Spiral Dynamics Stage Green Examples Mega-Thread

[stevegan928]

@Nick Jones

On 7/3/2018 at 0:22 AM, Nick Jones said:

I cant decide if Wim Hof is really Yellow or Green what do you think?  

I initially think he's a very healthy green but maybe if I spoke his native tongue I could hear him express more complex worldviews resembling that of yellow.  

[lmfao]

The more I watch a lot of these the more I feel like I like green lol. I love Russel Brand and Noam Chomsky so much. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by lmfao

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Tetcher said:

But you can't contemplate and imbibe Trump it looks like, even though you think you're so much more evolved than him. You wouldn't use such demeaning terms on a full red person even.

Because to take Trump seriously is to go too far. The proper response to Trump is ridicule.

You don't engage someone like that in serious discussion because he is not an honest actor. He's a con-artist and he doesn't care about truth. So there can be no serious philosophical discussion with him or his ilk.

This is not really judgment. Yes, it's my subjective evaluation. Trump is who he is and he cannot be otherwise. In fact, he is a facet of myself, so for me to demonize him would be just me demonizing God. Which is silly to do. But that doesn't mean I have go along with Trump's machinations. Trump is just very unconscious, and there millions of unconscious people all over the world. I can refuse to take part in their unconsciousness without making it a personal thing.

For me to concede ground to unconsciousness when I know better would just be foolish. Whether you agree with me or not is not my problem. You are free to disagree with me and love Trump. Ultimately you have to learn to think for yourself. I am just presenting my ideas here.

There is always a point at which you have to draw a line. For example, if someone comes to you and says, 1+1=5, you laugh him off. If you took every such case seriously, you would be very open to manipulation. People could just overwhelm you with false information to push their egoic agendas through. So there needs to be a firewall. The key is tuning your firewall properly so it doesn't reject legitimate points of view. It's always possible to miscalibrate one's firewall, but in the case of Trump, I'm not too worried about that being a problem. He's just not presidential material. This should be obvious to any unbiased observer. If you disagree, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and we'll see who wins at the ballet box in 2020.

[Space]

Of course the epitome of Green in the UK is Glastonbury Festival, the biggest non-annual festival in the world. An experience like no other.

 

[Nahm]

There is an ignore feature guys, not that it makes any sense to use it. Lot of joy on the other side of compassion & understanding. 

Not what you’re here for? Doubtful.  ❤️

 

[Nahm]

Just now, Etagnwo said:

@Nahm All fine and well. But is it nice to get accosted by green when you're trying to work on enlightenment? Are we not allowed to take our path without some moralizing troll policing our words because we are currently not interested in what they are? 

What do you mean when you use the word “enlightenment”? That is a very confused message. 

 

[Nahm]

38 minutes ago, Etagnwo said:

@Nahm Quick question nahm

You know you posted that Abraham hicks thing on my thread the other day? 

Not sure what camp you fell into? Are you saying Abraham hicks is right? 

Right about what?

[Emerald]

@Spacious The videos you're posting aren't Green examples. They are examples of Blue and Orange resistance to Green. But they aren't Green in and of themselves. You might consider posting them in the Blue or Orange mega-threads. 

[Emerald]

@Spacious

All the videos on Jordan Peterson (I didn't watch your videos on him that you posted because I've seen quite a lot of Jordan Peterson's stuff) His main talking points are usually him trying to use archetypal understandings of religion (Blue) to solidify traditional norms (Blue). He is also of the belief that we live in a meritocracy (Orange) that sends the best and the brightest to the top. Basically, that the free market and capitalism (Orange) are fair or mostly fair sorting methods for hierarchical status (Orange). He is also very resistant to Green, and he sees most initiatives toward equality as steps toward social decay, dictatorship, and the crumbling of Western values (Blue) and Capitalism (Orange). These are very Orange and Blue fears about Green. So, he is in resistance to Green in the way that Blues and Oranges normally are.

The video with Warren Farrell - He is talking about from an Orange and Blue perspective as well. He is Orange in the sense that he is viewing Feminism from the perspective of the workplace and capitalist hierarchies. He also is of the Orange belief that the workplace and the capitalist system works as a reliable meritocracy where if men are in the top positions it's because of the fact that they've worked for it more. He is Blue because he is harkening a lot back to traditions and gender roles. And in his focus toward gender roles, the underlying subtext is that they come from natural differences and not social constructs which is a very Blue idea. He is also anti-Green, and tends to view Feminism (Green) as unfair to men and misrepresents it as a movement against men, and uses the existence of men's issues to invalidate those focusing on women's issues. And because his entire argument is for the purpose of arguing against Feminism (Green), it means that he is in resistance to Green. Any viewpoint that is in resistance to Feminism will not be Green. 

The video with the short haired lady - Now this is a shorter video. So, all she really shows is a resistance to Green. She is displaying a resistance to Feminism (Green) and misrepresents it a movement against men. She also sees the word Patriarchy as a demonization of men, because of the fact that the word has the pre-fix "Pat" to it. So, this implies that she doesn't recognize Patriarchy as a real thing. This leads me to think that she's Orange. Oranges don't like to pay attention to unfair structures built into the social system. That's dangerous to their assurance that success and status is always rightfully earned and is a reliable metric for determining personal worth. They like to see society as a fair meritocracy where everyone is already on an equal footing within society. So, Oranges will tend to see Feminism as unfairly focusing toward women's issues, because they don't recognize the unfair social structures. They will think of that kind of unfairness as purely a past phenomenon and as an outgrowth of Blue... which they have a resistance to. Also, Orange women tend to convince themselves that the world sees them as equal to men, which enables them to ignore inequalities and climb in social hierarchies without noticing or caring about differentiated treatment. 

The Big Think video with the guy talking about the future of Capitalism- This one is 99% Orange and like 1% Green. He's Green in the sense that he thinks the future of Capitalism (Orange) might entail even more Capitalism (Orange) and more Socialism (Green). But all the rest of his points are very comfortably within Orange. He focuses toward Capitalism and talks about the benefits of the free market. He is examining market trends and is interested in new business models. He also has the idea that the meritocracy works and that those with the most money and success within the field of technology tend to be the most capable, most hard working, and most compassionate. Basically, the ideas that the cream will rise. He also shows resistance to Blue in the sense that he looks at having a regular 9 to 5 job as being inferior to being an influencer in the free market and the field of technology. He also sees those who are the biggest influencers and most tech savvy as being the best leaders. He doesn't show very much resistance to Green other than the uncertainty of what Green will mean for the free market. He thinks Green can be either bad or good but doesn't take a definitive stance.

The one with the Red Pill documentary - Features a former Feminist that has turned anti-Feminist (resistance to Green) because she has recognized that men have systemic issues too (Green). But she sees the existence of male issues as somewhat of an invalidation of what Feminism (Green) is as a movement. Not entirely but somewhat. So, like some of the others above see Feminism as an ideology against men, so now does she in many regards. This is probably because of the reception she's gotten from Feminists who see the issues of her normalization of the MRA group. I'm sure that the Feminists pushing back at her exacerbate that effect. And she views recognizing the effects of patriarchy (which is a real systemic force) as anti-man because patriarchy has the suffix "pat." (Green in resistance to Yellow)

So, she doesn't seem to recognize the unequal power structures that actually cause those issues for men (lacking Yellow), which actually come from the same structures that cause issues for women. So, because of this, she likely thinks that the system is already pretty equal (Orange). And she has chosen to ally herself more with MRAs (mostly Orange, but with a significant amount of Red and Blue) than Feminists(Green), who are fervently anti-Feminist (Red, Blue, Orange) and often anti-woman (Red, Blue, Orange) instead of listening to the concerns of men who are not allied with a hate group.

So, it shows a lack of nuance, that I'm inclined to place in Orange. She lacks the systemic thinking (Yellow) to understand the effects of allying herself with those who espouse anti-woman sentiments. In fact, she views those anti-woman sentiments as being just a neutral marketing tactic (Orange). So, the MRA group is often based around a few legitimate issues, but its members use those issues as a way to invalidate Feminism (Green) as a movement and place the blame on women for creating those issues. So, the effects (intended or not) would be that the status quo is upheld within society (Orange with some Blue).

So, hers is a little tricky to pin down because she is noticing some Green things too. I've heard some of her interviews before, and with regard to noticing the taboo of male pain and focusing on men's issues, I would say she is taking issues that require Yellow and trying to approach it from a Green mentality that tends to see things in a non-nuanced way still. Then, she ends up coming into some resistance to Green, and falls on the other side of the horse and normalizes an Orange/Blue/Red group who are very anti-Green. The effects of which, she thinks will be Green. But the effects it will likely have is just more validation of the Orange/Blue/Red perspectives within that group.

So, I'd say she's an Orange/Green who lacks Yellow and ends up adding more resistance to Green in the process, thus maintaining the status quo of mostly Orange society. 

But the guy asking her questions is definitely Green (and a bit Yellow) with the things he is saying because of his concern for how she's approaching this topic. 

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Emerald

[Key Elements]

 

[Emerald]

@Spacious I just think you're looking at things that you're identified with, and labeling them as Green because you think "Green=Good" and think lower stages are bad. But these videos just aren't examples of predominantly Green thinking. You might resonate with them, but they're still objectively Orange and Blue ways of thinking about things, predominantly. Maybe the Big Think guy is more geared toward Green in general. I see that he's not in resistance to Green. But that video was from an Orange perspective, and I've never heard him speak on other topics. 

Edit: I have to go post a video to my YT channel. So, I'll come back to your arguments later.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Emerald

[ValiantSalvatore]

Weird german alternative hip-hop the imagery explains everything 

(Green / Yellow~ish)

[ValiantSalvatore]

This is also good:
 

 

[Mohamad Tahmas]

Although Turkish and Azerbaijani cultures are much the same, they've had some hatred between them..this is a song about the two countries, consider it a multicultural song. 

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by Mohamad Tahmas

[Key Elements]

Personally, I have not tried this because I don't like needles, but others have recommended it because it relieved them of their joint pains. If I have to do this because it's the easiest way for the relief of something, I would--just like I would try homeopathy to relieve my cough instead of going to the store and buy cough syrup. 

[martin_malin]

 

[JustinS]

This version is nice too, beautiful graphics

Close your eyes, take a little hit of that mj if you have to, relax and just melt into her Grace.

Edited July 8, 2018 by JustinS

[Key Elements]

Green and Red (con-artist)

[Tetcher]

On 06/07/2018 at 6:31 AM, Leo Gura said:

Because to take Trump seriously is to go too far. The proper response to Trump is ridicule.

You don't engage someone like that in serious discussion because he is not an honest actor. He's a con-artist and he doesn't care about truth. So there can be no serious philosophical discussion with him or his ilk.

This is not really judgment. Yes, it's my subjective evaluation. Trump is who he is and he cannot be otherwise. In fact, he is a facet of myself, so for me to demonize him would be just me demonizing God. Which is silly to do. But that doesn't mean I have go along with Trump's machinations. Trump is just very unconscious, and there millions of unconscious people all over the world. I can refuse to take part in their unconsciousness without making it a personal thing.

For me to concede ground to unconsciousness when I know better would just be foolish. Whether you agree with me or not is not my problem. You are free to disagree with me and love Trump. Ultimately you have to learn to think for yourself. I am just presenting my ideas here.

There is always a point at which you have to draw a line. For example, if someone comes to you and says, 1+1=5, you laugh him off. If you took every such case seriously, you would be very open to manipulation. People could just overwhelm you with false information to push their egoic agendas through. So there needs to be a firewall. The key is tuning your firewall properly so it doesn't reject legitimate points of view. It's always possible to miscalibrate one's firewall, but in the case of Trump, I'm not too worried about that being a problem. He's just not presidential material. This should be obvious to any unbiased observer. If you disagree, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and we'll see who wins at the ballet box in 2020.

@Leo GuraI wouldn't fall for this trap. You don't need a firewall, if you encompass Trump in your consciousness you can deal with with him out of your intelligence in relaxation, why do you need a firewall which is just a resistance to a facet of the self ? Why do you say that we'll see who will win in 2020, who cares ? He already won in 2016.

You can draw a line for yourself if you wish, that's fine if you're aware of it. I was just being surprised that you're fine with it when the whole point of this work is to transcend all the lines. Even if you're aware of the line it's still a line that you can't cross freely and who knows how it will evolve or metastase.

I watch this with a external eye since I'm not an american and I can tell you that to me all this societal Trump hate  by media, green communities and so on seems really irrational to me, I don't understand why they really hate him with their guts, but they are insulting him, won't ever find something positive about him or his actions, do everything to impede him. Why would they do that, he's been elected through a democratic process, let's make the most out of it.

I guess they are entranched in a certain worldview, set of beliefs and identifications and Trump is going against all that. And your social life probably revolves around a lot of green people and communities, your girlfriend maybe is green and you're being drawn into this social hate. Your belief in spiral dynamics also doesn't help because you think green is more advanced than orange so you think drawing this line is good because it secure you from falling back to orange but that's not how it works. At least I see it for myself, you can see it otherwise if you wish.

[CreamCat]

On 7/7/2018 at 3:28 PM, Spacious said:

I disagree, I don't assume Green equals good, I see can see the limitations of Green, like how a Green Stage person wants everyone to have their say, but still works on the condition that ultimately their perspective is correct (need to give credit to Ken Wilber). Using the word 'objectively' doesn't provide justification, this is a return to assertion.

@Spacious I agree with your analysis because I am between Orange and Green. If you resist the Green elements of either Feminism or MRA, you are not fully accepting Green. Green should not care about gender or species. Green should even advocate for the rights of sentient artificial intelligence. AIs will emerge as a new breed of non-biological species.

Feminism and MRA are not primarily Green by themselves. Feminism has a lot of Purple and Red people along with Green. I was shocked to see large groups of Red feminists approved by Purple and Green. They advocated killing all men and domesticating men through no-fault divorce and false rape accusations. Feminism doesn't look Blue. MRA has a bit of Blue and a lot of Orange. But, there are some Green elements in each of them. MRA seems Greener than Feminism in my opinion because the founder of MRA used to be a Feminist and still is a Feminist. The founder of MRA made a lot of money from Feminist lectures until he started asking women to consider men's problems along with women's problems.

I surmise that equalism or egalitarianism in moderation should be primarily Green.

In my mind, a truly Green individual should empathize and sympathize with the plights of men, women, animals, and other miscellaneous species. For example, I sympathize with women who can't open bank accounts, but I also sympathize with men who are forced to join army by military conscription. I can also see things in the perspective of artificial intelligence which will not have biological genders.

Edited July 8, 2018 by CreamCat