Why Turquoise is baloney

[Carl-Richard]

A couple of years ago, I found out Spiral Dynamics has a problem: sampling bias. Specifically, Clare Graves' essay samples consisted of only North Americans (primarily white, affluent college kids), and Don Beck's "samples" (I can't find anything on the methods he used) consisted of only North Americans and South Africans. Generally, the sample is biased towards Western cultures (and more importantly, it completely lacks Eastern cultures).

When I first learned about this, I thought maybe it's not a big problem, because dozens of other models (although with similar sampling bias) have come to similar conclusions (Piaget, Holberg, Loevinger, etc.). However, these models generally do not include the equivalent of Turquoise. And this is exactly what turns out to be the problem: Turquoise itself seems to be the result of sampling bias.

When Western people reach Green-Yellow, they get statistically more familiar with New Age ideas, particularly Eastern-inspired non-dual mysticism. This is because the West significantly repressed its mysticism for the last millennia, so you generally need to import it from other cultures to discover it (which obviously happens more often at Green-Yellow). You would expect these people to describe it as their highest value, which according to Graves' methodology would be their highest stage, in this case Turquoise.

However, non-dual mysticism has of course existed all throughout history and at all stages of development. This is self-evident as you're importing these ideas from ancient religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Now, if the creators of SD had used samples from the cultures you're importing the ideas from, mainly Eastern cultures, then they could've easily ruled out mysticism as being its own stage, because again, it's essentially present at all stages in these cultures and not just at later stages. Had they done that, Turquoise would clearly be seen as an artefact of sampling bias.

 

You can make the same case from a theoretical perspective, without relying on empirical data. For example, Hanzi Freinacht in The Listening Society, has pointed out that Turquoise fails to provide any critique towards Yellow (which I agree with). More specifically, it doesn't provide a higher level that "transcends and includes" the previous stage. It doesn't address any of the problems of the previous stage. It only sidesteps them, as I've pointed out, through mysticism. And maybe not coincidentally, Hanzi refers to Turquoise as New-Agey "holistic" or "integral" people.

 

So to summarize, "Turquoise" is essentially what you get when you build SD based on data from Western educated youth and not much else. Its purported contributions to Yellow is not substantially different from New Age mysticism, and it does not critique or solve any of the problems of the previous stage.

Edited October 2 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

But it's incorrect to conflate Turquoise with mysticism or nonduality.

Ask ChatGTP to explain Turquoise to you.

Edited September 29 by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard Spiral dynamics would be in Ken Wilbur's model part of growing up which is a distinct aspect of the model from waking up/ mysticism.

Spiral Dynamics measures psychological and moral development, as well as sphere of concern and identification.

Waking up/ mystical experiences/ spirituality, and states would be part of the "waking up" aspects of development. This is not what Spiral Dynamics Measures.

Mystical insights and "Waking Up" can happen at any stage of human development "Growing Up". You're level of growing up is like the filter which interprets the waking up experiences.

Be careful in blurring different quadrants of growing up, waking up, cleaning up and showing up. 

Ken Wilbur is not in the business of creating new empirical data, but bringing together into a single tapestry many different models from experts in different fields. Integral Meta Theory helps to organize and map these models. 

Ken Wilbur provides explanation that mystical experiences happen in all cultures all around the world. The models in his book integral psychology show this well.

----

Chatgpt:

Beige: Survival instincts and basic needs.

Purple: Tribalistic, magical thinking.

Red: Power-driven, egocentric.

Blue: Order, tradition, authority.

Orange: Achievement, rationality, success.

Green: Community, equality, environmentalism.

Yellow: Integrative, systems thinking.

Turquoise: Holistic, global awareness

----

Turquoise includes Yellow's systems thinking and integrative modelling but move ups to include the entire planet, and all systems seen as a holistic whole. It is non-dual in it's thinking, but not to be confused with non-dual mysticism. Though,  People at this stage of develop may also have had awakenings of deep non-duality, but it's not the same thing. 

Essentially, Yellow is largely reductionistic in it's application of systems thinking compared to Turquoise if I am correct.

 

 

Edited September 29 by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But it's incorrect to conflate Turquoise with mysticism or nonduality.

While Don Beck might've insisted on that, the SD book chapter describing Turquoise oozes with New Age non-dualisms, it's actually comical:

Quote

[...], but there is not an identifiable someone in active, deliberate control. Instead, a unifying force and set of guiding principles sets the course of the universe and gives the appearance of consciousness. [...]

[...] one learns not only through observation and participation but through the experience of simply being. [...]

[...] one can never know or understand all things. With this acceptance comes wonder, awe, reverence, humility, unity, and a refreshed value for simplicity. In this view, reality can be experienced, but never known. [...]

 

 

5 hours ago, Thought Art said:

Essentially, Yellow is largely reductionistic in it's application of systems thinking compared to Turquoise if I am correct.

Imagine if you had said "Orange is just a different application of Blue dogmatism". That doesn't quite make sense. It's not a significant step up. It doesn't provide a radical new view of things. It doesn't provide a radical new way of solving problems. So I just don't see how Turquoise meaningfully critiques Yellow.

 

5 hours ago, Thought Art said:

It is non-dual in it's thinking, but not to be confused with non-dual mysticism. Though,  People at this stage of develop may also have had awakenings of deep non-duality, but it's not the same thing. 

"It's kinda like mysticism, but not really", "people at this stage may have non-dual experiences, but it's not that". I don't buy it. But let's assume you are pointing to some true differences: I doubt thematic analysis of single-question essays is even able to catch such nuances. When interpreting the data, based on my limited experience with thematic analysis, it's much more likely that you will siphon all of it under the same theme (Turquoise).

Edited September 30 by Carl-Richard

[Buck Edwards]

Carl you should have said how Coral is baloney. Because nobody ever gets it. 

 

Edited September 30 by Buck Edwards

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Carl you should have said how Coral is baloney. Because nobody ever gets it. 

Expect Keryo Koffa lol. 

There is nothing to critique about Coral, because basically nothing has been said about it.

Edited September 30 by Carl-Richard

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

There is nothing to critique about Coral, because nothing has been said about Coral.

So is it suffice to say that Coral is just an illusion and therefore pure baloney, a new age cooked up BS? 

[Leo Gura]

@Carl-Richard I think you gotta ground understanding of Turquoise by looking at concrete examples of Turquoise people. This will be much more accurate than going off high level abstractions.

Study Turquiose individuals.

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard Don’t fake quote me please. In order to get what I said you’d have to actually study the difference between “Waking Up” and “Growing Up”. 
 

Non-dual state of consciousness is very different than seeing everyone as one highly Interconnected whole. That’s an understanding that’s not, to me, a far stretch. That’s essentially what systems thinking leads to if you take it to the extreme. The Intro to Systems thinking I read even has a section on it I think. Reality is non-dual and can be intellectually understood as such. 
 

It helps when you seek clarity, perhaps the Socratic method instead of putting words in my mouth. Not saying you’d have to agree either. But, it’s sort of rude and sloppy to do that imho. 
 

To start with, Spiral Dynamics measures cognitive development not awakening or mysticism. Whether it’s a perfect model or not could be besides the point. If your going to critique it you should first understand what it is

Edited September 30 by Thought Art

[BlueOak]

@Lila9

Its fun to know that science was once one of the mystery schools  opening that one up led to a lot of development, it would be interesting to have more of them taught generally, which is what is in part being argued (against and for) here I feel underneath it all. That argument is as old as time and probably older.

To embody turquoise more fully, I would need to follow the communal nature of this conversation.

1) An overbalance of faith and mysticism is suggested in a definition of turquoise.
2) A rebuttal of that, and speaking to look outward more to individuals already there for communal grounding. (A necessity of the stage)
3) A look at morality and development (of what I'll refer to as communal ethics) and a reminder that stages can embody elements of the other (touching coral there)
4) Implication that any present definition of Coral as an illusion (all reality is so that tracks).
5) Similar suggestions made about turquoise, and a rebuttal to not conflate the model with non-duality.
6) An assessment that values don't dictate a level of consciousness, and a description of spiral dynamics as being systemic (I'll say Yellow) in nature.

I do feel SD does not adequately represent turquoise as not enough of humanity is there to model it on—certainly not Coral. This means not enough of me is there yet to understand it fully, or any of you unless your reality is reflecting much more information.

I also have the nagging understanding that all these stages are already present within each other, and unfolded almost into the next, which this conversation touches on. It's not so much a stack of stages but a shape that keeps expanding. Turquoise would have to contain mysticism as much as it would environmental concerns, financial concerns, individuality, faith, survival, communal harmony, and systemic modeling etc. Keeping this communally focused: If any of these are rejected within the community, that's an unintegrated part of the community.

Edited September 30 by BlueOak

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard Don’t fake quote me please. In order to get what I said you’d have to actually study the difference between “Waking Up” and “Growing Up”. 
 

Non-dual state of consciousness is very different than seeing everyone as one highly Interconnected whole. That’s an understanding that’s not, to me, a far stretch. That’s essentially what systems thinking leads to if you take it to the extreme. The Intro to Systems thinking I read even has a section on it I think. Reality is non-dual and can be intellectually understood as such. 
 

It helps when you seek clarity, perhaps the Socratic method instead of putting words in my mouth. Not saying you’d have to agree either. But, it’s sort of rude and sloppy to do that imho. 
 

To start with, Spiral Dynamics measures cognitive development not awakening or mysticism. Whether it’s a perfect model or not could be besides the point. If your going to critique it you should first understand what it is

As you point to yourself, SD (Don Beck) does not make this Waking vs. Growing up distinction theoretically (only Ken Wilber does), nor would you expect it to be able to sift out this distinction empirically (in the data interpretation process), again because of the sample bias. Had the sample been more universal, specifically including cultures with prevalent non-dual mysticism, then you could expect such a distinction to be found, and "Turquoise" would be considered as a phenomena of Waking up rather than Growing up.

Ken Wilber found this distinction theoretically by learning about the history and different cultures with non-dual mysticism, but I'm saying you will find it empirically as well using the very methods that were used to create SD, given that you sample the same cultures.

Systems thinking in Yellow and systems thinking in Turquoise are not "symbolically different" (to borrow Hanzi's term), only in specific areas application, which does not provide a radical new view, does not critique Yellow's "way of thinking" or produce radical new solutions to problems. Hence, it's not a meaningfully new stage.

Edited September 30 by Carl-Richard

[Nivsch]

@Carl-Richard Why to look for clues in others external theories?

Do you feel there are limitations to your Yellow experience in your personal life?

Do you feel right now a burden or depressive or anxious feelings?

If so, in which ways does your behaviour or thinking has to change in order to overcome those barriers?

This will give you a way to find Turquoise in yourself in a gradual way.

Edited September 30 by Nivsch

[BlueOak]

14 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

@Carl-Richard Why to look for clues in others external

That would be a requirement of the stage correct? The integration of your self-concept with the whole in the harmony of all the stages before it?

*edit (You see how this is still framed as an individual let me flip it)

The integration of the community with the self. That's better.

Edited September 30 by BlueOak

[Thought Art]

Definitely a good contemplation for me. 

From my outputs and contemplations on chatgpt I can see there are distinctions. But, you can easily ask chatgpt these things yourself.

Edited September 30 by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

46 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

From my outputs and contemplations on chatgpt I can see there are distinctions. But, you can easily ask chatgpt these things yourself.

Contemplate with it how many mistakes it makes.

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Lila9 said:

There is no lack of mysticism in the Western world. There is Christian mysticism and Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah). The Western world was build on top of both of them, along with more ancient pagan mystical beliefs from before the formation of the religions.

I said it has been significantly repressed, for example due to theologians like Augustine of Hippo who influenced the modern conception of faith. Let's put it this way: who here is into Jewish Kabbalah or Christian mysticism?

Edited September 30 by Carl-Richard

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard I’ve also read/ reading books on this material as well. 
 

AI doesn’t make that many mistakes compared to say, a human like you and I which make a lot as well. 
 

It is correct so far comparing it to the book I am reading. 
 

But, I want to be open to your perspective, the books I’m reading, the AI, etc. It’s also always improving. 
 

i think turquoise is an interesting subject. I think it’s false to conclude that Yellow and Turquoise are the same. I think it. It has raised some questions for me between the higher levels of cognitive development “growing up” and “Waking Up”. This is because turquoise seems to be Holistic compared to Yellow. This seems to be slightly more spiritual. But, reality is spiritual so it makes sense to me. 
 

I have to be careful here about proving myself that I am right to you, which doesn’t matter, and my own understanding and contemplation. 
 

 Hmm, seems that stages beyond Yellow start realizing the importances of consciousness, spirituality, nonduality, unity and meta rationality and the interconnectedness beyond what can be understood with the intellect. I have questions about this. This is a deeper spiritual integration and embodiment of green, and has the systems thinking elements of yellow. 
 

Edited September 30 by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

I think it’s false to conclude that Yellow and Turquoise are the same.

What problems does Turquoise solve that Yellow is unable to solve?

[Nilsi]

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can make the same case from a theoretical perspective, without relying on empirical data. For example, Hanzi Freinacht in The Listening Society, has pointed out that Turquoise fails to provide any critique towards Yellow (which I agree with). More specifically, it doesn't provide a higher level that "transcends and includes" the previous stage. It doesn't address any of the problems of the previous stage. It only sidesteps them, as I've pointed out, through mysticism. And maybe not coincidentally, Hanzi refers to Turquoise as New-Agey "holistic" or "integral" people.

Congrats on picking up and reading a book (seriously).

That also seems like the perfect book for you, so even better!

If you were to go deep into people like Jean Piaget, William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, James Mark Baldwin, etc., I might develop a crush (no homo).

Edited September 30 by Nilsi

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard Well, the problems of consciousness, and a more highly integrated and holistic approach to the same systemic issues. Because it goes beyond science and rationality it goes realizes the importance of consciousness.

Yellow may focus on solving global issues with policy change, technologies, economic changes etc 

Turquoise would include those changes while also focusing on shifting and elevating human Consciousness, shifting the mindset of humanity to see the world as a living whole. Seeing it as one. 

My apologies before with my initial approach . 
 

Yellow is rational, scientific, and focused on personal responsibility.

Turquoise would be meta rational while including all the aspects developed in earlier spirals, science, logic, etc.
 

Turqoise solves the problem that Yellow doesn’t. Yellow focuses on external rational systems changes while Turquoise realizing that these problems also need a shift to higher levels of consciousness.

This is true, lower levels of consciousness down the spiral are in large part the cause of many of the global issues. However, I suspect that survival itself plays a bigger role than spiral dynamics explains.

Edited September 30 by Thought Art