in both aforementioned cases.”

[Note: refer to the following link for the complete conversation where the above quote came from: http://livingatflow.com/paternalism/]

I find them intriguing because at present I work in the aid business framed by the UN (United Nations) understanding of development and the concepts, methods and approaches nested herein. It’s a green system: Everybody has equal rights, all decisions are made democratically – consensual if possible etc.

What I found is that the work is very much defined by what the world SHOULD be. All the principles and legal frame works are norms, i.e. goal states. Impacts, effects, outcomes are defined in function to these goal states or IDEALITY. It’s a meme that emerged from a time of economic growth and prosperity and the resolve never again to have a calamity such as the WWII experience (the UN was founded immediately after the war). Prosperity for all became the new normal (the dream of the Kennedy Generation). The NORMS (ideality) became the creators of reality.

I can’t put my finger on what you mean by “faux-green”. But to me there is this notion of taking the development into more prosperity for all for granted – regardless of the resources available (limits to growth). This leads to a confusion of cause and effect.
We cannot produce or will emergence. This comes out of reality.

Indeed we are spending billions on trying to will/produce an ideality, instead of looking and accepting at the reality and what is creating the emergent problems.

Faux-green would be the notion of irreversible development disregarding reality?

Mark
**************************

Mark asked:

"Faux-green would be the notion of irreversible development disregarding reality?"

Faux = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faux

This was a tongue in cheek term I started using after I threw Integral Psychology into my swimming pool in 1999… around page 74 I think I remember…. hehe

It’s a pretty complex set of meme’s which are largely horizontally sophisticated versions of BLUE/green.

What happens is that Graves identified to "streams" as express self/sacrifice of self: hot and cold, warm and cool, whatever your constitution tolerates, agentic/communal.

In the early days of trying to make sense out of the spiral, I realized that if you were inborn with express self, you would not acquire, accumulate, and assimilate (AAA) memetic behavior which did not reward you intrinsically… only as defense against immune attacks (being politically correct where not being could get you fired, as an example)… and therefore if you are a hot person, you don’t spend much time "cooling" off (unless you can later determine that periods of AAA in the cool areas, can get you hotter benefits, fyi).

Back to faux…

I THEN realized that to play this spiral game of adult development…

(NOT social development, as spiral has it pegged in terms of social spiral because socially, intrinsic inbornness doesn’t govern the social operating system per se (once you get out of empire, dictator… where the perpetrator governs the social operating system as well, etc.).

…didn’t represent experience… and taking a lesson from the Dalai Lama… experience matters! (at least to me, hehe)

What I found was that people who are express self, or sacrifice of self, build density and frequency in express self and sacrifice of self… and with the absence of enough capability, their biases ruled and kept them anchored in those tendencies brought about by inbornness.

[Side note: Movements are important. Originally NLP discussed "towards" and "away from" which didn’t explain enough. I added "with and against" for more dimensionality and possibility in explanation as to why we did what we did… believed what we believed, or experienced what we experience.]

Now, to make this even more complex, when people lack hierarchically complex capability, they do not always grok the hierarchy. Yet, it’s USABLE to them because of mimicking behavior (mirror neurons, etc. as a complex contributing to the neurobiology–something which Graves couldn’t have known yet, although most likely made a good stab at).

You take a complex thing and share it with someone, such as complex language. You have all done this and seen this. You have done it yourself. Something you didn’t know, but heard… or read… and you use it without knowing what it means, such as "faux" as an example. You THINK you know what it means. You FEEL it, but you really can’t elaborate much, which is why Theo Dawson’s system of identifying capability is so important; because she built into the system — elaboration of the concepts — rather than mimicry, as in modern day living, working, and playing — the technical term for this — perhaps the politically correct term is "vicarious learning" or as I like to say –> monkey see, monkey do.

When this happens (and it must), it’s how we learn fast and adapt. We make hybrids — like faux green — to describe things that we might not actually know (in some cases we can intuit –> feel –> grok–>grasp) and start using.

You hear this with precocious children, who pick up mommy and daddy’s words and use them at "interesting" times, hehe.

I still remember the first time one of my kids said F*** and I resolved myself to not use the term so much, as part of USMC language, you learn to use the F word as an adjective!

The child mimics, and so do we.

Now back to faux…

Without vertical complexity, we grab vertical terms without knowing exactly what they mean or how to use them, much like a parrot, consuming as much as we can around the interesting topic, as a conversational piece — often — to talk smart… which is where I coined the phrase: "smart talking dumb people"… to describe early manifestations of faux…

We find faux-green, but also faux-orange as well, in the salesman who mixes metaphors and uses clich├ęs, but succeeds from the sheer force and power of the sell… you recognize those often… (Directness of express self).

Faux-green is much more difficult to recognize because of the indirectness of sacrifice of self, which allows for you to fill in blanks during the dialogue (and of course we do, in the absence of…).

Yet, what I began to understand about the integral movement is that it was populated by the guru-led people who loved the notions of "comprehensive" (read integral definition).

Comprehensive is clearly a term out of the blue basin…

Basins you might think?

Well, I spent more than a decade reconstructing my own thinking using a combinatorial approach, so as not to throw out the Spiral/Graves baby with the colored bath water…

Part of what Mark is confused over are all the cul-de-sacs created by integral theories which have to rely on modern — not postmodern — and conventional thinking to attract well-wishers, as there are so few people who have the capability to sort through all the noise for the signal… so the signal is served up on a conventional/modern platter in order to be consumed.

Clearly the beginning of faux-green…

What I discovered was that all the underlying assumptions in integral were a fancy and sophisticated version stemming largely out of the blue basin of values, hybridizing (as we all must — no one escapes!) the green basin.

The green basin — according to spiral dynamics — is a very sophisticated basin of values where you need the density and frequency of matured basins scaffolding the development (especially a very dense, heavy, strong scaffold of blue), which is clearly present in the west, and why the thinking has become so sophisticated in Europe, but not always vertically complex. You can read the extremely sophisticated complexity (horizontal and oblique) which shows adherence to the underlying operating system of BS (Blank Slate)… which is why I spent SO MUCH TIME AND EFFORT to rewrite the basic assumptions @F-L-O-W, rather than just offering another sophisticated formula @BS.

The green basin, if you look at most developmental theories who try to map these in 2D (for the record, I stopped mapping in 2D and went to 4D a decade ago in order to escape the limits of the spiral and integral (some claim its a 4D system, but me thinks not; its underlying assumptions at least as offered through Wilberization are clearly BS and 2D — everybody can rise 4 vertical levels through meditation… when in fact, meditation is a horizontal system, not vertical one, IMHO)… and the refutable fact that almost no one above the age of 25 rises in vertical complexity 4 adult developmental levels — even though I’m sure they modified their stance on that, but it’s still an "altitude-driven" system, fyi).

So, absent of the capability…

(Review the criteria in capability in my summary of my own journey here: http://flow.ph/2013/capability/index.html)

You lack the multi-faceted complexity to write your own code so to speak, so you hybridize what is there, carefully augmenting your own position in the network, as you develop density and frequency through learning, growth, and development; usually through trial and error experience…

…which then does NOT allow the full leap into the complexity at green. Remember green developed AFTER orange, so if you haven’t made peace with orange, you know you will have RED in your shadow! (hehe)… which then creates faux conditions for green. Hence the faux green connotation I started using to try and explain people who are "capable" at the blue level In society, have developed density and frequency in blue basin individually… and want to "sophisticate" (sacrifice of self loves to be accepted and approved of) into the more complex green basin, which is prominent at all of our elite schools.

Remember, Graves indicated and I don’t have his exact words, but he was referring to the 60s where kids were being raised in the green basin (my term). But in my view, their values of acceptance, family, status (low), vengeance (low), romance, acceptance — all of which are prevalent in the green basin (and are stable and strong there!) were hybridized as being more complex (getting caught up in the social spiral, vs. the individual network of value basins).

You can see this "shit" is complex, because if you understood what I just said, you realize the discombobulation that I’m suggesting, throws a lot of these theories to the rocks…

Reiss happened in 2000, and that was the defining moment for him as well as my own bifurcation out of integral/spiral faux soup…

Mark’s questions are to those ends, to try to explain what to keep, and what not to keep in the theories while you create your "own theory of mind" for yourself @F-L-O-W, and that was the key as I saw it….

EVEN though, it’s extremely fractionalized, a theory of self @F-L-O-W is extremely important to ward off the memetic attacks @BS… and this theory of self needs the tools I’ve tried to Synthesize @F-L-O-W in order to "harden" the theory of self against immune deficiencies, which allow the memetic viruses being constructed daily @BS to wither and die, in most cases, without a host; and to strip and hybridize them for your own success and happiness @F-L-O-W.

In order to do that, I’ve created the assumptions in the ValuDYNAMICS Manifesto @F-L-O-W as context to shift the basic assumptions without tossing out the SDi baby, because there is extremely important and pivotal work there, that one has to grok, but taking care that the virus itself doesn’t become the organism.

Don Beck and I have had a running "dialogue" for the past 12 years anyway regarding the bits and pieces of these theories and it’s not easy to play in this space because what is at risk is a whole lot of reputation and problems associated with morphing fundamental assumptions based on primary research.

That is why I have tried to reinterpret some of the research second-hand, which places me at a disadvantage. However, I now have a long enough longitudinal experience in my own primary research which more than likely will never be published to understand how Graves can be preserved with an enlightened (my arrogance) reinterpretation of his data using my own data in adult development, which he didn’t have access too from all the scholars that have come after him, including Don Beck’s largely undiscovered Assimilation-Contrast Model, which I continue to ask him to develop and fundamentalize before he stops wanting to, hehe.

In large part, BS says we can.

In summary @F-L-O-W, we might be able, but not willing to do it enough to get the density and frequency to do it enough to shift our inborn vectors out of the constitutional bias which emerges… which means the game is for the very few, in constitution — who can play it, and we’re seeing that play out RIGHT NOW before our eyes in the 1%ers who are mastering the game.

This does not make a great society IMHO…

UNTIL we unmask the fundamental assumptions surrounding the genetically-guided nature and nurture of our existential life — the irrational predictability — constituting our behavior; and re-engineer society out of the ideal and into the real… we will continue to Darwinize our society in ways that will make our stomach’s curl, and at levels you can’t possibly understand, or even imagine in the future.

THE IRONY ("the horror-the horror" slurred by our friendly colonel in apocalypse now)… is that for all the to-do about it, the underlying force today at green is Darwin… go figure…

…we are NOT equal, and pretending we are, only accelerates the Darwin-effect of survival of the fittest…

Anyway Mark, thanks for the question. I’m sure you got more than you might have bargained for, but it’s free in any case… because experience tells me, I sure can’t sell it in any quantity, hehe

Mike

****************************** 

Be sure to join us for a lively discussion on ValuDynamics – Paternalism – Faux-Green – Spiral Dynamics

Sign up for the details below:

Join the ValuDynamics Call

Complete the form below for call-in details and to receive the audio replay.

     *


     

    © Generati

    More Info @F-L-O-W

    Disclaimer |  Terms Of Service |  Earnings Disclaimer |  Privacy Notice |  Contact Support |  Buy the Book