Percentages and Ages of Spiral Dynamics Stages

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, Artsu said:

I think so yes (on average of course).

You seem to be conceptualizing higher states of consciousness as being more "needy" than the lower states of consciousness. I believe it's the other way around. When you're higher consciousness, you're more apt to deal with different situations, and that avoids many aspects of suffering that the lower states struggle with. I believe you're talking about niche cases where highly developed people feel like misfits or outcasts, that they don't feel like they belong or get outside validation from their immediate surroundings. I don't think those cases are in anyway comparable to something like a stage orange person who struggles with constant self-doubt, self-hatred, jealousy, cravings, attachments etc..

Edited July 30, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Artsu]

57 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You seem to be conceptualizing higher states of consciousness as being more "needy" than the lower states of consciousness. I believe it's the other way around. When you're higher consciousness, you're more apt to deal with different situations, and that avoids many aspects of suffering that the lower states struggle with. I believe you're talking about niche cases where highly developed people feel like misfits or outcasts, that they don't feel like they belong or get outside validation from their immediate surroundings. I don't think those cases are in anyway comparable to something like a stage orange person who struggles with constant self-doubt, self-hatred, jealousy, cravings, attachments etc..

Another thing...

I think being at a higher stage allows one to deal more easily with suffering, so they allow more for themselves.

I can see a great suffering in those with high consciousness.

My life is rather dull unless I am psychotic. And the environment fights me from becoming that way. I don't even know why it's called psychosis, it is me exploring frontier consciousness, organically tripping, elevating my consciousness.

Yet it has caused me great stress from lashback.

The working world doesn't suit me, the society around me doesn't suit me, and it's getting increasingly difficult to find relevant information in the physical world. There are other reasons too, but I suffer. I know life after earth will be much better.

[Carl-Richard]

14 minutes ago, Artsu said:

I think being at a higher stage allows one to deal more easily with suffering, so they allow more for themselves.

I can see a great suffering in those with high consciousness.

Isn't this a semantic trap? "Deal more easily with suffering" just sounds like they experience less suffering. I don't see the distinction there.

[Artsu]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Isn't this a semantic trap? "Deal more easily with suffering" just sounds like they experience less suffering. I don't see the distinction there.

Higher consciousness can contain more suffering. Is that not correct? 

I think though that it is easy to find fulfillment at a lower level and not developing. Likewise it is difficult to be highly developed when others aren't.

How do you think level of consciousness relates to suffering?

[Carl-Richard]

47 minutes ago, Artsu said:

How do you think level of consciousness relates to suffering?

Suffering arises from certain circumstances. Consciousness helps you deal with those circumstances, both internally and externally. On average and very generally, people living in the same society will face the same types of circumstances. Having a higher consciousness will therefore generally lead to less suffering on average.

 

47 minutes ago, Artsu said:

I think though that it is easy to find fulfillment at a lower level and not developing. Likewise it is difficult to be highly developed when others aren't.

My feeling is that lower consciousness makes you more vulnerable to a myriad of different forms of suffering, and when you work through those, you evolve to the next level. When you evolve past one level, you discover newer levels of suffering that will make you evolve even further.

However, the types of suffering that you experience become more focused and purified (existential, spiritual), and less random and coarse (behavioral, moral, egoic):

For example, a stage red person who runs into authority (or a superior) will generally suffer more than a stage blue person (rage vs restraint), than an orange or green person (competition vs compliance), yellow or turquiose person (analysis vs. acceptance). Remember that we're talking about averages and generalities here  

 

47 minutes ago, Artsu said:

Higher consciousness can contain more suffering. Is that not correct? 

I would agree that higher consciousness opens up for higher order forms of suffering, but that arises in tandem with the ability to deal with them. If you can't deal with them, you will naturally regress to a lower level where they're no longer accessible. For example, the dark night of the soul can cause a lot of suffering, and you can either evolve past it or regress back down depending on how you process it.

When I think of "more suffering", I'm thinking mostly in terms of diversity and quantitity, not necessarily "depth" or "quality" as that is much harder to define. That's why I mean that the higher order suffering doesn't outweigh the lower forms: it's almost a pure numbers game in that sense. More types of suffering = more suffering, which happens at lower stages.

You can also argue for difference in quality in cases where they seem more obvious, like starvation (beige) vs. self-esteem issues (orange), and like I did earlier (different stages in the same type of conflict). I also feel that the more severe forms of suffering mostly cluster around the lower stages (a combination of the quality/quantity argument).



(I would take all this with a grain of salt though. This is pushing the limits of what I can muster at these very late-night hours )

Edited July 30, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Artsu]

Question for anyone:

Is spiral dynamics about level of consciousness, or lifestyle? 

I can see how a society could be red, but cognitively i would surprised if the individuals in the society aren't above red themselves. It's just that society goes through evolution just as an individual does.

I mean, if you're consciousness is advanced, but youre living a 9 to 5 life in an orange society, are you orange, or way above it?

Likewise, is the shaman of a purple tribe purple, or could even be turquoise?

Do you get where im coming from?

[Artsu]

I can see that SD is being done wrong on this site. It's too much about stereotypes and false associations. Im trying to figure out how to do it properly.

[Carl-Richard]

29 minutes ago, Artsu said:

Is spiral dynamics about level of consciousness, or lifestyle? 

Well, that's where the differentiation between lines and states (different facets) and stages come in . You can have different facets of yourself in different stages (cognitive, spiritual, emotional, interpersonal, occupational, etc..)

 

29 minutes ago, Artsu said:

I mean, if you're consciousness is advanced, but youre living a 9 to 5 life in an orange society, are you orange, or way above it?

If we accept "consciousness" as its own facet without specifying it any further, then your "consciousness facet" would be above orange and your occupational facet would be orange (if a 9 to 5 life is considered orange).

 

29 minutes ago, Artsu said:

I can see how a society could be red, but cognitively i would surprised if the individuals in the society aren't above red themselves. It's just that society goes through evolution just as an individual does.

A society consists of individuals, and the stage of the society is generally the stage of the majority of the people in that society (unless you know about a specific facet of society that is prone to emergent phenomena and transcends that stage).

 

29 minutes ago, Artsu said:

Likewise, is the shaman of a purple tribe purple, or could even be turquoise?

A shaman might be predominantly purple, but he might have access to turquoise through trance states ("states" is also a type of facet).

Edited July 30, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Artsu]

@Carl-Richard i just find it hard to believe that the individuals in a purple society would have a purple consciousness. Consciousness will evolve even if the society around you isnt aiding in that, and purple is a very rudimentary stage consciousness wise. But the collective roles the individuals in the purple society take might be early in societal evolution, so you have occupational purple or something.

Sound accurate?

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Artsu said:

@Carl-Richard Consciousness will evolve even if the society around you isnt aiding in that, and purple is a very rudimentary stage consciousness wise.

If the consciousness of the people in the purple tribe started to consistently evolve past purple, then we would start to see that manifest itself in the structure of that society, wouldn't you agree? Your consciousness isn't a closed system. It's a part of a collective.

[Artsu]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If the consciousness of the people in the purple tribe started to consistently evolve past purple, then we would start to see that manifest itself in the structure of that society, wouldn't you agree? Your consciousness isn't a closed system. It's a part of a collective.

Well, no, i disagree. But as ive been saying all through this thread, this model confuses me. It seems similar to Jungian hierarchy, Maslows hierarchy etc. But is so political.

As i mentioned already, i think consciousnes evolves independently of society. I think eventually the society will evolve to match its citizens but this takes time.

 

So perhaps i do agree. You would start to see it. But it may take indefinitely long before society catches up.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Artsu

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Artsu said:

As i mentioned already, i think consciousnes evolves independently of society. I think eventually the society will evolve to match its citizens but this takes time.

What do you base this on? Personal experience?  

[Artsu]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What do you base this on? Personal experience?  

Its just what makes sense to me.

Is there anything to base the contrary on?

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Artsu said:

Is there anything to base the contrary on?

The democratic process is one example. If the majority of the people are in favor of blue values, then they will vote for the blue candidate, and the society then becomes more blue.

[Artsu]

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The democratic process is one example. If the majority of the people are in favor of blue values, then they will vote for the blue candidate, and the society then becomes more blue.

Blue is considerably higher than purple though. There are many orange types in todays society, and then it gets more rarified. I think the average consciousness of the population is higher in a higher coloured society, but the variation in societal structure is greater than the variation between different populations (but the variation within a population is greater than the variation in societies).

[Carl-Richard]

48 minutes ago, Artsu said:

Blue is considerably higher than purple though. There are many orange types in todays society, and then it gets more rarified. I think the average consciousness of the population is higher in a higher coloured society, but the variation in societal structure is greater than the variation between different populations (but the variation within a population is greater than the variation in societies).

Ok, let's stick with purple. There was a time in history where purple tribal societies started started to turn into red tribal empires, and something must have caused that shift. How would you explain this evolution? 

More generally, how can the individuals of a society not somehow impact the structures of that society? Afterall, the society is just a collective of individuals.

[Artsu]

49 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, let's stick with purple. There was a time in history where purple tribal societies started started to turn into red tribal empires, and something must have caused that shift. How would you explain this evolution? 

More generally, how can the individuals of a society not somehow impact the structures of that society? Afterall, the society is just a collective of individuals.

A single leader can change the nature of an entire society. How can that be when 99.99...% of the individuals in the society are the same?

The society evolves. The people might be orange, say, but perhaps they haven't formed the social structures necessary for an orange society. Perhaps the society has just come out of tribal nature, and is now red. Eventually it will become orange because the individuals are largely orange, but this takes time.

New ventures start from the ground and work their way up. You could even look at this site. When it was formed, it was an ego of sorts, and identity. Then there might be backlash, problems, and it changes nature to be more competitive, argumentative. Then people come to accept it over competition, and it becomes a religion of sorts. So at that point the site has gone from purple to red to blue, even though the person who made it is way higher than those levels.

Actualized.org will thus go through an actualisation phase, if it hasn't already.

Society develops much more gradually, but there can be dramatic shifts through things like revolutions.

So at the moment I am viewing SD as both a political vertical typology, but also a vertical typology of the individual's consciousness. Other related models tend to focus more on the individual consciousness side of the equation, but can be applied politically. For SD the political side of it seems more paramount, but the overall development pattern seems to be much the same as Maslow or Jung's hierachies.

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, Artsu said:

A single leader can change the nature of an entire society.

That's theoretically possible, more so for red than any other stage, but what is the probability that only one person has developed a completely new stage and becomes the leader? Astronomically low. A new stage also evolves gradually over time, not just through a single generation, and by that time, the values have had time to spread throughout the society, especially on the scale of a single tribe.

 

14 minutes ago, Artsu said:

The society evolves. The people might be orange, say, but perhaps they haven't formed the social structures necessary for an orange society. Perhaps the society has just come out of tribal nature, and is now red. Eventually it will become orange because the individuals are largely orange, but this takes time.

Yes, implementing values into society takes time, but I don't think it takes more time than evolving to a completely new stage. Those are two vastly different time scales. Evolution is generational, and politics is situational.

[Artsu]

@Carl-Richard What I was getting at was that society might oscillate between red, blue, orange, dependent on its leadership. So it's not just a function of the development of the population, it's rather an independent, but related, thing.

I agree with you about the comment regarding evolution, but I don't think the population changes as much from generation to generation as the society does. I do think that the society influences things. For example, in an orange society, it's much easier to get to orange than in a purple society, so there will be a higher proportion of orange people, but there will still be orange in a purple society. I don't know how many of the individuals would be actually purple.

And again, I'll mention as I keep mentioning, that when I think of SD, I think of Maslow's and Jung's hierarchies, I think of the 8 circuits of consciousness, and so forth. So my understanding is going to be at odds with the general community here, or maybe the official teachings on spiral dynamics overall. I'm trying to anchor SD in something that I have already investigated. Taken literally, it seems highly flawed.