Gaia: Spiral Dynamics - Spiral Dynamics Theory

Re: good spiral dynamics test?

http://wabisabi.gaia.com — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:53:02 GMT

Turil,

Your site is beautiful. lots of content and nice design and layout. Thanks!

Richard

Re: Best Turquoise book I've read (so far!)

http://itlandm.gaia.com — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:35:01 GMT

This certainly look like a great book, but I am curious as to why you consider it Turquoise rather than Yellow. It certainly looks solidly Yellow from the reviews I have seen so far?

Best Turquoise book I've read (so far!)

http://workwell.gaia.com — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:33:43 GMT

I'm on holidays in Bali and my wife couldn't scrape me off the pool lounge yesterday as I read this book. It's a superb turquoise adventure. I'd value comments, especially from others who have read this book, or similar works. Cheers, Andrew Hollo Purple to Turquoise: A Review of “The View From the Centre of the Universe” (2006) by Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams. When I was in my early teens, I had sleepless nights because of a TV documentary about the millions of “invisible” organisms which live in our hair, on our skin, and within our bodies, quite unbeknown to us. I lay awake not because I was frightened, but excited. Magnified tremendously, this broadcast showed them crawling around like dinosaurs, complete with scaly flanks and barbed tentacles. Like most boys of my generation, I was fascinated by the prospect of discovering alien life, yet here was something equally intriguing - and it was real! And right under my nose. Well, under my fingernails when I scratched myself. What if those organisms, in turn, had similar parasites? And what if they, in turn, did? Scaled in the other direction, what if we humans were blind to the fact that we existed on some giant creature’s epidermis? Which, in turn . . . well, you get the picture. These ideas lurked and never really congealed into something solid until, yesterday, I read Primack and Abram’s masterful book. “The View from the Center of the Universe” attempts nothing less than a plain English explanation of our place in the cosmos, fusing Primack’s ‘hard science’ astronomy with Abram’s metaphorising to create a compelling Turquoise cosmology: something that builds upon purple’s creation myths, red’s desire for centrality, blue’s insistence on truth, orange’s quantification & testability and green’s yearning for wholeness. What impressed me most about this book were the way the authors addressed ‘simple’ questions like, “What is a human?” Their answer? “I can trace my lineage back 14 billion years through generations of stars. My atoms were created in stars, blown out in stellar winds or massive explosions, and soared for millions of years through space to become part of a newly forming solar system - my solar system. And back before those creator stars, there was a time when the particles that at this very moment make up my body and brain were mixing in an amorphous cloud of dark matter and quarks. Intimately woven into me are billions of bits of information that had to be encoded and tested and preserved to create me. Billions of years of cosmic evolution have produced me” (p. 281 italics in original) It’s hard to know to summarise a book I found unputdownable; almost every second page is dog-eared and underlined. Primack and Abrams speak through vivid images, stories and metaphors. Just one of these is the Cosmic Uborubos - picture a circular snake eating its own tail. From tail to fangs are the the 60 orders of magnitude between the smallest subatomic particles and the largest superclusters of galaxies. As humans, we are roughly halfway around and our sensory apparatus is tuned to pick up just a narrow sliver (from a millimetre or so, up to the size of large mountains). This range of 6 or so orders of magnitude are the realm which we consider ‘reality’, where ‘common sense’ works and physical intuition is reliable. The remaining 54 orders of magnitude are only available to us ‘with assistance’: the microscope, the telescope, or mathematics and physics. What’s any of this got to do with SD? Primack and Abrams offer a Second Tier cosmology which fuses well verified scientific theories like relativity and evolution with those less well tested yet accepted: particle physics (subatomic particles don’t exist per se, they have energy states which generate probability clouds); double dark theory (dark energy and cold dark matter fill 95% of the ‘space’ which most of us imagine is the universe - I always thought it was a vacuum, a nothing), cosmic inflation (an explanation of how we got from the Big Bang to the irregularities which created hundreds of billions of galaxies such as our Milky Way) and the fractal theory of biological scaling (which explains why we humans can’t possibly be a critter on the skin of a larger critter - they’d never be able to evolve a circulatory system large enough). So far, this sounds like a science book right? Wrong. This is where the partnership between the authors comes in. They’re a husband and wife team who teach a course at the University of California called ‘Cosmology and Culture’. What is a cosmology? It is “a social consensus on how to think about whatever is out there” (p. 19). A bit like memes. Especially v-memes. For example, a tremendously successful purple culture, which we call Ancient Egypt, developed a cosmology based upon multiple non-dogmatic myths, with no requirement for consistency. Monotheistic (blue) religions today continue to offer a view of the universe which many accept today: an omnipotent God, who inhabits some higher sphere, creates earth from the firmament and populates it. The inherent cosmology of most educated Westerners is the materialist (orange) Newtonian model: a sense of ‘cosmic homelessness’ based on a view that we live on a small rock circling an insignificant heap of gas within an immense vacuum punctuated by other similar gaseous clouds and balls of rock. Green cosmologies also exist: they posit a universal ‘energy’ or some intangible (and unprovable) universal harmonic or pulse which we can connect with should we choose to do so. This is where Primack and Abrams shine: their move to a Second Tier cosmology which binds the scientific with the mythic. The former recognises that we have the ability, increasingly, to quantify, to test and to reason. (Some of the developments in astronomy and physics since I saw that TV documentary as a teenager 30 years ago are almost beyond belief). The latter recognises that we must develop a shared set of stories and meanings which may, one day, enable us to harness our joint efforts in the interests of saving the only planet we know of which has evolved consciousness. In a nutshell, this book’s great contribution is its ability to help us integrate cosmic ideas into our lives. It’s the most readable turquoise book I’ve found yet.

the power of worldviews

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:21:20 GMT

hey everyone - just realized this pod existed and thought i'd link you to my latest spiral dynamics inspired blogpost - the power of worldviews.

i am interested in 2 things right now:

1) finding less jargony langiuage with which to bring these ideas to a wider audience.

2) helping release the regressive green/magenta's stranglehold on SD, integral and spirituality in general...

check out the above link and let me know here or there what you think!

i look forward to browsing this interesting looking pod.

all the best
~julian

Re: good spiral dynamics test?

http://melissaomara.gaia.com — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:35:53 GMT

I have been aware of Spiral Dynamics (and intrigued) for a couple years, but have just begun diving deeper into real learning recently. I just took the Online People Scan, and it provided incredible insight. Additionally, I downloaded Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics Integral from Audible.com.

Melissa

Re: NY Times Article about Warrior cultures (Purple/Red memes)

http://jubu531.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:00:57 GMT

That is all very well and good, but what do you do if that particular group wants to cut your head off with a sword, blow you up with a bomb or shoot you down in the street with a Kalishnikov. Remember one thing, none of the warrior tribes who roamed over the Eurasian landmass for more than a thousand years sat down peacefully and gave up warfare. They were met with fierce resistance, not good drinking water, food, clothing, shelter, etc.

They took what they wanted to take, the rest they destroyed. The ancient cities of Europe, Central Asia, Western Asia and East Asia are full of ruins left by these warrior cultures. You are missing the point of the article. Until these groups are dealt with, the needs you mention will be rejected by them as they tie you up and cut your head off.

We cannot ignore the lessons of history, otherwise WE will be history, and the whole world will be worse off for it. LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR. I AM NOT FOR PERMANENT WAR, ONLY STRONG AND VIGILANT DEFENSE OF WHAT WE HOLD TO BE THE BEST OF OUR CIVILIZATION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE CLEAN AIR AND WATER, FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER, ETC. It is just that there are too many "warriors" among the people of the Middle East and Central Asia who look at our world like the Huns, Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Mongols did the Roman and Medieval world, as places to conquer and subdue.

You have a good heart and an even better soul. We need people like you, but please, and I say this as a holder of a Master's Degree in History, do not, as Harris describes, forget that these cultures want to destroy the West, not only becasue of what we have done to them, but because of what we are. Because we went through the Renaissance, Humanism, the Enlightenment and they did not. We have to also reach out to those among them that want to go through these stages as fast as they can to achieve the level of technology and stability we have achieved. If we show our mutual enemies in these cultures that we don't care about these values, then no one else will.

I suggest you do a lot of reading in historical and political texts dealing with Asia, Africa and even Latin America, although there is not much left of the warrior cultures there, that balances both the positive and negative sides of the stories their histories and politics tell. Don't just be one-sided with the peace, love and beads crowd. Being sensible and practical is the one way we can help those at the lower memes (unhealthy aspects of) move up the spiral and eventually make the leap to second tier.

A lotus for you,

Jubu

Re: NY Times Article about Warrior cultures (Purple/Red memes)

http://turil.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:35:14 GMT

Fortunately, Purple and Red stages don't have to be destructive. When it does become destructive, it's a sign that basic needs (especially physical, but relationship needs as well) are being stifled. Healthy Purple and Red - a sign of a stable foundation of physical health, sustainable access to needed resources, and healthy/peaceful/loving parents and other role models - can be seen all over the world. In the Pureple stage we learn great skills such as taking good care of one's family and friends and being self-sufficient as a community. And at the Red stage we learn how to be courageous leaders and active participants in our community.

So if a particular group is being destructive, they aren't getting through the stages properly, and need a lot of support to meet their needs, starting with clean air, water, healthy food, shelter, affection, reasonable safety, a healthy community, and good role models to help them learn how to take good care of themselves.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle

NY Times Article about Warrior cultures (Purple/Red memes)

http://jubu531.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:58:44 GMT

August 6, 2007

CONNECTIONS

Reconsidering the Role of the Warrior in Our Post-Enlightenment World

By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN

In one of the final events of the recent Lincoln Center Festival, a lone Mongolian bard named Burenbayar came onstage and chanted "The Secret History of the Mongols." He had memorized the 13th-century text during long hours grazing animals on the steppes of Central Asia. And as is true of many ancient sagas, he sang of arms and the man - that is, of warfare and heroism.

His subject was Genghis Khan, a conqueror of many peoples who was both barbarically ruthless and soulfully sentimental, reveling in revenge by tearing out an enemy's heart and liver with his bare hands while also forgiving, again and again, the bloody treachery of an envious childhood friend. He was at all times a warrior whose goal was conquest and whose demands could not be assuaged, except by victory.

Almost every culture has such figures in their past, men like Odysseus, King David, Muhammad and Aeneas, whose triumphs were often attained through extreme, horrific battle. Such founding figures often also display powerful streaks of sensitivity and elevated vision along with prophetic abilities; on their broad chests and battle-readiness rest the later triumphs of their civilizations. But warriors don't have to display such qualifying attributes; throughout history they are revered.

Except for now, it seems, and particularly in the West. Today we are so wary of the warrior that we would find it unthinkable to celebrate him with elaborate descriptions of the beheading or disemboweling of his enemies. Instead we think of the warrior as a fanatic, an extremist with a streak of the berserk.

In "The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West" (Basic Books), a new book in which the idea of the fanatic warrior plays a central role, Lee Harris points out that the word berserk comes from Icelandic accounts of Norse warriors of the 12th century who were so fierce in battle they fought without armor and raged like wolves. They were called "berserksgangr." These days we tend to think of all warriors as berserk.

It isn't that we don't recognize, at some level, a need for warriors. At least in our cinematic fantasies warrior heroes abound. But they are kept on a short leash; they need a license to kill. Though they keep testing constraints on acceptable behavior, when they violate them, people around them tend, as the films put it, to "die hard"; freelance warriors like those played by Bruce Willis pay a steep personal price.

It is a measure of how distant we are from the ancient Greeks, Mongols and Romans that the most complete contemporary incarnations of the warrior are supervillains. Such evildoers display, as their ancient models do, a fierce tribal loyalty; a scorn for any life that stands in their way; a blood lust that megalomaniacally affirms human expendability. "Do you expect me to talk?" James Bond asks Auric Goldfinger, who has strapped Bond to a table where a knifelike laser beam gradually approaches his crotch. The villain laughs in amazement and says: "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die."

We watch these figures or read about their exploits with a certain sense of superiority. We like to think we have transcended this kind of ruthlessness; we are no longer tribally bound, but universally concerned; we don't imagine eliminating our enemies in battle, we imagine driving them to the bargaining table. The West, riven by tribal and religious wars for centuries, imagines that humanity is capable of overcoming that past. Genghis Khan has been superseded by Jimmy Carter. The world's remaining barbarians, even those in our midst, will eventually come to learn the virtues of the Enlightenment, the powers of reason and the prospects of a democratic future.

On the other hand Mr. Harris's arguments should give us pause. And his book demands close attention even by those who would mistakenly consider him another form of berserk. By taking a long view of history Mr. Harris argues that the modern view of how to vanquish enemies is based on false ideas: first, that history progresses; second, that it progresses toward greater influence of reason; and finally, that reason, through its powers, can overcome all opposition. Our smug disdain for the warrior, he suggests, is based on a mistaken view of the powers of modernity and the Enlightenment.

In Mr. Harris's view these errors are affecting the crucial confrontations now taking place between jihadists and Western liberal culture. We keep straining, he says, to see terrorists as if they were just slightly more extreme versions of ourselves, reflecting our own convictions, as if the jihadist were advocating destruction in the name of a version of liberalism.

A Palestinian blows himself up in a pizza parlor, a Shiite drives a car bomb into a crowded plaza of Sunnis (or vice versa), videotapes display beheadings and Internet sites herald massacres. Such horrific deeds are taken almost as proof of suffering, poverty, frustration. The surest cure for terrorism, the argument goes, would be to ameliorate injustice; in the meantime violence can be curbed with well-considered policing.

But Mr. Harris suggests that the jihadist is more accurately thought of as a fanatic, a warrior of the old school, whose technique has been remarkably successful over the centuries. Such warfare accepts no rules other than fealty to the tribe and accepts no compromise other than victory. Islam, he points out, has made "permanent conquests in every part of the world into which it has expanded with only three exceptions: Spain, Sicily, and certain parts of the Balkans": three areas where Islamic fanaticism was confronted with opposing fanaticism.

Mr. Harris argues that by failing to characterize Islamist warfare accurately, the West deludes itself, even employing another Enlightenment idea - tolerance - to grant harbor to those who seek to destroy it. And the West implicitly affirms that, in the end, reason will triumph.

But why? The Enlightenment had inordinate faith in itself and the evolutionary progress of history. But look closely at the few places in the world where these ideas have triumphed, Mr. Harris writes: their success is more fluke than destiny. Democracy and reason displaced warfare and fanaticism not because of their superior powers, but because of rare historical circumstances difficult to replicate (including, he argues, in Iraq). Their survival, far from being inevitable, is always tenuous; liberal societies will always need to live with war.

So Mr. Harris mounts a challenge, and even if we harbor less apocalyptic visions, that challenge is considerable. If we believe, as Mr. Harris affirms, that the societies that have arisen out of Enlightenment ideas, whatever their flaws, really are morally superior to others, if we are convinced that the values of the West are rare and crucial and fragile, then to what extent are we willing to make a stand on their behalf?

In the most extreme case, how does a liberal society embrace the practices of the warrior, which are inimical to its most fervent beliefs? Wouldn't this destroy precisely what's being defended? Mr. Harris can't fully imagine the ways in which liberal society will evolve under such circumstances, but he believes we will soon need to find out. And one way or another somebody like Genghis Khan will be involved.

Connections, a critic's perspective on arts and ideas, appears every other Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/arts/06conn.html?pagewanted=print 8/6/2007

Green or Yellow

http://jubu531.gaia.com — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:22:27 GMT

I have three questions about SDi and Integral Politics that I have been thinking about for some time, and am still confused about.

The first question is this: Which of the following people or organizations are Green or Yellow, or neither?

Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, the Democratic Party, Air America Radio, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, the Green Party, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid.

My second question is tied somewhat to the first, in that one individual mentioned, Bill Clinton, has mentioned Ken Wilber at the World Economic Forum and has even given Gore one of Wilber's books, and both Clintons have been characterized by progressives as being "Republican Lite", "Bush-Cheney Lite", etc. Is it a sell-out to the Trilateralist Multinational Corporations and their political allies to consider those who embrace the Integral Approach as individuals who understand 2nd Tier thinking, even though they serve 1st Tier, Corporate (Orange) institutions? And if so, how do we get beyond this if everything we are taught by SDi and Wilber is being co-opted by the corporatists?

Lastly, is anyone teaching these ideas to the social activist groups who mobilize large rallies and shout at the tops of their lungs at protest marches for Iraq and other issues? It seems to me, they are the "Mean Green Meme" personified and could use a heavy dose of Integral Politics, SDi, etc.

Jubu

Re: good spiral dynamics test?

http://stilnuts.gaia.com — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:37:29 GMT

Hi Jessica.
I remember downloading a free software test from the official SD site a couple of years ago. I don't know wether they still have it there. It was basically a questionaire with multiple choices. According to Wilber these test should be very hard to fake. The questions gave me some deeper insights to the theory. The results however do not come out in a nice sort of personality test "this is you" format. It's a bunch of diagrams and they can be hard to make sense of. If it's not on the site anymore I'm sure I can find the installation files on my harddrive somewhere if you're interested.

Cheers

Staale

Re: good spiral dynamics test?

http://turil.gaia.com — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:28:25 GMT

I came up with these two, based on my research of Ken Wilber/Integral, SD, Maslow, Elisabet Sahtouris, and others:

AQAL Spiral Theory (with Ken Wilber's level colors)

The Basic Spiral Growth Theory (no colors)

The first one specifically maps development out in relation to the Spiral Dynamics and Integral levels. The second one is probably more useful, though, in identifying where you are in life.

And, remember, you're not likely to be exactly in one level at any given time. Different areas of your life may develop at different rates. For example, if you do a lot of research into science you might move into Yellow/Teal with an intellectual understanding of systems theory and how ecosystems (including humans) work together, but emotionally you may still be working out your Blue/Amber personal issues about "fitting in" to human society, and working with arbitrary human society rules (which can easily contradict Universal/natural laws). In other words, you will develop as much as possible, whenever possible, but sometimes problems get in the way, and keep one element's growth stunted, like someone who's generally very healthy and grown up, and still has one baby tooth hanging around waiting. patienty to fall out!

-Turtle

good spiral dynamics test?

http://lovemaker.gaia.com — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:47:10 GMT

i'm relatively new to the spiral dynamics theory....i was introduced to it by a fabulous professor a couple of years ago, but i'm only now able to delve into it more. so fascinating!

but i'm curious...does anyone know of a way to test where you are within the spiral? just based on descriptions, i have a pretty good idea of where i'm operating, but i'd like to know if there are any "official' tests (or "unofficial" good ones, for that matter!)

thanks, and namaste.

Re: Green vs Yellow ...

http://cruxquest.gaia.com — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:15:34 GMT

Hi Robin,
Just joined Zaads, maybe in some way i can help you, I am specialized in making experiences in different SD colours.

My experience is that if you let people "feel" the boundarys of their dominant system, it helps them to explore the next phase. Letting them experience in a positive and easy understandible way, what Yellow energy can do for them, more than the solutions they have now, might be a way to open them up and understand your extra value in the team..

Love

Re: Green vs Yellow ...

http://robert713.gaia.com — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:30:52 GMT

Where will you be giving this workshop? I'm about to start designing workshop material on communicating for social change and ecological sustainability (green) that will covertly introduce the demand/benefits of second tier integralism.

-Robert

Re: Green vs Yellow ...

http://robert713.gaia.com — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:30:49 GMT

Green vs Yellow ...

http://rheos.gaia.com — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:23:25 GMT

Hi all,

I've been away for a bit but I'm back now with a question..

I've been dealing with a very GREEN organization for the last several years and have to say as someone deeply rooted in YELLOW have been finding it tricky.

Not only do I find the rejection of natural hierarchies frustrating but some are equally mistrusting of my YELLOW more individualist tendancies.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how YELLOW can better relate to GREEN and particularily Mean Green?

I am planning a workshop at an event coming up where I would like to delve into this issue in as much depth as I can manage in 90 minutes.

I'd like to focus on what makes GREEN good but also limitted and how the move to YELLOW can by enabled.

Anyone that has any workshop ideas or information resources on this topic please let me know ASAP.

I am preparing the workshop for 3 weeks from now but this is an ongoing interest of mine so I'd like anyone who has thoughts at any point.

namaste

Re: Understanding Second Tier

http://objuan.gaia.com — Thu, 17 May 2007 21:16:57 GMT

An amazingly fascinating discussion.

I think it's just that the lower you are on the spiral the less frequently you accept other people's perspectives as potentially correct, because you are afraid that if you admit that too often, you have to admit that your perspective isn't correct (and are completely insane). Believing that you are insane isn't healthy, so lower levels protect the individual from that potentiality by not letting the mind be too worng too often.

To add to your reason for not copping to the truth or to admit mistakes, I'd like to offer the following possibilities/reasons:

The courage to move out beyond the confines of the main stream has to do with loneliness as well, for sure.

It also has to do with our own subconscious political considerations. If you allow others into your kitchen and so we like to present a front or fascade of perfection I believe largely from this.

Also...we fear attack. opening the door for people isn't always a great strategy in a world of delusion and illusion where our faults can and are used against us. So we are fearing pain.

But at Violet, you can finally see that there can be more than one correct perpective!

I'm definately challenged here. At less developmentally complex levels, I find that they are so simple, so as to be true ONLY in reference to that person's developmental path. I don't see it as correct, any more than I see my perspective as ultimately correct as their shadow is cast upon me. Partially correct and functional. And I see this as always the case.

I see that perspectives can be more or less full basically. And this is more a complexity issue than anything. All perspectives adding to the fullness of a more complete one. So...hierarchically speaking, one IS superior to another in that the fuller rendition has transcended and included the previous ones.

I have to speak my mind here on this one as I am definately confused and had this discussion with a 'green' friend of mine (her label, not mine) who wanted to assert that all perspectives are equally valid--and yep, it got heated. So...you might see why I see this as a green hangup.

many interesting things here. I believe there are superior understandings. The green in me balks at the concept of 'superior', but, the yellow in me cannot deny what seems as plain reality. Where I am at on this spectrum is irrelevant, and I'm more interested in NOT knowing than in knowing--I know I'm integral, because I was before I ever heard of Ken Wilbur, but don't want to begin identifying in this hierarchical way!!!!! Scary stuff when you are trying to shed the egoic skin--and failing miserably at times!!!

Anyway, I do see as VITAL this acceptance of others, the letting go of control that the ego imposes, letting go or surrendering, etc. But I also believe VERY strongly that there are better practices and that certain perspectives are limited based on experience and construction. I do VERY much believe there are great perspectives I have never experienced coming from all domains of the developmental spectrum, BUT, when it comes to vital issues and matters relevant to higher order consciousness, the overall more complex and logically coherent perspective is simply superior. NOT equal.

When I find that someone has a superior undestanding than me, I admit that and wish to see what it is that they have to teach AND, I admit that mine is not "correct", but limited. In other words, that I have a portion of the truth, in some distorted and immature way, and that another has a more advanced, complex, and useful, superior truth. I illustrate this way, using those more advanced than I, to reveal that this is not an ego thing, but a logic thing. This is what logic reveals to me. Humility is fully present in this conclusion. I objectively am removed from the construction and conclusion of the scenerio.

And so I'll end by stating it a 3rd time--cause the door must always be open that way ya know. I might be confused. And that POSSIBLE confusion stems from the various types of perspective we may be talking about. In other words, it's more a semantics issue than anything. And, I find at the higher levels, most disagreements or problems are actually merely semantical in nature. False "problems."

Oh well, hope someone gets my message in a bottle from the distant past.

Re: The AQAL Spiral - check it out!

http://objuan.gaia.com — Thu, 17 May 2007 18:18:45 GMT

I also like how you chose 'health' as what we seek to find and create inside and outside.

I like health as an intention, because I believe it solves a rather interesting epistomological philosophical and rather dry academic problem in terms of finding a criteria for the measurement of truth.

I think the answer is to find health. At that point, we can argue what determines health, I'm sure that could get ugly to some degree, but as long as we don't get absurd and work in a pragmatic space we can use health and expand on that as truth.

From there, all other societal decisions can be made. Decisions and conclusions in science, economics, politics, etc. Because it is WE, and what creates our health ultimately, is ultimately involved in all decisions we make (ideally of course)

Re: The AQAL Spiral - check it out!

http://objuan.gaia.com — Thu, 17 May 2007 18:08:02 GMT

Have you made any attempts to share this with Wilbur?

Once an individual has made it through these four stages, they start over at stage one, but at a higher level of complexity.

AND... I see us then including what we learned and integrating to a greater degree because of a growing subconscious awareness of those stages so that we are constantly engaging more on each level simultaneously. A greater integration. Do you agree?

The AQAL Spiral - check it out!

http://turil.gaia.com — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:27:26 GMT

I like spirals and quadrants! So, I put them together, and it makes sense!

Lookie here: The Wise Turtle's Sprial Growth theory

I've also got a more "Wilberesque" version here: AQAL Spiral theory

Think about it. Play with it. Critique it. Ans ask me about it!

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
-Turtle