ValuDynamics





ValuDynamics @F-L-O-W


the book @F-L-O-W



        
ValuDynamics @F-L-O-W

 

The story behind the story

Mike


http://m.democracyjournal.org/689527/show/f1d46488c919000e9ce727b8159df8f4/
?

Thanks to Brian for passing on the link.  Nice piece, and I
haven’t read the book.  I don’t agree with all Summers
suggestions.  I have an email to myself to remind me to unwind
my view on where inequality emerges and how in large part it
is "valued" @BS [Blank Slate]… making inroads impassable
through policy and more than likely will less to ELYSIUM
effects.

The question is not what anymore… but where, when
and how….

If one were to research all great paradigm shifts before,
during, and after; I suspect social upheaval was involved in
some way… a civil war, a world war, a Great Depression, a
revolution….

We are moving into a paradigm shift of great magnitude, one in
which it does no good to prepare for…

—–

Mark

The interesting thing about Piketty’s book is that it
obviously touched a nerve in the American public and academia.
Here in continental Europe it’s this eager discussion taking
place in the Anglo-American world that is being taken up by
the media but not so much Piketty’s book itself. The French
version published last September didn’t receive an
extraordinary echo. A German translation is not expected
before the end of the year.
 
Piketty, from what I have gathered from the review (I haven’t
read it myself), remains within the logic of economy as a
monetary construct and thus in a traditional paradigm. Thus he
can be comfortably discussed within the established Left-Right
policy spectrum. He remains within the prevailing social meme
(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/brooks-the-piketty-phenomenon.html?_r=1).

Is unequal distribution of wealth OK?  The basic market idea
is the central dogma of the societal order esp. in the US that
unquestionably goes hand in hand with democracy: all wealth is
the result of “hard work” and “high productivity” (whatever
that means) which is the legitimizing foundation of your
existential being (In his other post Mike reflects on peoples’
value and fitness and the fact that in our world they are
defined by criteria of monetary success).  Piketty questions
this self-understanding but not the monetary system of economy
itself. 
 
Interestingly, though considered groundbreaking, he doesn’t
take up two other pressing economic topics (largely side
stepped by mainstream media): The limits to growth phenomena
(growing populations, harder to come-by resources and
compounding consumption) for one and the issue of money
creation and the accumulation of debt (what does “hard work”
and “productivity” mean in this context?).
 
The British analyst Dr. Tim Morgan (Tullet Prebon research)
recently published an unorthodox study entitled the “Perfect
storm – the energy, finance and the end of growth” http://www.tullettprebon.com/strategyinsights/
It’s far hotter than Pikett’s thesis but goes largely ignored.
 
(Tim Morgan’s understanding of economy on one page: http://www.surplusenergyeconomics.com/)
 
It holds some of the background from which the “paradigm shift
of great magnitude” could occur.
 
—–
 
Mike

I liked reading this, it flowed well for me, so take another
step and reduce your piece (request please) to it’s billet
points as you covered a lot of ground — which I liked — and
your point was indirectly made, so can you boil it down?

What should our discussion be about?

I want to stay and play here awhile because I have stuff
brewing as I knock my head against the wall here in The
Philippines.

—–

Mark

Key point - culture is keyCulture
is key: Culture defines the codes and values (what is
important and urgent) whereby you make meaning of phenomena of
life (content).  Culture is an emergent property that gets
nurtured by the ruling class in a society to serve a
particular order.  It allows you to see certain things and to
hide others.
He who works hard and thus is productive can accumulate wealth
and can call it his property, which enjoys societies’
protection.  Everybody can work hard if they are willing. 
Thus comprehensive wealth is produced.  This is a core
assumption of the “capitalist” system as it is understood in
American Economy. Piketty questions this theory (understanding
of the reality) by producing other facts.

Perception of realityThe
issue at key is the open questioning of the theory – of the
generally accepted perception of reality (truth).

Piketty discussionIn
the case of Piketty you get a heated discussion, as not the
foundations of the theory are questioned but certain of its
aspects (taxing more or less).

Money and dept creationIn
the case of the money and debt creation and the case of
redefining economy as an energy based system, the very beliefs
underpinning a theory are questioned. Here the topic is
ignored. It is just pushed outside the radar.

Context within a Culture defines what is WORKThe
Context within a Culture defines what is WORK: As I am writing
this e-mail here, I wonder what I call this activity. Is it
work? Am I being productive? I know I don’t get any money for
this and it will not figure in any statistical record that
adds up to some GDP. From this logic I am wasting my time, I
am unproductive. The same goes for my wife that has just
cooked an excellent meal. What about the girls in Camotes who
give birth to babies and then spend time nurturing and feeding
them. Are they not working? But then you drive through the
cities and see all these people sitting in glass offices in
front of screens WORKING HARD!

MARKET decides the valueWhat
is a valid contribution to life and society? The orthodox
answer is, that MARKET decides the value. And who defines the
rules of the market? The prevailing culture based on certain
beliefs and assumptions. As long as things are in an
equilibrium, it works. When the fundamentals shift or collapse
the order on top shift or crumble. When Fairness is questioned
and the system disregards the foundations then things can
start seriously rocking.

Improving life and societyThe
question I have these day is where can I substantially
contribute to improving life and society? Do real work – not
in the sense of just doing a job or following a market
(without being catapulted out of the economic circuit)?

If the wall hasn’t crumbled yet, go dip your head into the
ocean.

——

Mike

Nice piece

The question I have these day is where can I substantially
contribute to improving life and society? Do real work – not
in the sense of just doing a job or following a market
(without being catapulted out of the economic circuit)?

My answer:

Live @F-L-O-W

—–

Mike

Mark said:

"What is a valid contribution to life and society? The
orthodox answer is, that MARKET decides the value. And who
defines the rules of the market? The prevailing culture based
on certain beliefs and assumptions. As long things are in an
equilibrium, it works."

This reminds me of "overshoot" conditions…

If you look at limits to growth models (or any Systems
Dynamics Models), you experience what is a condition called
"overshoot" and collapse…

We are in overshoot conditions right now, and that is putting
pressure on the social scaffold.  But there is a particular
series of convergent events that makes this dangerous and I’m
seeing this now in the Philippines.

Background:

Graves said that children raised at "FS" (green) would develop
their worldviews in accordance with FS…(he also stated that
it would be a short-lived system)

The reason that FS is a "short" duration system is because at
the roots it is equality-driven.

What does this mean for MOST people (95-99%)… is that
equality and fairness mean "same"…

It’s VERY hard to convince them that differences call for same
to be "according to each his own same" not same as everyone…
this nuance is what ruined Marx’s theory and execution I
think… or I suggest.

The reason is the underlying EGO system that develops in
accordance with low ego complexity (capability of a sort) and
FS values.

FS broke onto the scene in the 60s… having roots probably as
far back as the Magna Carta (which I visited the city it was
signed in maybe 1245 mark?).

The concept of equality "varies" in its meaning over levels of
ego complexity and therefore if you use a system primarily
based on the density and frequency of equality in levels where
the ego complexity denotes sameness as a literal connotation,
you end up with a very serious overshoot, and a corresponding
collapse situation (class war is already going).

The tool of the poor is the "vote" (supposedly).  But when the
vote only reinforces the current system in the positive loop,
overshoot is guaranteed, which means… COLLAPSE is
guaranteed!

Since the vote won’t work because of corruption (in many legal
forms) of equality, and the low ego complexity forming equal =
same… you have a convergence of values occurring that will
create additional overshoot soon, and trigger collapse, where
revolution and a paradigm shift of great magnitude will occur,
and which we can’t predict how quickly the collapse will drive
the system.

Arab Spring is a small indicator (which is driven largely by
lack of food, clean water, and basics)… since most of that
still exists in the developed and developing world, excluding
small pockets here and there, we are in overshoot, and have
not reached collapse conditions yet…

However, I don’t see a slowdown, but an acceleration of
overshoot (this is where understanding Pikkety’s research is
important as the rate at which the overshoot is occurring is
accelerating!).

This acceleration in the rate, is different than the
acceleration of the conditions themselves, and this increase
of an increase is where a positive loop becomes hard to stop.

That is why I say there is nothing much we can do except to
let this system creatively destruct (Schumpeter) and pick up
the pieces.

This could be, and probably will be ugly for most… again for
most of those who are actually benefiting from this condition,
there are buffers (mobility) which I expect to see accelerate
soon… moving to where the problem isn’t and "happiness
indexes" can plot this perhaps…

I suspect there is quite a bit of time, but if you look at
another convergence, technology — it’s a double-edged sword
— providing an increase in the rate of the increase to wealth
for those who deploy/employ and a "raised tide" for those who
benefit from the adoption, BUT…

Technology will start to create wide-spread replacement of
jobs soon, everything from blue-collar to white-collar and 50%
of the jobs we have today, possibly more will be wiped out by
technology — wherever possible.

I reported to you more than 10 years ago, that within 5 years
50% of fees paid to workers would be benefits… its not here,
and if a business can replace 50% right off the top of future
obligations, instead using that money to deploy competitive
advantage, they will do it, mark my words.

You ain’t seen nuttin’ yet (is my reference to the converging
influence of technology)…

We are not prepared for the fallout of a billion workers who
will be replaced by millions of robots, drones, and AI…

Timing is the only difficult thing as we will start to see
delays in the increase brought about by everything from new
laws, to regulation, to prohibition, to whatever people can
vote up…

However, the overshoot, I explained before, will increase in
nature and collapse will become inevitable because there are
NO PLANS anywhere I can see to offset the convergence of these
factors into increasing the increase…

While it might seem fatalistic (most things are at some
level)… happiness will become an important part of
everything we do, because the nature of accelerating
complexity, can only be told by Alice…

I’m peddling faster now, but I’m just keeping up…

—–

Mark

My comments in the text–

Mark said:

"What is a valid contribution to life and society? The
orthodox answer is, that MARKET decides the value. And who
defines the rules of the market? The prevailing culture based
on certain beliefs and assumptions. As long things are in an
equilibrium, it works."

This reminds me of "overshoot" conditions…

If you look at limits to growth models (or any Systems
Dynamics Models), you experience what is a condition called
"overshoot" and collapse…

We are in overshoot conditions right now, and that is putting
pressure on the social scaffold.  But there is a particular
series of convergent events that makes this dangerous and I’m
seeing this now in the Philippines.

Background:

Graves said that children raised at "FS" (green) would develop
their worldviews in accordance with FS…(he also stated that
it would be a short-lived system)

The reason that FS is a "short" duration system is because at
the roots it is equality-driven.

What does this mean for MOST people (95-99%)… is that
equality and fairness mean "same"…

It’s VERY hard to convince them that differences call for same
to be "according to each his own same" not same as everyone…
this nuance is what ruined Marx’s theory and execution I
think… or I suggest.

The reason is the underlying EGO system that develops in
accordance with low ego complexity (capability of a sort) and
FS values.

FS broke onto the scene in the 60s… having roots probably as
far back as the Magna Carta (which I visited the city it was
signed in maybe 1245 mark?).

I dare venture another view, Mike. 
I am a boomer born in 1953 and I grew up into a world that was
economically booming and a world governed by people who had
just lived through a great war.  The victorious powers,
notably the US, created the western postwar world on the idea
of prosperity, human rights, and peace, which is at the bottom
of the UN system established in October 1945 (5 months after
V-day). 

After having fought a war against oppression and fascism, a
war that mobilized whole populations, the people suffered and
fought together – across the classes.  I remember both my
parents (Mother English – Father Swiss) talking about the
sense of togetherness that they had experienced during their
army services (in the respective armies) towards the end of
the war (they were in their late teens/early twenties).  It’s
a sense that also influenced the political spirit of the time
– we all have the right to our fair share.


I grew up into a comfortable middle
class society in an expanding economy giving me privileges my
parents didn’t know.  It forged my sense of equality, my
greenness.  The affluent society became my normal and even so
with my children (I assume this goes for many of us in the
western societies). 

Idealism became affordable.  It’s built on solid rules on a
still lived morals. The downside of affluency is that you lose
the sense of what your foundations are and that you must fight
for rights and freedoms in order to sustain them.  They become
too for granted.



I don’t know whether the living
conditions in the England of 1215 was such to generate strong
green meme densities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta). 
I think the feudal barons just found themselves in a situation
of power allowing them to grab the king by the scruff of his
neck and say “NO, King, from now we are going to play
according to our rules!”.  As did the Americans when they
declared independence from the British Crown, or the ancient
Swiss that swore alliance against the feudal lords.




One overshoot phenomena today is
that today you have powers operating under the flag of
democracy, fairness, rule of law that can blatantly dictate,
twist and ignore the laws as they please.  Nobody can or will
stop with a clear NO.  To the point when everybody questioning
this power is contemptuously tagged as “LEFT”.






http://www.theglobalist.com/elizabeth-warren-when-political-labels-completely-mislead/


http://www.theglobalist.com/the-terrible-truth-about-income-inequality/



As Ralph Krugmann pointed out in a
talk with Bill Moyers on Piketty: The debate is getting ugly (http://billmoyers.com/episode/what-the-1-dont-want-you-to-know-2/)




FS will die out when the living
conditions will change. When the new normal will set in.




Justice and fairness implies balance
– see the antique figure of Justitia (Lady Justice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice
) – it’s an
archetype.




The concept of equality "varies" in
its meaning over levels of ego complexity and therefore if you
use a system primarily based on the density and frequency of
equality in levels where the ego complexity denotes sameness
as a literal connotation, you end up with a very serious
overshoot, and a corresponding collapse situation (class war
is already going)…

——

The tool of the poor is the "vote" (supposedly).  But when the
vote only reinforces the current system in the positive loop,
overshoot is guaranteed, which means… COLLAPSE is
guaranteed!

—-

The idea of ”one man = one vote” is
a rational to legitimize the constitution of a state that
doesn’t build on “godgiven” powers, such as the nobles justify
their rule.  From this Idea comes the idea of the social
contract and the rule of law – but also the wisdom of checks
and balances.




But throughout the history of
democracy the powerful have known how to play with the votes.
The poor rarely exercise real power.  They give legitimacy. 
And in a given culture with a living moral a sense of fairness
is established.




Today it is becoming obvious that
you can manipulate your votes as you wish (you buy TV time and
papers and tell the people what to think – see e.g. Berlusconi
in Italy).




The idea of “sameness =equal” is a
construct I never encountered in my law studies or in my
discussions on equality and fairness.  A fundamental piece in
Swiss jurisdiction is the principle whereby equality means
“that the same shall be judged the same but the unsame shall
be judged dissimilarly”.




But whatever, the underlying moral
for this attitude is fading.

——

Since the vote won’t work because of corruption (in many legal
forms) of equality, and the low ego complexity forming equal =
same… you have a convergence of values occurring that will
create additional overshoot soon, and trigger collapse, where
revolution and a paradigm shift of great magnitude will occur,
and which we can’t predict how quickly the collapse will drive
the system.

Arab Spring is a small indicator (which is driven largely by
lack of food, clean water, and basics)… since most of that
still exists in the developed and developing world, excluding
small pockets here and there, we are in overshoot, and have
not reached collapse conditions yet…

However, I don’t see a slowdown, but an acceleration of
overshoot (this is where understanding Pikkety’s research is
important as the rate at which the overshoot is occurring is
accelerating!).

This acceleration in the rate, is different than the
acceleration of the conditions themselves, and this increase
of an increase is where a positive loop becomes hard to stop.

That is why I say there is nothing much we can do except to
let this system creatively destruct (Schumpeter) and pick up
the pieces.

This could be, and probably will be ugly for most… again for
most of those who are actually benefiting from this condition,
there are buffers (mobility) which I expect to see accelerate
soon… moving to where the problem isn’t and "happiness
indexes" can plot this perhaps…

I suspect there is quite a bit of time, but if you look at
another convergence, technology — it’s a double-edged sword
— providing an increase in the rate of the increase to wealth
for those who deploy/employ and a "raised tide" for those who
benefit from the adoption, BUT…

Technology will start to create wide-spread replacement of
jobs soon, everything from blue-collar to white-collar and 50%
of the jobs we have today, possibly more will be wiped out by
technology — wherever possible.

I reported to you more than 10 years ago, that within 5 years
50% of fees paid to workers would be benefits… its not here,
and if a business can replace 50% right off the top of future
obligations, instead using that money to deploy competitive
advantage, they will do it, mark my words.

You ain’t seen nuttin’ yet (is my reference to the converging
influence of technology)…

We are not prepared for the fallout of a billion workers who
will be replaced by millions of robots, drones, and AI…

Timing is the only difficult thing as we will start to see
delays in the increase brought about by everything from new
laws, to regulation, to prohibition, to whatever people can
vote up…


Interting point.  What you are
saying laws are becoming empty symbols without power, because
power to move things is not in the rules

—–

Mike

One point:

FS will die out when the living
conditions will change. When the new normal will set in.




FS will NOT die… just as AN, BO,
CP, DQ, and ER have not died.  They live on as an attractor to
serve the inbornness of those whose motives can best be served
through those life conditions.  I can show you AN, and the
rest, all alive and well, dim in respects to what is prevalent
or emerging; but nonetheless they don’t die because they have
a self-sustaining core, an autopoetic core, that is there
because it attracts those with particular inbornness, and
whose values are served through this values basin.




The rest was interesting, I love
hearing from people who grew up somewhere else, we here are so
narrow in our understanding of life, thanks for sharing some
of yours!

—–

Mark

“Graves said that children raised at "FS" (green) would
develop their worldviews in accordance with FS…(he also
stated that it would be a short-lived system).  The reason
that F-S is a "short" duration system is because at the roots
it is equality-driven.” (e-mail 16/5)

“FS broke onto the scene in the 60s… having roots probably
as far back as the Magna Carta”.

“As it is, F-S will tend to make everything equal… and
mediocre, as it doesn’t have a solution for inequalities!”
(e-mail 18/5 re genes and race)

These quotes taken from your e-mails as well as your pertinent
point in the e-mail below made me ponder on the following:

In his paper “Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap”,
published in 1974, Clare Graves starts off with the following
statement “A new psychological theory holds that human beings
exist at different ‘levels of existence’.  At any given level,
an individual exhibits the behavior and values characteristics
of people at that level; a person who is centralized at a
lower level cannot even understand people who are at a higher
level.”  He develops this beautiful theory describing the
characteristics of the existential levels starting with A-N
going up to H-U, the theory on which Spiral Dynamics is built
(the letter codes are collapsed into the colors beige to
turquoise). E-S or Green Graves calls “Personalistic
Existence”, the sixth subsistence level.

Graves explains the letter coding as follows:

The first letter stands for the “neurological system” in the
brain upon which the psychological system is based.  The
letters go from A to H starting at the beginning of the
alphabet. e.g. F is the sixth letter (the neurological systems
F is not described anywhere, as little as the 7 other ones in
the row).

The second letter stands for the set of existential problems.
The letters start with the letter N (middle of the alphabet)
an go up to U (the existential problems are not described as
such either).

The theory set forth says that the neurological system of all
persons moves with the change of existential problems.  So the
existential level is defined by the neurological system moving
synchronically along with the existential problem. It’s a
fixed climb up the “existential ladder” (nicely illustrated in
the paper), i.e. from the rungs E-S to B-O to C-P, etc., there
are no other combinations such as B-S or A-U. Consequently SD
then collapsed these letter pairs into colors, evaporating the
“neurological system/existential problems” relationship aspect
(an important relationship, I find, that, however, doesn’t get
explained neither how it works).

It’s a beautiful theory.  The first time I read it I fell for
it and for SD, life becomes so nicely explainable. Only later,
finding it difficult to relate the theory to my experience of
everyday life, I wondered where the hard data was that
supported this theory.  There was a disconnect I found
bothering.

It was then I discovered Mike, the “red ass”, on the SD list
vigorously contending the assumptions leading up to SD (values
follow existential levels and are hierarchically ordered),
notably that red was supposed to be an inferior meme to
“green”, a meme that seemingly nobody wants to associate with
being somewhat considered a little unworldly, hippie and naive
(People in the SD community like seeing themselves being
“yellow”).

@FLOW builds on a different anthropological understanding: “we
remain largely an emergence out of inbornness”.  The various
memeplexes don’t follow a hierarchical logic up a ladder, but
are values basins formed by like-minded people (inborn value
profile).

However the Graves/SD terminology is still used in @Flow
because it allows to group together and classify certain
worldviews (the theory has emerged a useful terminology to
describe a certain phenomenon).  However I find that it sounds
smart but when I start looking more closely I wonder what it
really means.  Also I find, the terminology is not used
consistently with the theory.  So back to the quotes and my
question:

“Graves said that children raised at "FS" (green) would
develop their worldviews in accordance with FS…(he also
stated that it would be a short-lived system).  The reason
that F-S is a "short" duration system is because at the roots
it is equality-driven.”

“FS broke onto the scene in the 60s… having roots probably
as far back as the Magna Carta”.

What is it you are trying to say with this language? 
According to Graves, people develop the neurological system F
(whatever that is) when they meet the existential problems of
S.  That is, speaking with Graves, in the 1960’s the western
postwar kids having grown up in a prospering economy (ep S)
inevitably developed the neurological system F.  Question:
What significant shift in the existential problems did Graves
foresee that F-S should be a short lived system?  More
affluence and internet/mobile communication?  Limits to
growth?  Is the fact that it is equality-driven a factor that
the ep change so that the neurological systems change?

Shouldn’t the quote better read “children raised in ep S would
develop their worldview through their neurological system F”?
(To remain within the logic of Graves.)

What I don’t understand is when these existential levels are
equipped with agentic attributes authoring developments like
in “F-S will tend to make…”. What does that mean?  Does F-S as
understood by Graves necessarily make things mediocre?  I
don’t get it.

This is a language or logic that doesn’t fit @Flow.  You try
to intertwine the concepts but somehow it doesn’t make sense:
Existential levels “have a self-sustaining core, an autopoetic
core that is there because it attracts those with particular
inbornness, and whose values are served through this values
basin.”

With the Reiss there are billions of possible combinations of
the 16 values – making each individual special with his/her
own typical value profile (RMP).  To my understanding then,
depending on the circumstances somebody is born into, certain
values can be more advantageous than others and epigenetically
interacting with the environment (as you show in the 6cs –
core, culture, code, conditional, context, content) this or
that value combination will prove to be fitter.  It becomes an
attractor.  But nothing changes in the neurological setup in
the brain within the same person (?)

Last question: is Blank Slate an egalitarian theory?  Is it a
green meme?  Is SD a blank slate theory (According to SD
everybody has inevitably the same neurological set-up under
the same existential problems – it is always A-N, or B-O, etc,
never another combination for everybody)?

As you say, by saying that everybody is created equally and
can be whoever and whatever they want to be “BS provides the
"excuse" for the inequalities to persist in favor of those
with the greatest luck in natures and nurtures lottery?”

I don’t know whether “equality” is the issue than far more the
inability to look, recognize, and appreciate differences due
to the fact that we like to fall for theories and scalable
schemata.  It’s about dancing to the music, instead of
measuring us up to standards.

—-

Mike

We need a call to unwind all this Mark…

You and I are mashing up a lot of stuff.

My grandmother used to do that and I asked what’s it made
of… and she would say "leftover stuff".

They tasted good but no one but grandma could make them.

*************************************************************************
On Thursday, May 29 at 8:30 PM ET Mike will go through Mark’s questions and make the stuff to answer
the questions because it took him two decades, almost, to
figure it out and he’ll share what he believes as Mark walks us
through what are the many steps most take in their quest for
the Master Code.

To sign up for the Free discussion, complete the form 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