Carl-Richard

That's true. The same applies to historical events, ideologies and sociopolitical movements. For instance, people often like to label Ancient Greece and the like as Orange. They might not appreciate the extent to which the philosophical and scientific advancements in the early and late Antiquity and Middle ages were tightly interwoven with religious and mystical schools of thought.

Even within the original SD framework, this is not true. Your center of gravity can lay between two stages, marked by e.g. either BLUE/Orange or Blue/ORANGE depending on your advancement. This in the SD book. In SDi, this is mostly only true for the spiritual line of development, but this insight shouldn't impede one's vision of a better future. That would be to conflate the Absolute and the relative. In the original SD, turquoise has actually nothing to do with spiritual awakening. Holism as a concept is not completely synonymous with spirituality. Look up Rally For Rivers, Cauvery Calling, Project GreenHands etc. Even if Sadhguru is highly enlightened, he is obviously taking it seriously.

This idea is taken directly from Ken Wilber, who collaborated with Don Beck to create Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDi), which is a far superior framework than SD on its own. I often use "SD" to refer to SDi. Wilber makes the distinction between levels and lines of development, and he does this based on empirical data:

Flat earth is actually so ridiculous, it shouldn't even count as a conspiracy theory. It's on the level of internet spam and deep fried memes. You have to be so ignorant of physics and the world in general to actually believe in it.

Mike Keneally is doubling everything that Steve is playing, which makes it twice as good.

It's kinda the same reason why you mow the lawn, or sweep the driveway, or use the fly swatter. It gets annoying when you get too much of it.

Bruh ? Maybe I should've applied after all. I don't want to ruin my hobby though

Smoking it 3-4 times a day and essentially making it your main "occupation". You can never really boil something down to just one SD stage. Much of my behavior during that period was heavily hedonistic, self-centered, deceitful, disorganized and directionless. Even though my main activity was to philosophize about whatever popped into my head, the structure of that activity was extremely compulsive and undeliberate (basically just an endless barrage of intellectual stoner thoughts). It's not like the type of contemplation that Leo talks about where you sit down for many hours and focus your mind intensively on just one question or subject (even though I could do that too). That takes a lot of deliberation and emotional self-composure. Emotionally, I was a complete wreck, trying to escape the sound of my own conscience by drowning it in pseudo-intellectual brain diarrhea. Being Turquoise is not synonymous with adopting New Age platitudes (Green) like "living in the now", a saying which I frequently used as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility (hence trying to escape the sound of my own conscience). There is this funny marriage between the deconstructive nature of Red and Green. A teenager with a weak conscience or chaotic mind can co-opt a saying that is initially meant to point to some deep existential truth and use it in order to fuel their own self-destruction. ...or Purple or Blue or Orange or Yellow or Turquoise. Every stage of the spiral is concerned with some type of growth or future-oriented behavior to some degree. Tier 2 is especially not uninterested in the future despite having the potential to incorporate a mystical paradigm that advertises the importance of beingness. If anything, Yellow and Turquoise are the most future-oriented stages there are. Systems thinking and holism is all about capturing the bigger picture, and that includes future states of existence. For instance, why are people like Sadhguru running large-scale projects with millions of volunteers in order to save the environment? Why are Yellow think tanks like the Neurohacker Collective so concerned about the pitfalls of "exponential tech"? Daniel Schmachtenberger (Yellow poster boy) has this model called "being-becoming". It emphasizes the importance of recognizing the intertwined relationship between 1. trying to create a tomorrow and 2. actually being able to live in that tomorrow. In other words, there is no point in trying to improve your life if you don't know how to fully experience that life, and it doesn't truly make sense to try to fully experience life if you're not trying to improve that experience in some way. Both are concerned about optimizing for something, and Daniel realizes that these two functions work synergistically: becoming better at "being" makes you better at "becoming" and vice versa. I believe it's kinda a false question right out the gate, which was something I was trying to imply in my first comment where I talked about the difference aspects of myself. We all have different sides of ourself at different levels of development. For example. you can be heavily Orange in many of your occupational and interpersonal domains (e.g. working on Wall Street, partying and snorting coke from some stripper's boobs) while you're flirting with Tier 2 in the cognitive and aesthetic domains (e.g. learning about Spiral Dynamics, systems thinking, complex systems theory, post-Kuhnian metaphysics etc.). When it comes to myself, I've lately been exploring a lot of Green in the political and ideological domain (socialism, LGBTQ issues, race, historical materialism, postmodernism, etc.), so it's maybe not so far off. Then I have also been retrieving and consolidating the constructive aspects of Blue that I had burned up during my Red rampage (structure, routines, discipline), getting back into the social game, partying, university etc. That is also a problem with trying to pin yourself down on SD when you're young, because you haven't really settled with anything yet.

I'm developmentally heterogeneous and quite young, so I'm only half-joking when I peg myself at Orange. I'm cognitively and temperamentally predisposed to Tier 2, but my theoretical immersion is limited (you can say I lack "practice" in this case which is kinda ironic lol). I'm overwhelmed spiritually. In one sense, it's my strongest side, a natural talent, but in another sense, it's a curse when it's paired with the heavy baggage of wordly immaturity. Financially, occupationally, educationally, interpersonally, and sexually, I'm pretty much 5 years behind my age group (and I'm only 23). I spent my late teens catching up on a huge Red shadow (strict parents, repressed emotions, anxiety) by heavily abusing weed, being anti-social and obsessively theorizing/contemplating, and not putting any effort into future-oriented behavior. It's only in the last couple of years I've started a holistic developmental arc where my goal is to contribute and grow and not be a self-absorbed leech.

Shhhhh I'm trying to play 5D chess here

I see I see. I'm Orange. Any thoughts about the response to your comment about the collectivism/individualism dichotomy?

And you were 15 years old at that time?

And when was that?

Just curious: when did you first read about Spiral Dynamics?

Darwinists: *autistic screeching*

Hmm... Didn't know Osho listened to Death Metal

Ken Wilber goes into this: the difference between "waking up", "growing up" and "cleaning up". As I understand it, SDi doesn't track these different aspects to the same extent, particularily the "cleaning up" aspect, as it relates to the interplay between trauma and personal predispositions. For instance, what does it really mean to say you're Stage Blue or Yellow in terms of having worked through something like deeply imbedded childhood trauma?

I find it pretty god damn terrifying, but I'm just a wimp.

...is this: Become a little more sensitive

Heh it's like you are me.

Letting go of your attachment to your wife doesn't necessarily mean you will leave your wife. But if you cared either way, you would be attached.

He is joking.

Today, I almost ran my moms car into the garage door because I accidently pressed the gas pedal instead of the break. I'm sure Hanlon's Razor applies here

This is exactly why much of Green brush off the idea of cancel culture being a particularily new phenomena. People have always been disagreeing, condemning and calling eachother names. This isn't something new. Green calling people homophobes is like Blue calling people sinners, or Orange calling people SJWs, collectivists or neo-marxists.

Each stage is not dichotomously collectivist or individualist. That's a bit simplistic. The distinctions become less obvious at the higher stages. This is because the higher stages do in fact take lessons from the lower stages. That is why it's called a developmental model. It's like puberty: you gain some size, sexual maturity and cognitive functioning, but you keep your youthfulness and your body parts. You develop your pre-existing faculties. The transition from Orange to Green isn't an amnesic extraction of Orange individualism. It's rather the enhancement and augmentation of that individualism. Collectivism at the end of the day is a strategy for the survival of individuals, and healthy Green recognizes this fact and how it relates to the importance of individual rights in the modern world (Orange). Green hasn't forgotten about the benefits of the Enlightenment. In fact, Green was actually founded upon those values. The most dogmatic and problematic forms of collectivism are seen in Purple and Blue: racism, xenophobia, tribalism, authoritarian theocracy etc. Here, Green has taken the lessons from Orange, namely democracy and individual rights, and tries to battle these anti-individualist injustices in the collective arena. Therefore, in a sense, it's a step towards collectivism but not so much a step away from individualism. Green also recognizes that some individuals are worse off than others and that people deserve a base minimum of humanity. Why? Because again, like Orange, they believe that the individual has inherent value. It's much easier to see the dichotomy between say Purple and Orange, where the former may practice ritualistic human sacrifice to a spirit (or an ideal), and the latter reacts in horror. But then you have to wonder if Orange isn't also guilty of this sacrificial tendency when it comes to their purist approach to individualism. For example, are you willing to sacrifice human life to uphold a sacred ideal, e.g. capitalism? Can capitalism be questioned? These are the questions that Green is willing to tackle.