2016 June

The World Is Still Becoming One

Maybe a teaser before the main course?

Look folks…


Graves said SGD is an OPEN system, so at each level of solution, it forms new–more complex–problems.

There is an idea in integral:

That you can reach the boundaries of the whole by applying integral theory.

It even uses terms like “comprehensive.”

There is NO COMPREHENSIVE in infinite, there is only NEXT.

So if you want a name for it to use, call it NEXT THEORY, to keep from falling into these “integral” traps.

Using Wilber’s theory can be helpful, and not forgetting all the theories that constitute it is also helpful, but impractical for most.

I’ve included in my notes before a graphic of the curves of the e5:



Please note that it’s a graph to simulate the slope of the change in each e5 component.

Also note the widening gaps between core (our epigenetic core) which is changing “geologically” and content and context which have now gone “non-linear.”

CONDITIONS will reach non-linear at the point of “singularity” where change no longer is a variable but a constant!

This singularity is coming faster than we are!

ANYONE who pretends to be able to manage in this space is delusional, so playing the ladder game for the largest part of society is ludicrous and will yield more negative than positive results.

This SAME metamistake largely at FS-GREEN that we can give x, y or z and people can be where we are is an illusion!


Here’s why:

People outside of the 1-5% MUST assimilate culture over “generation” because of the mechanics required in crystallizing capability or intelligence if you like.

FLUID INTELLIGENCE is not enough for the 95% to navigate shifting cultural norms in a non-linear fashion.

Therefore ANY ATTEMPT (SGD gets this one best of all, and has support from any STAGE THEORY POSTULATE, you do not skip levels!) to move a person or culture non-linearly without (caveat) 100% structure (loss of freedoms, e.g. prisons) will result in developmental chaos of varying forms, NOT ALL BAD.

The inherent notion in integral theory from Wilber which is largely lost on those that use it, is that all problem space is “bounded” and then the theory is applied because there are no unbounded brains.


All problem space is unbounded, solve one, get two more. It is the illusion that you can bound problems that even has us thinking about being able to solve in a comprehensive (ludicrous!) way.

Ok, so what to do?


“Will this integrated world pull us into more integrated perspectives in order to dance with it, or will we continue to try and dumb it down, so we can continue to dance the two-step?” – Brian



It depends.

As I have taught coaches for almost 3 decades, it depends.

Depends on what?



There is no single path, even the universe itself which is attempting to model the reality of infinity has most likely “multiple occurring incidences” of reality, and in the quantum field, it’s not until we “observe” that we create probabilities.

Our old paradigm of “MASTERING CHANGE” is frankly? BULLSHIT or BS.

It was and is based on the arrogance of an ego-centric form of human life which is designed for survival of desire.

Absent desire?

Non-duality, but none of us are going to live there, and there is no daily bread there in which to live, so let’s honor the field, but not go there!

There is a field and someday we will all go there…but not yet.

Those conclude my comments on non-duality.

I am reminded of my visits to Istanbul and the whirling dervishes….

While I can’t process to be original @F-L-O-W, the answers to how we transition out of BS are enumerated in the book and theory.

If you ask me the fastest way with the least amount of negative impact, it’s to immediately forget integral because it’s good brings with it the illusion of good which is far more dangerous–at this point–than forgetting it.

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE PEOPLE and let them change on their own, their is plenty of change going on, we don’t need to do more.

If you’re going to insist on change then use BRLSCVS. Design change according to their needs, NOT YOURS, NOT BS, and certainly not a composite model where no exemplars exist such as in the beauty of BLANK SLATE!

“People have a right to be who they are.” And “people can’t be until they are.” – Dr. Clare W. Graves

Most of us are looking for what we need to do to change the world!

Yet, the world is you.

Change you first.

If we did that, the world would change.

I want to do another installment to get you from here to there, but I need to leave myself a segue.

In order to live together, we need rules of engagement, because we can’t all live in isolated enclaves although that remains a probability.

These rules of engagement are tricky because they are largely the result of might…in all forms.

If you look at what GRAVES intended at A’N’ — his notation for SGD – GT – Yellow, it was a mirror of man’s individual goal of survival at AN – SGD – AN – Beige, which means to me, a transcendent form of societal survival.

This is now the question and I believe this was misnamed in the process of translation and should not be referred to as integral (FS-GREEN) because based on my diatribe above, INTEGRAL is not the best way to survive as a society, it is to DISINTEGRATE what FS-GREEN has tried to see together with BS in the lead.

DISINTEGRATION is a natural process, recognizing the limitations of innateness.

Values of integration will always be preferred by some but they are not “right action” for anyone other than FS-GREEN Aspirants.

Anymore than materialism, bureaucracy, emperialism, tribalism, or survivalism are “right action” for all.

It’s not WRONG, as FS-GREEN would make it so in PC, for me not to like, want to live with, or work with someone “different” than me. If it is, then my freedom of choice–guaranteed by that same FS-GREEN stipulation is not RIGHT!

I want to leave a hanging chad here…


2017 June


Haven’t read that and the way he seems to write would require some context experience with him but I believe we “may” be talking about similar things.

I believe that each cValueSystem or in my notation cVS rather than SD’s vMeme (similar conotation, with the STARK difference of where the generator emerges), adheres to an ISIS (until they ruined the name socially;)–Integrated Strategic Intention System.

ISIS has 9 components.

Each cVS has one because the assumptions and beliefs about how the world works (worldview) is emergent from vision, values, principles = IDENTIFY and strategic objective, KSFs, goals, and standards = INTENTION and a PURPOSE = statement of IDENTITY and INTENTION.

I wrote a book and before it got published in 2000, I started a rewrite I haven’t finished. The book was a 6 year labor into the structure of meaning and how I came across SPIRAL DYNAMICS in 96 and published my SMILE: Successful Mechanics In Leadership Development where right performance met RightACTION after some Eastern stuff appeared;)

I searched all the leadership literature using Covey’s idea for his phd to search the wisdom literature for 7 habits and my search of leadership yielded ISIS after a decade, then in 2000, Reiss published who am I and I had the pieces then that would influence a lot of what I have done since along with 10,000 hours of coaching, which was motivated by Brian Tracy not Gladwell who is credited with the idea;)

Fortunately, I have so many successful failures that I’m not falling victim to Argyris Teaching Smart People to Learn Caveat;)

“The much-vaunted need to make our “value premises” explicit is irrelevant in this context. Thinkers with identical moral values and social preferences must nevertheless reach opposing conclusions if their intial senses of reality and causation– their visions– are different.”

He’s merely stating an interesting fact and making a case for genetic guidance!!

Although few would see it that way! I don’t know what else he wrote or if he sees it that way, but there is no other influence for “your vision” to arise from as it’s stated in the quote.

Moral = culture and social is our ingroup but not genetic per se.

We all are going to be hard wired with a cVS and if you have Reiss KSEs, you will know that Reiss showed that he derived core motives from valuing–the same idea that seems implicit in the quote.

The algorithms that emerge about ISIS or his idea of VISION, is what, at the core, matters.

“To say that a prefernce for “free speech’ rights over “property rights” is simply a “value premise” is to deny that it rests on particular beliefs as to facts or causation and to make it simply an opaque preference, like that of plums over tangerines.”

My guess is that he is pointing out that what we believe at the core is generating our vision of how things should be and he seems to be making a case that values are not the ultimate generator as I am but the algorithms that generate.

What we value in four TIME DIMENSIONS: past, now, near and far (this is language used with my ISIS model, is not only malleable but fluid because of the nature of need in time.


I’ll go along with most of what everyone is doing or saying as long as it doesn’t interfere with my getting what I need.
So plum, tangerine, not a big deal, but if what you are saying you value interferes with my need to live like I want them it’s not just a matter of valuing it’s a much deeper issue that is connected to that process.

Since I didn’t read his stuff or the wiki, I’m purely speculating here but my sense of his idea is…when it gets down the core, what you see in the world today is not just values differences but differences in the way we should be, do, have, become and contribute, so that’s what all the conflict is about.

Btw, did anyone catch ARRIVAL, the movie?

I skimmed it while multitasking yesterday and I want to watch it again after some time because it’s a great depiction of what happens when you can’t understand what people or aliens mean.

I thought it encapsulated our present global situation and I hope our ending is as happy as the movie was;)

I’m sure I didn’t answer your questions;)