How to go beyond an Orange understanding of Spiral Dynamics

[Carl-Richard]

Quote

A post-structuralist approach argues that to understand an object (a text, for example), one must study both the object itself and the systems of knowledge that produced the object.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism#Post-structuralism_and_structuralism

In order to properly understand SD, you need to learn about the intellectual traditions that produced SD, particularly Western developmental psychology. Merely reading a graph on Google images does not suffice. Merely watching a video that Leo made does not suffice. Merely reading the Spiral Dynamics book does not suffice. You need to find out where all these things came from, because the concepts presented in the model are not culturally neutral nor intuitively obvious. They're based upon centuries (or technically millennia) of thinking done by other people.

Study related theories in the field of developmental psychology, find out how they were made, find out what assumptions they're using, find out how they define central concepts like "development", find out their conceptual and empirical limitations, distinguish what it's useful for and not useful for, find more models, don't limit yourself to just one lens. If you do that, you might see that SD is really not so special in the grand scheme of things. It's just one particular outcrop of many related things.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[John Paul]

Knowledge hoarding 

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, John Paul said:

Knowledge hoarding 

What? 

[Carl-Richard]

On 30.1.2023 at 6:40 AM, John Paul said:

Knowledge hoarding 

What do you want to know? ?

[Topspin715]

I think the way to get past a stage is to pursue enough money and success and status until you have your minimum needs met and you get to the point where you are sufficiently self aware to realize there are more important things in life once you have enough.  Some people get stuck in that trap once they have enough because they don't realize they are using worldly trappings to fill a hole that it simply cannot fill.  Often a trauma response or a means to find connection and respect from other people through success/money/fame.  A lot of self-identifying spiritual people really skip the pursuit of worldly rewards which can be a form of escape or self-neglect. 

[Carl-Richard]

@Topspin715 I'm saying you can have an Orange understanding of something in terms of practicality even when you're capable of something higher, and if you're in that camp when it comes to SD (which I believe most people actually are), this advice is for you.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[caspex]

Thanks for pointing this out. Being Orange myself, I didn't even think of that lol

[Matt23]

It's also just plain interesting to read the histories of particular ways of thinking and discover that thoughts that you take for granted now, or even think are purely a modern phenomena, actually have deep roots in history and sometimes are traceable to particular individuals.  

For example, John Amos Comenius, a father of modern western education, was a major catalyst for the developmental way of thinking.  He took Plotinus' static metaphysics (I believe called the "great chain of being") and turned it on its side, thereby creating a developmental spirituality, one that evolves.  

As per this post, I'd HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading Zak Stein's article about Comenius, as it touches on the very foundations of the developmental way of thinking. 

https://systems-souls-society.com/education-must-make-history-again/

[Carl-Richard]

@Matt23

Not a long time ago, I thought I was discovering revolutionary stuff, but then I found out that the Ancient Greek philosophers have been talking about it 2500 years ago  What I call "intrinsic health" is basically "eudaimonia" (instead of hedonism, you have vitality, health, functionality, resilience). If anything, that means I was truly onto something. Discovering perennial truths through your personal life is one of the highest things you can do.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Happy Lizard]

On 1/29/2023 at 6:45 PM, Carl-Richard said:

find out their conceptual and empirical limitations

How ? for example if I read a book about Kegan level of development or any of Ken Wilbers book; it will be good to compare the two, But how do you go by finding their limitation? 

One time you criticized SD by mentioning that it might not be applicable to regions outside of the Western World, and though I disagree form my own observations, your proposition persested and I cannot prove you wrong without having you see form my own perspective, which when I'm thinking, seems like a difficult task since it's seems yours has some level of convection not observation.

In summary I don't think limitation are very obvious to see (at least for me) other than it being a map not a territory kind of thing .

EDIT: maybe the only way to find out is to conduct these studies in other regions of the world ? that could be one emperical solution. although I feel like it's like going to measure the cost of another country just to prove that your tools of measurement do the same thing in other places around the globe.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Happy Lizard

[Carl-Richard]

@Happy Lizard As for cross-cultural/inter-cultural empirical support, it's generally lacking in the more classical linear stage theories (Piaget, etc.) (you can read about this in Barbara Rogoff's paper "the cultural nature of development"), and the same is the case for SD (I believe you can read about it on the wikipedia). As for conceptual limitations, if you're going for an universal theory of development, maybe a linear stage theory is just not a good fit in general. Maybe it's just too reductionistic and doesn't fit what it's trying to describe. For example, you have other theories that map developmental influences (ecology) rather than developmental altitudes (ontogeny), which may be better for establishing universal features of development.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Carl-Richard