Categories
2018 July

ValuDYNAMICS & complexity

Here’s a brief excerpt from my 2013 Manifesto:

“unlike the spiraling structure, which I believe to be true, there is a networking structure, which I also believe to be true; working in conjunction to support a scaffolding effect for the spiraling”

Here the question, in my mind:

Does everything and everyone become more complex over time?

This is not to say nothing and anyone ever reaches “Holmes Inflection Point” or HIP for short, but let’s assume that’s rare enough that it doesn’t matter for a generalized process.

The reason it came up is related to then, if, then how?

For instance, do each of us become more complex socially? Mathematically? Motivationally? Developmentally?

Another reason I’m asking the question is to see if you all have ideas which could help me understand an underlying structure?

Is it enough to say, we are becoming more complex.

Spiral Dynamics, or what I now refer to as Spiral Gravesian Dynamics, (SGD), so Graves remains at the Center put forward a notion that values are becoming more complex, and the system is basically driven by a spiraling of complexity from less complex to more complex values.

Complex in what?

That’s where my generator argument has found entry and it’s relatively undebatable that SGD frames social complexity as the driver for spiraling more complex and where “stage theory” seems to bust, or at least breakdown is in the arbitrariness (varied) way values systems become more complex…held against the stage requirement (MHC) of a non-arbitrary path.

As I was thinking about my own deviation from the spiral path, it seems an underlying structure but not the most important which I have put forward as “network dynamics” where spiraling is a sub-structure rather than the dominant set of rules.

“…unlike the spiraling structure, which I believe to be true, there is a networking structure, which I also believe to be true; working in conjunction to support a scaffolding effect for the spiraling…”

Why is this important?

Because it frames “be, do, have, become and contribute—non color notions for identifying Graves Values Attractors—which remain durable over time because of the kinds of problems they are fit for in particular conditions—which form basins of attraction, have their own “psychological gravity” as a result of the motive force providing energy at the core.

Now that’s a lot to say (as context) in one sentence, but not my concern.

What is becoming more complex in this process?

Everything?

Do we ever reach HIP?

Is complexity the “god-force?”

Complex how?

Why does it matter?

There seems to me to be a question that is not answered here in this brouhaha of notions and the answer seems like it’s beckoning for understanding development.

If I were to hypothesize that we are not becoming, or at least contributing to complexity as long as we are developing.

Could I falsify that with any notion of development?

How of course brings up an important follow-up question, but before how, we need to answer the question?

mike