Saturday 3 June 2006

Pic of the day: ...a multidimensional structure of interlocking forces... (Actually, this is just a normal Mandelbrot fractal.)

SD vs SD(i)

A little more about Spiral Dynamics. No, I am not going to change the name of my website to Spiral Dynamics Node or anything, but there is still something I'd like to comment on.

When this theory gradually came into being, it was largely the work of Dr Clare W. Graves. It was partially inspired by the discovery of the DNA, where the two strands of the spiral are connected to each other because each base on one side corresponds to another on the opposite side in a predictable fashion. Dr Graves believed that in a similar way, a certain level of complexity in the outside world would correspond to, and create, a suitable level of complexity in the mind. The simplest level was called A, and for some reason the corresponding level on the opposite side was called N. This may have made perfect sense to him, just like it made perfect sense to our ancestors to call a male sheep "ram" and a female sheep "ewe". OK, perhaps a little more logical, it seems he simply divided the alphabet in two. But who goes around remembering which is the second or third-from-middle letter in the alphabet? Only people with issues do things like that, is what I think.

Dr Graves, despite being a smart guy, never got his theory of "levels of psychological existence" widely accepted. This only came to pass when it was picked up by two other academicians, Don Beck and Chris Cowan. They added the random colors, which were easier to remember than letters for some people. They also wrote a book called "Spiral Dynamics" aimed primarily at the business market rather than the academic bodies. Dr Graves had never though of such a catchy name, and evidently not of going mass market either. His two young "disciples" continued their work to popularize the theory... but they did not do so together. Already during the writing of the book, the two of them were pulling in somewhat different directions. This split has widened since.

Cowan and his new collaborator can be found at SpiralDynamics.org. The Cowan branch of SD likes to keep a somewhat scientific image and stresses the continuity from Dr Graves. They are conservative (not politically, but as in cautious, not jumping to conclusions etc) and don't attach strongly to other movements. They are also somewhat subtly critical of Beck's line of Spiral Dynamics.

Beck on the other hand has joined the vaguely New Age attempt to reconcile spirit and matter, and founded Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDi). He cooperates with such supposed luminaries as Andrew Cohen and even Ken Wilber. (Believe it or not, I was unfamiliar with the work of Wilber until about a week ago. He is certainly not a source or inspiration for my earlier writing about the upcoming transition of the human psyche, although he seems to have touched on the subject before I did, albeit differently and with more jargon.)

Beck also features heavily in the magazine What Is Enlightenment. While both Beck and Cowan can be said to write popular science, Beck leans far heavier into the "popular" part. The adjective "glossy" comes to mind. Cowan has issues with much of what his former companion is doing to SD, although he tries to not blow it out of proportion. So far I have not seen Beck pay much attention to his former partner at all. Then again, as a "spiral wizard" he already has quite enough on his plate, you might say. Not least saving countries such as South Africa, in which he and his friends think he has had an important role. I never heard of that before, to be honest, but it could still be true. Spiral Dynamics certainly sounds like something Nelson Mandela might dabble in.

***

I think the grudges between the founders are all the proof we could need that discovering and formulating the theory of Spiral Dynamics does not make you a "Turquoise", one of those selfless highly advanced people. Then again, in all fairness they haven't exactly claimed that. Cowan at least makes it abundantly clear that you can't expect SD people to behave like some ideal paragon of their teachings. It is after all just a theory. Huh. I have to say I like that kind of realism.

In fact, although I still have much to learn, I am already largely coming out on the side of Cowan here. Leaving the spiritual quest out of a theory of psychological complexity seems a prudent thing to do. Ironically I myself think there is a connection, but it is not as simple as "higher level of consciousness is holier". Rather I think mysticism helps people function at a higher level than they would have, or did before. It makes people more efficient, to put it bluntly, because it removes walls in their minds. And mysticism often seems to appear or be strengthened by meditation and similar practices. So it can pull people upward... but religion can also freeze progress, for societies and individuals, and trap them in a primitive mode of thinking. I actually believe that I have seen both of these two things happen myself.

Likewise I think that many people "trapped" on the rigid, dogmatic blue level can be very good Christians, Jews, Muslims etc if they apply the dogma to themselves instead of others. If the simple, black and white world is good enough for them, if it fits with the facts they experience in daily life, it does not seem reasonable to demand they see the world as a multidimensional structure of interlocking forces or something.

Conversely, it seems you can be an awesome scientist while still believing, against all your own and ours experience, that you are just a slab of meat, a walking sack of chemicals with no actual free will and no control of your life. But personally, I am not in the habit of conversing with meat and vegetables.