Lifted from SD or at least somewhat simplified, people have different goals in a community:
Survival (outcome)
Rituals (process)
Victories (outcome)
Rules (process)
Results (outcome)
People (process)
Ideas (outcome)
Being (process)
Smaller conflicts obtain from difference in degree between the same goal (these people or those people, these results or those results) but large conflicts obtain over goal that are different in kind.
These become even larger if they also degree on process and outcome. Thus ideas or people is a bigger conflict than ideas or results because each party will commit the pre/trans-fallacy not recognizing that the methods are different. Thus in a people or ideas conflict, the people-focused will demand to know the rules from the ideas-people; and the ideas-people will demand to know the results from the people-people.
My understanding is that at the Ideas level, which is defined by Both/And thinking, it would be (process<->outcome.)
I think that's how it's supposed to go in theory, but I'm being to wonder whether it's really so. If it's not a linear transcendent process for the individual but rather just having the societal material to manifest a given goal, the both/and thinking may be understood in theory but not acted on in praxis.
I've definitely noticed the tendency of staying one one's own side (process or outcome) and seeking explanations for the other side's "bad behavior" in some lower level on one's OWN side.
In SD terms, I propose that Tier2 is not actually embodied. (Maybe I'm committing my own pre/trans fallacy.)
In SD terms, I propose that Tier2 is not actually embodied.
Do you mean in the sense that T2 is not necessarily centauric where the body acts as one with the mind? I would tend to agree in that the creation of new ideas can be temporarily amplified with gamma peaks that integrate motor functions to higher mental functions without bringing such ideas into the more expansive waking period of beta and alpha. On the other hand, it would seem that the meditation upon ideas within a day gradually flips to become a continuous meditation in which ideas occur.
Do you mean in the sense that T2 is not necessarily centauric where the body acts as one with the mind?
That the Tier2 knowledge and behavior neither transcends nor includes the Tier1 knowledge and behavior on an individual level. It's but yet another expression of individual temperaments.
Confusion obtains because Tier2 has become available through a societal process that DID transcend and include the previous Tier1 levels. Also Tier2 does include a theoretical (non-embodied) understanding of Tier1 individuals at least to the point that Tier2 individuals don't insist that "people who think differently are all evil or crazy".
Well, I am currently buying into Freinacht’s take that Spiral Dynamics is an esssentially stupid, aesthetically displeasing model which happens to be dead right about a strictly limited perspective on human development. It’s just not that useful, because, for instance, it is unable to determine whether a modern 14 year old with 120 IQ is at a “higher” level of development than Thomas Aquinas. According to Freinacht’s 4 (or more) strand model, Thomas Aquinas would out-class the 14 year old in terms of individual cognitive development, depth of wisdom (internal integration of many states of being), and breadth of knowledge within social code developmental level. IOW, the kid out “codes” (has access to more complex social software) Aquinas, but Aquinas is otherwise more superior in development.
So, Freinacht’s take would be something more like cognitive level vs. depth of wisdom rather than outcome vs process. So, for instance, if you have a group of humans who are all wavering around the ability to load the meta-modern “code”, some of them will first try to encompass it with their superior level of cognition and others will first try to encompass it with their superior depth of wisdom. Others, who are lacking superiority in either of these will just hang around munching on a carrot and wonder “What’s up, Doc?”
I have not read Freinacht, but I think Wilber would say that cognitive level and depth of wisdom can be considered lines of development rather than spirals. Seems that the spirals are best used as a macro-socio-historical tool that paints a broad picture in which lines, types, and states fill in detail.
Shinzen thinks that IQ isn't static but rather improves with waking up (by silencing distracting thoughts). I agree as it seems that the ego can get in the way of pattern-matching.
I think perhaps something like the capacity to harness spirit is more in line with cognitive development and perhaps something like the capacity to reach deep into the soul is more in line with wisdom. I could be botching all this, though.
I bought the Freinacht book but like a good Marshmallow Hero, I'm saving it for last. I should probably go ahead and promote it to the top of the queue.
In Freinacht’s model, integration of spirit and soul would both be related to development of “depth.” And “state” would be your current or typical level of being. So, a human who has experienced both great tragedy and extreme bliss and has been able to integrate these states of being into perspective would have great “depth” or wisdom or be guru-like. OTOH, cognitive level is more like Kegan’s model made more empirical, or exactly like the MHC model. Cognitive development is individual, but it is not IQ. It’s how many levels out you can integrate, not how quickly or well you can process information, although the two abilities would obviously often be well correlated.