Artsu

It's spiritual energy, or actual spirits. You're not going to get a good scientific explanation, until science becomes spiritual.

@kagaria The new testament is not accurate. The new kingdom will be in the spiritual world, not the physical one. I think it already exists, or is being built, and will at one point close and permit no more entry. To gain entry, you need divine love. You can read about the divine love on truthforallpeople.com.

ISFJs are the most extroverted of introverts. The actual contradiction in Peterson's self assessment versus what I see as his type, is that he sees himself as high in openness. Actually, I remember him saying he was extremely open, and moderately extroverted (it doesn't matter too much though). ISFJ is quite low in openness in general, but they can be socially extroverted. It's just that their primary focus is on finding facts to fit into their worldview, and then sharing this with people. Peterson is known for giving talks that stem from a highly developed worldview, and one that seems more factual than conceptual (although he does get into the conceptual side with things like Jungian psychology).

@Carl-Richard What I was getting at was that society might oscillate between red, blue, orange, dependent on its leadership. So it's not just a function of the development of the population, it's rather an independent, but related, thing. I agree with you about the comment regarding evolution, but I don't think the population changes as much from generation to generation as the society does. I do think that the society influences things. For example, in an orange society, it's much easier to get to orange than in a purple society, so there will be a higher proportion of orange people, but there will still be orange in a purple society. I don't know how many of the individuals would be actually purple. And again, I'll mention as I keep mentioning, that when I think of SD, I think of Maslow's and Jung's hierarchies, I think of the 8 circuits of consciousness, and so forth. So my understanding is going to be at odds with the general community here, or maybe the official teachings on spiral dynamics overall. I'm trying to anchor SD in something that I have already investigated. Taken literally, it seems highly flawed.

I'm rather confused when it comes to spiral dynamics, because on the one hand it's said that there are only a few percent of people in yellow and above, but on the other hand i saw a diagram where the typical development of stage green was said to be in the teens. So, what percentsge of people have developed to each level, and at what age does such a development typically take place?

Oh, and by the way, I do think that there is a strong correlation between intelligence and one's proclivity to ascend in consciousness. It has to do with how easily one can process advanced/complex material, I suppose. I'm highly intelligent, and I haven't slowed down my evolution yet. It's just that most of the time I'm "dry", meaning not a lot going on. Then the spiritual emergence comes through, and I beam up into a chaotic world of spirits and synchronicity and bizarre worldviews and so forth. So, if someone is stuck at blue, then they're probably fairly low in intelligence. But I don't think "open-mindedness" is really the reason for it. People are associating blue with religion, associating religion with a Sensing preference, and opposing that with an Intuition preference, which is associated with open-mindedness. But I guess... maybe just maybe... there is a kind of openness to learning about high up, perhaps unpleasant, controversial truths, that help one advance up the levels. And I just thought... Jordan Peterson is an ISFJ, but he is also open-minded, and he is very intelligent. Could it be that an intelligent person, who is a type that is typically seen as close-minded like ISFJ, tends to be more open-minded than their type predicts? Openness might have at least 2 distinct components.

A single leader can change the nature of an entire society. How can that be when 99.99...% of the individuals in the society are the same? The society evolves. The people might be orange, say, but perhaps they haven't formed the social structures necessary for an orange society. Perhaps the society has just come out of tribal nature, and is now red. Eventually it will become orange because the individuals are largely orange, but this takes time. New ventures start from the ground and work their way up. You could even look at this site. When it was formed, it was an ego of sorts, and identity. Then there might be backlash, problems, and it changes nature to be more competitive, argumentative. Then people come to accept it over competition, and it becomes a religion of sorts. So at that point the site has gone from purple to red to blue, even though the person who made it is way higher than those levels. Actualized.org will thus go through an actualisation phase, if it hasn't already. Society develops much more gradually, but there can be dramatic shifts through things like revolutions. So at the moment I am viewing SD as both a political vertical typology, but also a vertical typology of the individual's consciousness. Other related models tend to focus more on the individual consciousness side of the equation, but can be applied politically. For SD the political side of it seems more paramount, but the overall development pattern seems to be much the same as Maslow or Jung's hierachies.

I googled "spirituality forum" or something.

The studies you mentioned are some of the best there are. If i could do my studies again, i would do less maths and more arts subjects, with some practicsl subjects such as policy and statistics. Can you afford to study those subjects you mentioned? It would be a quality education, but perhaps you should add in something practical. Also think about whether the job you are getting is good for society. Youre not an island made to profit, youre part of a collective. Do we really need more engineers? I think we have too many already, but society is based on ruthless expansion so it will reward you.

Blue is considerably higher than purple though. There are many orange types in todays society, and then it gets more rarified. I think the average consciousness of the population is higher in a higher coloured society, but the variation in societal structure is greater than the variation between different populations (but the variation within a population is greater than the variation in societies).

Imo its not that the intelligent today would be judged as stupid, but that our knowledge will be far advanced by that point. Newton developed mechanics and calculus. He is known today as a genius. But now we teach mechanics and calculus to high school students, and the really intelligent ones are focusing on much more advanced material. A genius today is still a genius in 500 years, unless we become genetically modified superhumans, but their knowledge will be more basic. Even with things like spirituality, our understanding develops such that the spiritual geniuses today know more. But did you know it is harder to perform miracles today than it was 2000 years ago? Are we spiritually asleep?

@lmfao uh are you missing my point? Im speaking about multiple intelligences, and saying creativity for example is just one kind, whereas other people seem to be focusing on some personality types more than others. So your reply to me just now makes no sense. Im the one arguing against a limited view of intelligence.

Its just what makes sense to me. Is there anything to base the contrary on?

Well, no, i disagree. But as ive been saying all through this thread, this model confuses me. It seems similar to Jungian hierarchy, Maslows hierarchy etc. But is so political. As i mentioned already, i think consciousnes evolves independently of society. I think eventually the society will evolve to match its citizens but this takes time. So perhaps i do agree. You would start to see it. But it may take indefinitely long before society catches up.

Here's an idea: use psychic readings (high consciousness stuff) to spot offenders.

Knowledge is something you know, not just what you can say. Saying something doesnt make it knowledge. But knowledge is real, its not that nothing can be known. But its hard to know what you know, if you know what i mean.

I thought the video was kinda lame. I watched it a few hours ago. Its just like "dont give up". Uh, ok, will/wont do.

@Carl-Richard i just find it hard to believe that the individuals in a purple society would have a purple consciousness. Consciousness will evolve even if the society around you isnt aiding in that, and purple is a very rudimentary stage consciousness wise. But the collective roles the individuals in the purple society take might be early in societal evolution, so you have occupational purple or something. Sound accurate?

@PetarKa self actualisation is a universal journey. Don't confuse it with the manufactured form of self actualisation that you see on this site. (I'm not taking a stab at the site there). It's mandatory to evolve your consciousness, this will continue into the spirit world. But whether you choose to do meditation exercises and so on is up to you.

I would define intelligence in such a way that type bias is limited. Kinesthetic and rote learning are Sensor areas. Maths is more NTP. They should each be seen as merely different sorts. So a traditional type is not necessarily less intelligent than a progressive type.

I can see that SD is being done wrong on this site. It's too much about stereotypes and false associations. Im trying to figure out how to do it properly.

Question for anyone: Is spiral dynamics about level of consciousness, or lifestyle? I can see how a society could be red, but cognitively i would surprised if the individuals in the society aren't above red themselves. It's just that society goes through evolution just as an individual does. I mean, if you're consciousness is advanced, but youre living a 9 to 5 life in an orange society, are you orange, or way above it? Likewise, is the shaman of a purple tribe purple, or could even be turquoise? Do you get where im coming from?

I guess you're joking, but there does seem a bias towards N types in this thread. Blue is associated with the church, and i think church is a more S thing. Though... perhaps being N gives someone an advantage with consciousness expansion?

Open mindedness is related to an NP preference in MBTI. There are sensor forms of inteligence too... open mindedness isnt really intelligence, its a personality characteristic. Ami wrong?

I don't know how much turquoise is in the thread. I havent looked through it and i dont know how to identify this stuff too well. I'm being guided so far by the term cosmic centric.