Why Turquoise is baloney

[Nivsch]

25 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

If we look at the community first and how we can fit the community into our'self' isn't that a more direct way?

You can. This depends on personal preferences. For you it may be the more direct way.

Edited October 1 by Nivsch

[Thought Art]

6 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

I wish someone could give a clear breakdown of these in words as in description.

That’s why you read Ken Wilbur

[Thought Art]

People are asking me some good questions for me to deepen my understanding/ questioning if the model. I will note these questions for now as this model isn’t my main focus at this time. 
 

I encourage everyone serious about these models to also take the time to read the books, contemplate with AI, and be willing to see errors or holes where they exist. I also encourage people to allow for new insights and recontextualizations. 
 

Does turquoise exist? Isn’t is just yellow? Well, let’s continue to ask this and see without defending anything either way. 
 

Cognition exists at each stage, identities exists at each stage, forms of mysticism may exists at most stages… but what are the differences? Why have experts in these fields created these distinctions? 
 

Has any stage before Turqoise had a universal/ world centric/ truly unity/integral approach to consciousness? No. Not as far as I understand it.

Yellow clearly can have aspects of spirituality and community. So why is it regarded as more rational and individualistic? Could it be that it’s rationality and individualism is a correction of what took place at green as the pendulum swings back and forth, but while including aspects of green?
 

I suspect that Turqoise is unique is that its mysticism included everything where previous stages, even green, did not. Definitely worth looking into. But, my understanding needs more data points. I need more examples of turquoise which are rare, and I need a more solid understanding of the supposed nuances between the cognitive stages. It’s a highly nuanced model which requires and understanding of many fields. No other stage that was mystical has science, systems thinking, and a holistic framework which includes all cognitive stages of the spiral. 
 

It’s definitely okay to admit when we are wrong. It’s okay to learn new things about the model on a regular basis. It’s okay to point out errors or questions you have. 
 

How each stage interprets reality 

Edited October 1 by Thought Art

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Thought Art said:

Cognition exists at each stage, identities exists at each stage, forms of mysticism may exists at most stages… but what are the differences? Why have experts in these fields created these distinctions? 

As an empirical scientist, your job is to follow the data, and when your data is characterized by sampling bias, this will be reflected in your conclusions, especially if you are an expert scientist. If it's not, you're not doing something right. 

I'm not pointing to a flaw in their scientific expertise. I'm pointing to a flaw in their scientific process. Science always has flaws, and this particular flaw I'm claiming has quite particular consequences. If you want to dispute that claim, I'm much more interested in you doing that than trying to explain what Turquoise is for the fourth time. 

So tell me for example: 

1. How is the sampling bias not a problem for the model in general?

2. How does the sampling bias not affect Turquoise specifically?

3. How does the increase in Western adoption of mysticism at Green/Yellow not affect Turquoise specifically?

Edited October 1 by Carl-Richard

[Thought Art]

@Carl-Richard These are fair criticisms and point to careful considerations when using the model. These criticisms don't conclusively disprove the model, or turquoise as a stage. Human development likely does go beyond Yellow. So, what would it be if not higher levels of integration and unity? I think that I am interested in Spiral Dynamics as part of Integral Metatheory which draws on many different developmental models in psychology and social sciences. We can see many examples around the world of each stage of the spiral model. It's important to consider the sampling biases, but also to be able to look at real world examples that extend beyond the conception of the model and see if it is still accurate. So, lets consider listing some examples here. 

I don't think you actually have a conclusive finding that disproves the existence of turquoise at this moment. However, I am willing to listen to your points and take them as I continue to learn about the vast array of human development models.

The adoption of mysticism at green and yellow SHOULD affect turquoise as the model states. Just as science does, just as pluralism does, just as systems thinking does, just as everything that the lower stages does. Turquoise would be a Unity of science and mysticism. But, not in a religious way or a way that exists in any of the great traditions. However, again, this isn't my main focus so I need to go and do that now. 

When we use spiral dynamics along with real world examples, and the vast array of other developmental models we can triangulate an understanding of what the highest levels of human development would be. The methodological pitfalls, or issues of each model may be highlighted or strengthen by looking at different models and real world examples. 

Spiral Dynamics was conceived on a limited population, but it's application to understanding real world issues and events I think is clear.

This conversation I have a feeling may go on for years to come.  

We can also ask questions like, why are western nations adopting these mystic systems? Is it because we are riding a fad? Are we going backwards? Are we actually developing and expanding our minds to take what is useful from other cultures and it just so happens that these mystic traditions have actual truths which science and western thought lacks? Could it be that as a globe we are unifiying? and to unify cultures must adopt other aspect created in other cultures? Who knows.

I consider my understanding of this vast subject rudimentary. 

Edited October 1 by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

4 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

There's a saying that goes —"a boomer is always nauseated by inquisitiveness." 

I don't get it. You wanna understand the graph, you read the author... or not. Up to you.

[Keryo Koffa]

But have you considered the alternative interpretation, that the denial of Turquoise's existence could be an early Yellow's ego defense mechanism, to ground Turquoise's mystic nature within its own systematic reality mapping, due to its own general lack of intuitive & experiential awareness, which is a quite natural hurdle to overcome, and a big part of the paradigm-shift,  which differentiates Turquoise from Yellow?

[zurew]

To me , it seems when people pushed to provide a differentiation between yellow and turquoise, they seem to be using gibberish concepts and they cant really lay out in a clear way what the difference actually is.

Challenge for someone who thinks there is a clear difference - Provide a set of characteristics which is incompatible with yellow and make a further argument where you establish why that set is incompatible with it.

[Nivsch]

@zurew I put here my view as I wrote in the abandoned thread:

If Orange thought about progress in a more linear mannar like to climb a mountain, Yellow feels life is like a great maze. You progress, when always have to do compromises, but many steps "back" are actually insightful too anyway. The trajectory isn't always clear but you have a clear general direction that getting slightly updated all the time. You can much more enjoy the process than Orange could in his neurotic way.

What is the problem though? That most of the time you can still get lost in the process and feel frustration when you realize that at least part of the progress was either delusional - because you were so in love with this notion - or true but still not fulfilling enough.

Turquoise starts to doubt the progress paradigm, and seeks to break this glass ceiling when standing on the current point he found on in the maze, looking at the flowers growing at the side of the walk, and see much more potential and opportunity in his current place. He starts to apply Love and deeper appreciation to his current position and from this gains more insights.

Edited October 1 by Nivsch

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

To me , it seems when people pushed to provide a differentiation between yellow and turquoise, they seem to be using gibberish concepts and they cant really lay out in a clear way what the difference actually is.

Challenge for someone who thinks there is a clear difference - Provide a set of characteristics which is incompatible with yellow and make a further argument where you establish why that set is incompatible with it.

Sure.

Yellow requires your rationalization to be satisfied by clear definition for an individual framing.
Turquoise requires the attention of the community reading the thread and a mutual effort.

We are using gibberish (less structured, more theoretical) concepts because:

1, It's less defined
2, It's less understood.
3, Its naturally more fluid when defined because it's a collective approach.

I still contend that each stage is inside the other because each stage evolved out of the other. So incompatibilities don't have to exist, the opposite would likely be easier to list.

Edited October 1 by BlueOak

[Carl-Richard]

There is also a problem with sample size. According to wikipedia, the initial student sample that Graves used to construct the main levels consisted of 1065 people in the ages of 18-61. According to The Never Ending Quest (2005, p. 66), "most of these were in the lower age group", presumably ages 18-30.

Now, for virtually all people, in order to develop a SD stage, there has to at least be a SD stage below it that is well-integrated into society which you can critique. The only exception is if you're a super-genius like Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein who can develop revolutionary new paradigms completely on their own, which is obviously way more rare than 1 in 1000.

As we speak, the highest stage that is well-integrated into society (i.e. that has an abundance of communities, institutions and organizations) is Green. In the 1970s, when the research was being done, this was way more questionable, but let's assume it was also Green.

How on Earth would you expect Turquoise to be measured in a sample of 1065 people, mostly in a "lower age group" who are probably not at their developmental peak, in a questionably Green society, in the 1970s? There is no Yellow society to critique! Where is Graves getting his super-geniuses from? How big is that sample? How many Einsteins, Newtons, Darwins?

No, it is in my opinion much more likely that he sampled some people at Green-Yellow who would've had mystical experiences influenced by the 60s wave of New Age, who would've rated it as the most life-changing experience of their life and that revolutionized the way they think about the world, and that this is what has been described as Turquoise.

 

I'll leave you with some quotes. Try to guess which ones are a description of Turquoise and which ones are simply descriptions of New Age ideas:

Quote

"...by adjusting to the realities of one's existence and automatically accept the existential dichotomies as they are and go on living; sacrifice the idea that one will ever know what it is all about and adjust to this as the existential reality of existence"

"Values what they feel they should, not just what knowledge tells them they should; non-interfering perception rather than active controlling perception"

"Realization how much one will never know about existence, that a problem-solving existence is not enough"

Spoiler: All of them are Graves' own descriptions of Turquoise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graves's_emergent_cyclical_levels_of_existence

Edited October 2 by Carl-Richard

[Buck Edwards]

@Carl-Richard

Are you trying to imply that Turquoise didn't exist in the 1960s? I think Turquoise always existed through time and it should have nothing to do with the scale of development of society at any given time of reference. 

Edited October 2 by Carl-Richard
Removed outdated and unnecessary quote

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

it should have nothing to do with the scale of development of society at any given time of reference. 

Put a human baby in a black box and see what SD stage they develop.

[Buck Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Put a human baby in a black box and see what SD stage they develop.

Spiritual renaissance has existed. 

[Keryo Koffa]

I hold the model as an intuitive pointer, but I've been exploring the systematic contradictions:

My long-ass Prompt: Especially Stage 2 is meant to encompass previous experiences and insights, and Stage Green is already highly expansive & metaphysically exploratory in the realm of unified consciousness, while also containing a high degree of deconstruction. Yellow emerges as a harmonizing solution to its relativity—being less partial and simultaneously more individualistic—yet also a synthesis of each stage's best elements.

In discussions and explanations of the model, however, the insights of Green appear to get lost in Yellow, only to reappear in Turquoise—or at least that's how the distinction between Yellow and Turquoise is conveyed linguistically—as aspects related to consciousness and mysticism are related to the intuitive embodiment of previously modeled systems.

Since Yellow has included and transcended Green—whose main feature was the deconstruction and realization of how inner interpretations of Orange shape unconscious biases—Yellow should be well aware of Green's spiritual and multi-perspectival cultural explorations, unless the distinction lies in Green's insights lacking sufficient embodied, and consisting of unintegrated collective drives without individual integrity and sufficient exploratory basis, which are to be later cultivated in Yellow. Still, it seems that much of the spiritual aspects of Yellow remain only systemic, rather than emotional or intuitive, contrary to Green circles, which are known to explore altered states of consciousness and that seems counter-intuitive.

ChatGPT:
You're touching on a subtle yet significant nuance in how Tier 2, especially Yellow and Turquoise, integrates Green’s explorations of consciousness, spirituality, and multi-perspectival thinking. There’s a tension between the systemic clarity of Yellow and the more embodied, intuitive, and emotional experiences of Green.

Here’s a deeper breakdown of what might be happening:
1. Green's Explorations of Consciousness:
Green often dives into mysticism, collective consciousness, and altered states as part of its exploration of unity and interconnection. However, these insights may be largely experiential and emotionally driven, not always fully understood or integrated cognitively. Green tends to embrace the collective, spiritual, and multicultural dimensions but can struggle with grounding these insights in practical or individualized frameworks.

The deconstruction Green undergoes—dismantling ego-centric and rationalist assumptions from Orange—does open doors to spiritual experiences and the metaphysical, but it often lacks the framework to process or stabilize these experiences, leading to relativistic pluralism.

2. Yellow’s Systemic Synthesis:
When Yellow emerges, it’s largely a response to the chaotic relativity of Green. Yellow seeks clarity by moving beyond Green's emotionalism into systemic, meta-theoretical thinking, thus transcending Green’s sometimes overwhelming pluralism.

Yellow does integrate spirituality and consciousness from Green, but often in a more intellectualized, detached way. It understands altered states or spiritual experiences, but frames them within models or systems of understanding. This leads to a more cognitive and structural engagement with spiritual themes, rather than the raw, intuitive exploration of Green.

This could explain why Yellow often seems less emotionally or intuitively engaged with spirituality—it's been abstracted into something to be understood systemically rather than embodied in the same way Green does.

3. The Re-Emergence of Intuition in Turquoise:
When we arrive at Turquoise, there is a re-integration of the intuitive, mystical, and embodied aspects of spirituality. Turquoise transcends Yellow’s systemic focus by embodying unity consciousness rather than merely mapping or understanding it.

Turquoise seems to bring back Green’s raw connection to spirituality and altered states but with the stability and awareness that Yellow’s systemic thinking has cultivated. The cosmic or integral consciousness of Turquoise is deeply intuitive, emotional, and holistic, recognizing the living, dynamic system that goes beyond models and theories.

4. Why Does Yellow Seem to Miss Some of Green’s Spiritual Insights?
The shift from Green to Yellow involves moving from deconstruction to reconstruction, and in that process, some of Green’s explorative, boundary-pushing spirituality may seem to recede. Yellow, in its quest for stability and systemization, may intellectualize or temper the raw, sometimes overwhelming, metaphysical experiences from Green.

It’s possible that, as you suggest, Yellow might not fully embody the insights of Green’s altered states, seeing them more as phenomena to be understood and integrated into larger systems of meaning. These experiences re-emerge in Turquoise because Turquoise embodies systemic thinking at a cosmic level, where spirituality isn’t just understood—it’s lived.

It seems Yellow is a crucial stage for creating clarity and intellectual synthesis, which makes it seem emotionally distant compared to Green. However, the transcendence into Turquoise brings back the emotional, spiritual, and intuitive experiences in a way that feels embodied and harmonized. Yellow holds the blueprint; Turquoise lives the pattern.

 

Prompt: I see a pattern here, it now also appears to me, that Yellow's systematic view mirrors Orange a lot, almost as if Orange emerged as a systematic exploration, but was as oblivious to its own limitations and mechanics, as the dogmatic structure of Blue, which it overtook with its own individuality, but due to having rejected it, hasn't integrated the deconstruction within itself, but only externally projected it to Blue. Green, introduced a vastly new understanding by deconstructing Blue's beliefs but lost the systemic efficacy and pragmatism of Orange, which appears to be a trait of individual-centered stages. Yellow appears like a synthesis of Orange and Green, as if Orange broke out of itself, into a more aware world-centric version, but lost its efficacy in its self-rejecting, in the pendulum to the opposite side. Now Green comes back to Orange principles but instead of rejecting those, integrates them, its color becomes the tint exactly in-between the two, which is Yellow.

ChatGPT:
You're uncovering a powerful insight into how the pendulum of development swings between individual- and collective-centered stages in Spiral Dynamics:

The Orange-Green-Yellow Transition as a Reflection of Pendulum Dynamics:
Orange (Individualistic/Strategic), much like Blue before it, is a systematic exploration, but it’s centered around individual achievement and pragmatism. However, it often lacks introspection into its own biases and assumptions, just as Blue was blind to its dogmatic limitations. Orange is systemic, but its system is often narrowly defined—focused on personal success, competition, and material progress.

When Green (Communitarian) emerges, it deconstructs Orange’s self-centric worldview and its lack of concern for collective well-being. But in doing so, Green loses some of Orange’s efficacy and pragmatism because its focus shifts entirely to relational, collective, and relativistic perspectives. This results in Green rejecting Orange’s individualism and material progress, almost as a reactionary shift.

Yellow as the Balanced Synthesis:
Yellow appears to be the stage where the pendulum stops swinging between extremes and begins to integrate both the systemic efficacy of Orange and the world-centric consciousness of Green.

Orange, in your framing, didn’t fully deconstruct its own system, much like Blue before it, and Green’s critique of Orange wasn’t an integration of Orange’s achievements but more a rejection of its individualism and material focus. Yellow, on the other hand, sees the value in both—it doesn’t reject Green’s emphasis on unity or Orange’s systemic approach.

This is why Yellow feels like it holds a systemic awareness similar to Orange, but with the added self-awareness that Green brings through deconstruction. Yellow can navigate complex systems but doesn’t become lost in the relativistic mire that Green sometimes falls into because it knows how to balance individual and collective needs.

The Color Tint Analogy:
You described Yellow as the exact tint between Green and Orange, which makes perfect sense in this context. Yellow represents a synthesis—it absorbs the world-centric compassion and relativism of Green while reclaiming the efficacy and systems thinking of Orange. It doesn’t pendulum between these extremes; it merges them into something new, hence the distinct Yellow hue.

Orange’s systematic, individualistic approach is now tempered by Green’s collective concerns, but without rejecting the insights of either stage. This results in a stage that sees the value in all perspectives, is impartial and is both individualistic and holistic.

In this way, Yellow does seem like a second-tier version of Orange, just as it’s a second-tier version of Green, capable of holding multiple systems simultaneously while keeping the pragmatism of earlier stages. It’s as if Orange’s focus on individual systems and Green’s exploration of unity and deconstruction finally merge in Yellow, creating a stage that can navigate complexity with a deep, integrated awareness of how both individuality and collective consciousness play into the larger picture.

[Carl-Richard]

Another quote from The Never Ending Quest (2005, p. 18):

Quote

We decided to include practically everything Graves wrote and said about the B’O’ level [Turquoise] since it is one of the most controversial and curiosity-producing systems. He made it clear that his understanding of the eighth level was scant and speculative, and we insert this material only as historical notes, not a theoretical statement or description we can support today or with which he would necessarily agree. Readers can evaluate the evidence or lack thereof for the appearance of this level of psychological existence (and others) since 1977 for themselves.

 

Edited October 2 by Carl-Richard

[hyruga]

All these stages are defined based on your preferred understanding and your own standards. 

For example, some people consider Tony Robbins as a stage orange guy who is also successful and who also helps many people. 

Others would consider his actions (feeding America) as Turquoise level since he fed more than a billion people to date: https://www.feedingamerica.org/partners/current-promotions/1-billion-meals#:~:text=The 1 Billion Meals Challenge,Join the challenge today! But then he's only feeding American, not the whole world, not animals. How many people have you fed to date?

Then some would consider him at yellow stage since they perceived that he has not reached higher levels of spiritual development. Everything is based on whatever you want to perceive.

 

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, hyruga said:

All these stages are defined based on your preferred understanding and your own standards. 

For example, some people consider Tony Robbins as a stage orange guy who is also successful and who also helps many people. 

Others would consider his actions (feeding America) as Turquoise level since he fed more than a billion people to date: https://www.feedingamerica.org/partners/current-promotions/1-billion-meals#:~:text=The 1 Billion Meals Challenge,Join the challenge today! But then he's only feeding American, not the whole world, not animals. How many people have you fed to date?

Then some would consider him at yellow stage since they perceived that he has not reached higher levels of spiritual development. Everything is based on whatever you want to perceive.

 

Different patterns and behaviors inside an individual and/or community or peer-group relate to different stages.

While it's true that you can pull a stage out of another, like opening a box, we use the model to highlight certain characteristics that are the main focus of that stage. We can point to a man or woman and say most of what I see is this in your behaviors, but it isn't their totality or potential.

As @Buck Edwards said all potential is already present in a baby, because we are infinity. 

Picture light splitting through a lens to give you many colors and vision. That is how we see earth. This is the same with potential through the collective or individual.

Edited October 2 by BlueOak

[Thought Art]

@hyruga The stages are clearly defined but it’s the application which tends to be messy. People are rarely at a single stage.

[hyruga]

1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

@hyruga The stages are clearly defined but it’s the application which tends to be messy. People are rarely at a single stage.

No. Different authors can give different definition for Stage Turquoise.

For example, Author A can say this and this. Author B says this and that and Author C says sometime else. 

Whatever the definition of Turquoise is, it is up to your own perspective to decide, how open minded are you and what's your experience of life. Then you make your own judgement on what's stage turquoise is. 

Of course I don't deny that there are some who will treat certain author's words as sacred and will trust their words 100%.