Gaia: The Integral Pod - Integral Basics - What is Altitude?

Re: What is Altitude?

http://drane.gaia.com — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:42:49 GMT

Yeah, I guess I'm part of that "popular demand" Corey mentioned at the top of the page, because I'd sent him a PM asking about it just a couple of days before it went back up. Thanks for pointing out that it's back online, too!

Cheers,
Grey

Re: What is Altitude?

http://timelody.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:41:05 GMT

It's back

http://holons-news.com/altitudes

Re: What is Altitude?

http://drane.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 08:20:55 GMT

Hey, does anybody know of any other (reliable) links to this "What is Altitude?" article and the "What is Integral?" PDF referenced at the end? Since the rebirth of Holons, these two articles have disappeared, and I refer people to them a LOT for a quick overview of what "integral" is all about.

I suppose I could post them on my own web site somewhere (I think I've saved the PDF file), but would that be breaking copyright laws? Oh well, I'm off to try and ask Corey about this now, too.

Cheers,
Grey

Re: What is Altitude?

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:59:04 GMT

Other than kw, who would be qualifiably at third tier? I thought (mistakenly( that 3rd tier was largely speculative.......

Re: What is Altitude?

http://pelle.gaia.com — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:26:37 GMT

I think 3rd is still only very loosely defined, and only when larger groups reach it will the morphogenetic grooves be laid down. Roughly we can say that 2 tier is worldcentric where as 3rd tier is Kosmocentric and doesn't have its identity tied to the ego anymore. To be honest I don't know how this would affect the moral line and such.

Pelle

Re: What is Altitude?

http://onesight.gaia.com — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:12:24 GMT

Yes Pelle thanks for that... Think I had the same thought on that matter. Glad to have it affirmed from another!

Re: What is Altitude?

Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:22:40 GMT

Very, very insightful of you to see that about kw, pelle. :)

What would you say distinguishes a "more or less"(on the cognitive, ethical, values line perhaps...) 2nd tier person from first tier, and 3rd tier from 2nd? I understand kw drew the similiarity between Maslow's 'Deficiency Needs" from "Actualizing Needs", and First Tier sense of lack, and second tier sense of fullness. What would you say is Third tier then?

Re: What is Altitude?

http://pelle.gaia.com — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:03:10 GMT

Who's third tier? Ken himself is the safest bet I would say. I think one reason that Ken was able to map the turquoise worldspace so well is that he himself had transcended it, and could view it as an object.

Pelle

Re: What is Altitude?

Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:19:58 GMT

Jumping onto this thread very late, I know. I was asked once
"So who is teal? turquoise? Indigo?" I didnt have a reference for him, so I couldnt answer. One assumes kw and his bunch would be at turq, but who is at 3rd tier overall?

There are 3 Groups.

The Cognitive or Consciousness Lines of Streams
The Self-Related Lines or Streams
The Talent Streams (or 'gifts" etc.)"

Let us just say, cognitively only - who is at 3rd tier at present? How many in the world population at large is at 2nd tier, and how many are at 3rd? Correct me if I am wrong, kw mentions 70% globally are around amber, 24% at green, is this correct?

So who is on third? I d like some names ;)

Re: What is Altitude?

http://timelody.gaia.com — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:14:16 GMT

Ah Juliee, I feel for you. And then this Harry Potter book just has to come out right now. :-) Funny story for me; I had actually 'given up' reading books about 10 years ago . . . (except for Harry -kept up with him all throughout . . .:-)

Hey Ewan, - right. I am actually at some point this week going to be making/copying the brief chart he has on this in Integral Psychology so when that's ready I will post it here. Obviously a relevant area when speaking of drama.

Tim

Re: What is Altitude?

http://ewantownhead.gaia.com — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:29:44 GMT

Hi Juliee and everyone

Great thread!!!

Tim, nice work for putting up the 3 types of lines distinction, I found that *really* helpful too. I was justlitening back to him talking about it, and he also makes a really nice point that the emotional affective line relies on the cognitive stream. You have be able to actually see and recognise emotions, before you can feel them properly.

Ewan

Re: What is Altitude?

http://julieaerwin.gaia.com — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:45:03 GMT

I now have so many books in my 'To read' pile/list that I don't know where to start (adding RAM books to the above list).
I studied Piaget as an undergraduate but only really remember the broad framework now (with one or two examples of experiments) but I do remember the elegance and simplicity of those experiments. They really do take you back to 'that' level and allow you to see where a child is coming from and appreciate just how confusing and bewildering it must all be when an adult says something that you just can't see.

Juliee

Re: What is Altitude?

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:40:50 GMT

BTW I just posted an illustration of the Altitude map in my zaadz photo album. Check out the purty colors. :)

spiral out,
arthur

Re: What is Altitude?

http://gakkaiguy.gaia.com — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:27:53 GMT

Hey...

This is an unbelievably great thread. I feel catapulted into a different dimension just reading through the comments and contributions. I am so grateful to have picked up on this today. I-I

Re: What is Altitude?

http://timelody.gaia.com — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:06:24 GMT

Hi guys,

David - This looks like the makings for a really helpful typology . . .

Well, actually -and very excitingly -this is very much what Gardner has done. But Pelle is correct, ultimately it cannot be applied as "type" in the same way as the Enneagram or the AQAL designation/inclusion of types. Yet another reason -coming even clearer to me as I write on this thread -that the AQAL system remains the most inclusive but precisely differentiating (and so ultimately un-confusing) model of anything that we have.

What usually seems to happen, more often than not, is that an individual's talent -especially if it is extraordinarily marked -is what leads them -or takes a leading role in all other lines and waves of development. This would also be the most balanced approach or scenario, because it is also true, very often, that if someone is extremely talented in one line or intelligence, all of the others can get neglected. Thus, for example, you have an artist who is ultimately just a big asshole. (Being praised and honored for your talent culturally, and in some cases making a lot of money from it in the LR, also does not help.) Or the example of the Nazi doctor, or the crazed mathematician who's personal and interpersonal skills are just . . . not there or whatever.

The basis for MI in fact comes, in part, from cases of individuals such as idiot savants -individuals able to perform seemingly super-human mathematical or musical or visual-spatial feats (in a lot of cases), but clearly under-developed in some of the most basic areas of human life we all take for granted. But it also comes from such things as neuroscience and neuropsychiatry, brain imaging and brain mapping and all of this from the collective evidence on the effects of brain damage (as well as certain diseases or disorders). So, for example, if your brain is severely damaged in a certain area you will lose your ability to talk and/or write, but astonishingly maintain your ability to sing - or the reverse. The two frontal lobes seem to be the "seat" of interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence; one severely damaged results in complete loss of a sense of personal identity -personal motivations, drive, dreams, wishes -the other, loss of any meaningful recognition of others -including even family, friends, mother, father - all of this while every other testable capacity remains intact.

Gardner also includes a few more beautiful things in his overall thesis. First, all of the intelligences -or what we here are more specifically calling the talents -are available to all human beings, and develop, by simple virtue of the fact that we are human (but it is also true that all of them display in various other animals and primates -birds: musical intelligence, rats: spatial intelligence -and can be shown to have thus evolved). It's just that for whatever reasons they can be marked proficiencies in some. (Ex. The musical prodigy -ex. Mozart.) The brain damage aspect is especially useful for this, and it starts to show that, wow, this is just this same one capacity highly, highly developed for whatever reason in some people. We all use language, but very few are William Shakespeare.

The other thing is that Gardner specifically includes all four quadrants -in addition to other things-in his basic criteria, designations and examinations. Each intelligence (talent) must express itself in a specific domain - i.e. logical-mathematical: science, accounting, computer programming, musical: obviously music, linguistic: writing, poetry, lyrics, narrative (a "sub-intelligence" according to Gardner) etc. - but it also has to be shown to be highly valued by a culture. So he covers interior and exterior in the singular and the plural. (Interesting note: facial recognition has long been recognized as an extraordinary skill that can display in some -Ken Wilber is apparently one of these people as -but since it has never shown to be something "highly valued" by any culture, it is not included.)

Okay, tangent! But I hope this all helps this and the entire subject in general.

Anyhow, back to a kind of typography, Gardner has applied his particular Multiple Intelligences (MI) "typography" to famous individuals in a number of works.

In this book, Creating Minds, he examines the lives and works of Einstein (scientist), Stravinsky (composer), Martha Graham (dancer), Gandhi (politician, philosopher-interpersonal/intrapersonal), Picasso (painter), and T.S. Elliot (poet).

In this book, Extraordinary Minds, among other things, he looks at Mozart, Freud, Virginia Woolf, and Gandhi again.

But the sum, after all is said and done, is that if we apply these sorts of things as a typology, it does work in a certain way but it just doesn't add up to the same thing as types like the Enneagram, astrology or male/female/third-or-other-gender, etc.

The evidence supports that these are cases of people being "led" by specific lines or streams or intelligences. To me, an amazing subject in itself! These types of things don't get talked about as much becasue they do seem to represent more "exceptional" or specialiezed areas. It is also true, IMHO, that what can be unpacked using AQAL out of MI has only thus far represented the "tip of the iceberg." (Hence also my research into a dramatic intelligence -the exemplar of which is the actor, often stand-up comedian, etc. And I shout to the heaven's again -I have found the evidence! In fact, I plan to finish my first article by this weekend.) Hopefully one day that Integral Art concall will be published (Rollie said perhaps at the opening of the IL Portal). In my conversation with Ken we touched upon such truly cool things as being "inhabited" by a daemon which is usually very relevant to arts and talents - but incredibly, can also be related to simply the emergence of a higher stage. (Such as, i.e. many people right now have a turquoise daemon. For those who are not familiar with what a daemon is, it is some sort of higher impulse or inspiration or creativity or something that you have to act upon, you have no choice, no matter what you would do. And if you neglect or are unable to act upon the daemon, it turns into a demon. The term, of course, comes originally from the ancient Greeks.)

Okay -thanks so much, this has been very fun and useful to write!

Cheers!

Tim

Re: What is Altitude?

http://monk.gaia.com — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:58:53 GMT

That's a good point, Pelle. Yes, that could get confusing. It would seem, though, that there might be an interesting connection between talent lines and types.

By the way, I was just looking at the picture in the OP. It has "safety" as a level 3, egocentric. But I thought in the chakra system safety (survival) was at the first chakra. But there might be different kinds of "safety" at each level.

Re: What is Altitude?

http://pelle.gaia.com — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:44:18 GMT

This looks like the makings for a really helpful typology

Theoretically we have to be careful with that statement, so we don't confuse talent in certain lines with types. I know you know this David, but I thought it would be prudent to point it out anyhow.

Pelle

Re: What is Altitude?

http://monk.gaia.com — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:35:20 GMT

Thanks, Tim. Great stuff. That book's now on my list.

"I don't know how familiar you are with Gardner, but the talents work out to things like -

logical-mathematical -the scientist,
bodily-kinesthetic -the dancer or athlete,
musical -obviously the musician, composer
spatial -painter, sculptor, architect,
linguistic -poet, writer
naturalist -biologist"

This looks like the makings for a really helpful typology, for use like the Enneagram. It's probably pretty common to be more than one, though. Does Gardner get into that?

"There are 3 Groups.

The Cognitive or Consciousness Lines of Streams
The Self-Related Lines or Streams
The Talent Streams (or 'gifts" etc.)"

This is really great too.

Re: What is Altitude?

http://timelody.gaia.com — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:14:50 GMT

Thanks guys.

As a first follow up, here are a couple of things I wanted to add to my above post.

First, it's useful to notice the "overlap" that many of the researchers do or have done. For example, mentioning Lovinger and Cook-Greuter there are some really precise lines of development of certain things going on, but they may draw in a few others lines in the process. Cook-Greuter/Lovinger for example, at one and the same time represent some specific and precise lines, but also maybe a "conglomeration" of several. (C-G for example mentions interpersonal skills a few times.) Piaget looked at morals but no where near as direct and precise as Kolberg or Gilligan, etc. All of this is to say that AQAL really is the most differentiated and precise model for all of this that we have -and of course, also inclusive.

That said, I want to follow up on Piaget here because I think he offers a really good example, if not one of the best.

The fundamental problems with Piaget are basically two things. a.) He considered formal operations, or orange, the highest cognitive stage of development. A corollary to that is that while cross cultural studies have confirmed the universal accuracy of his stages and what they entail, they also revealed that most of the world does not even reach formal operations or orange. (A sobering fact that still frightens me every time I say it or write it.) But b.) in the end he took the logical-mathematical line as the chief line or one representative of all possible domains. Obviously, this was wrong.

But in one way he can be studied as one of the most precise and complete mappings of a single line unfolding through the waves (up to orange). Even Gardner writes (from memory) "there does not exist a more complete system" in this regard.

However boring it might be to study the logical-mathematical line, I highly recommend this short book of Piaget's -

The Psychology of the Child

It is less than 200 pages but represents a complete summary. But even more than that, one of the most striking aspects for me was his crystal clear mapping of the -if I may say so-awe inspiring (and ultimately beautiful!) process of transcend and include. He precisely shows how one tiny thing leads to the next, eventually many things settle into a complete structural schema or system, then more things are added to eventually create an even broader system which subsumes the latter and so on- I highly recommend it on that account alone.

Re: What is Altitude?

http://julieaerwin.gaia.com — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:01:19 GMT

Thanks Tim for the starting framework. As you say, my passion too is to put some real-life meat onto the theoretical bones.

I got a couple of Daniel Goleman books a few months ago but haven't got around to reading them yet, now joined by the Terrence Real books mentioned by Lauren and Stacy on the wounding of boys thread (and about to be ousted by the new Harry Potter book!).

Juliee