Faux-Green





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:

https://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