I wrote a post about SD but someone gave me an answer I dont know how to deal with

[Nivsch]

Actually in a very general and life like way without strictly introduce SD.

He wrote: "but you assume that there is one "right" general direction within everyone is progressing".

And I dont know what to answer to him.

I wrote that progressing is like climbing a mountain that every 100 meters you rise you see more of reality regardless of intelligence and personal skills.

And I wrote to him the progression is not linear. It didnt help because he repeated his claim.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

53 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

He wrote: "but you assume that there is one "right" general direction within everyone is progressing".

That's right. Evolution progresses to maximize consciousness and love.

But good luck explaining that to a materialist, hehe.

But what do you think life has been doing for the last 2 billion years?

[Commodent]

SD is a model based on extensive real-life data. It is not "true" per se, but it is just a description of the ways in which value systems tend to evolve. How do they then know that one stage is above the other? Just look at the historical data. If stage X generally arises before stage Y in different people and societies, then it's safe to say that X precedes Y. Simple as that.

This is why there is no stage Coral in the Spiral Dynamics framework (yet). Sample size is simply too small.

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Nivsch said:

Actually in a very general and life like way without strictly introduce SD.

He wrote: "but you assume that there is one "right" general direction within everyone is progressing".

And I dont know what to answer to him.

I wrote that progressing is like climbing a mountain that every 100 meters you rise you see more of reality regardless of intelligence and personal skills.

And I wrote to him the progression is not linear. It didnt help because he repeated his claim.

You have to explain to them why spiral dynamics is spiral dynamics. There are reasons why these dynamics work the way they work, they are very much the same as evolutionary forces. It's not arbitrary, it's not random, like evolution is not arbitrary or random. For example the limitations of stage blue inevitably lead to the new value attainment of stage orange, precisely because of the limitations of the previous stage. It's not like there is no reason why blue evolves to orange.

You just have to study the model more and give them an indepth explanation of these dynamics. Treat it very similar to the theory of evolution. Why do certain animals evolve wings, why do they behave the way they do? The same can be asked for individuals and collectives in terms of spiral dynamics.

 

Basically you can ask him whether he believes social evolution is completely random and why it would not be governed by some sort of dynamics which evolve from the mechanism that are underlying societal structures. You can basically tell him that not believing in some sort of spiral dynamics is akin to not believing in evolution, because essentially they are one and the same process. There is no "should" in evolution, nor is there in spiral dynamics. It's just how things evolve due to the nature of reality.

[remember]

let’s not overstretch the word evolution to social development and progress - it’s a concept describing mostly the development process of the realm of form so to speak in physical form/body, if we talk about spiritual form/body it would rather be an evolvement, in a lot of cases more disconnected from the physical phenomena than we sometimes assign. progress regress, that’s something that doesn’t really fit into the underlying evolutional beige and purple and red stages as here it’s really often about natural selection and brute force, and regress then in these cases always means complete disappearance - that’s what i mean when i say some lower stages already also contain some shades of higher colours in them as schemes or shades. but also higher developed stages can’t be compared to the survival mode of the lower stages. social development in that sense is an evolvement away from evolution as evolution mostly gives the shell but the content is a spiritual cultural and technological development process that deals with learning, cultural social peaks and flowering and oftentimes regress and forgetting, followed by more learning, different approach, new flowering and new regress. one example of it being non linear is the disappearance of high cultures that found their peaks in selfeliminating forms through toxic survival modes, what made the culture disappear but not their descendants, high culture lowly evolved social structure. although i would say if humanity completely disappears from earth, because nature will collapse, all of that because of low social evolvement and supremacy self bias, we then could call that natural selection and therefore evolution. human made regress can’t be evolution because of the missing link to natural, which already starts with the appearance of purple and red, in that sense an introduction to culture. although evolution runs underneath for humanity as a whole.

Edited October 25, 2019 by remember

[Nivsch]

On 24.10.2019 at 9:21 PM, Leo Gura said:

That's right. Evolution progresses to maximize consciousness and love.

But good luck explaining that to a materialist, hehe.

But what do you think life has been doing for the last 2 billion years?

Yes this is actually the best I can answer in this case. good enough for me.

Why the evolution is going towards consciousness and love if it does not help to survival?

Or it DOES help, to the well being of the giant mind.

Even though the giant mind does not have to survive at all, but it wants to feel good (maybe) same as the human mind.

Is today there more consciousness and love in Earth than before humanity or even before animals?

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Nivsch

[Nivsch]

On 24.10.2019 at 10:15 PM, Commodent said:

SD is a model based on extensive real-life data. It is not "true" per se, but it is just a description of the ways in which value systems tend to evolve. How do they then know that one stage is above the other? Just look at the historical data. If stage X generally arises before stage Y in different people and societies, then it's safe to say that X precedes Y. Simple as that.

This is why there is no stage Coral in the Spiral Dynamics framework (yet). Sample size is simply too small.

Great. I added this explanation to a newer post.

[Nivsch]

@Scholar  He probably will think that the evolution is just random. next time I'll ask him this thanks

[Nivsch]

On 25.10.2019 at 2:43 AM, remember said:

let’s not overstretch the word evolution to social development and progress - it’s a concept describing mostly the development process of the realm of form so to speak in physical form/body, if we talk about spiritual form/body it would rather be an evolvement, in a lot of cases more disconnected from the physical phenomena than we sometimes assign. progress regress, that’s something that doesn’t really fit into the underlying evolutional beige and purple and red stages as here it’s really often about natural selection and brute force, and regress then in these cases always means complete disappearance - that’s what i mean when i say some lower stages already also contain some shades of higher colours in them as schemes or shades. 

You say that red or blue person today, probably (say more than 50% chance) contains small amounts of green or even above?

Say that Blue-Orange person without a little amount of higher stages IS the more rare thing?

[TheAlchemist]

A human is not any "further" evolved than a bacteria, there is no final frontier with nature, just optimization for survival and reproduction +expansion.

Edited October 31, 2019 by TheAlchemist
Bad wording

[remember]

6 hours ago, Nivsch said:

You say that red or blue person today, probably (say more than 50% chance) contains small amounts of green or even above?

Say that Blue-Orange person without a little amount of higher stages IS the more rare thing?

yes, might be, but i say not only in an individual but also in sense of a civil/social sense, means a group that chose any form of government which evolved from a lower organisation to a higher one and then maybe regressed because of general majority regress or leader regress on the spiral.

so for example the civilisation of the maya was eradicated because they were somehow missing out on green but for their time had astonishing technological and spiritual developments. you can`t really say they were all orange or maybe even still in purple - it`s generally difficult to say where they were at, but being too much in purple and red made them disappear.

what about the middleages? the middleages were a general regress - but you can`t say it was evolution because people just regressed into a time of forgetting. the middleages were mainly red and blue. but there were probably people who managed to be blue and at the same time maintaining higher knowledge in an orange, green and even yellow and turquoise way for their technological evolution stage. still they were trying to eliminate others with various holy wars witch hunts and progroms. catholic church was lucky they could maintain themselfs in some form.

the nazis and the holocaust for example were only possible because there was an orange, green yellow and turquoise movement in advance but the ones in power were not evolved enough and therefore prepared the pathway for super nationalism, purple/red/blue hyper killing machinery in a technological highly developed setting. this was the point in history were it was shown, that thinking about evolution on a social scale does not have much to do with a highly evolved spirituality. and history showed a culture like that can not survive, as higher developed culture stopped the nazis.

for example i see  visionary creativity in spirituality as a sign for a sprincle of turquoise although there is also creativity in purple but in the end it`s the evolvement of humanity which makes the difference between purple/red madness and turquoise.

so what i wanted to say basically is: it is the ego survival mode or supremacy mode that makes the colour a person is at or the colour a whole country is at and that has nothing to do with evolution of physical and ability of the human form. as long as there is supression, countries can fall back into red, as long as we kill nature and life, humanity will regress and fall back into ages of darkness - no evolution in that so far. so it is more an evolvement of personalities culture and emotional maturity to maintain a high spiral stage. but i think the sircumstances in which we grow up are more  relevant than what colours might be already present in us but locked through that what budhists call karma.

a catch 22 for example is someone on a slightly higher stage who can not exit the spiral stage of the herd or the purple red dynamics between the own and the other culture, so is executing in it or at least somehow trying to survive in it with an amount of higher spiral awareness. so yes i think we all carry a tiny bit of all spiral colours in us, but it`s how we evolve in and evolve the culture we are in what makes something happen we can call progress despite all historic regresses.

Edited October 31, 2019 by remember