Categories
2017 February

Green vs. faux green

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”


I would argue this is indicative of the green basin (vs.  faux green expression).   Build a political platform on these sentiments and you are dead on arrival.


Mike’s response:

Unpack this some.

mike

3 replies on “Green vs. faux green”

Good question. I’ll take a shot at it.

It is about ones underlying embrace. The green basin embraces, includes, does not exclude, believes in the goodness of humanity. That the solution is “can’t we all just get along.” “Only love drives out hate.” “No borders, no deportations.” At its core it rejects the idea of difference or rather difference simply requires that we come together. These quotes reflect that genuine “openness” to other which is at the core of an authentic green expression. I recall Beck saying something like green would attempt to go pet the wolf pack circling. Might be a bit unfair but the sentiment is probably accurate.

Faux green uses these value memes but there is an underlying bite that is actually asserting a narrow group identity construct. E.g. “Let’s all get along as long as my group gets what we deserve.”

My quick take anyway.

I hope we can allow this debate to gestate because it’s important to understand differences in models.

You make “a” case for green to exist independently of development or evolution.

[e.g., we are all born at AN-BEIGE)

According to spiral dynamics, a person, neurology or culture arrives at green after evolving through earlier stages because green according to the model is more complex than less complex-earlier levels.

[To be complete, Graves said that kids born to green parents would develop green, paraphrased).

However, while I think you have for your example, accurately described some memes that are clearly green according to spiral dynamics, the memes lack what would be present had they evolved from earlier “failed” or for that matter “successful” less complex memes.

In other words, FS-GREEN love would realize that without controlling CP-RED opportunism, flexing DQ-BLUE laws, or limiting ER-ORANGE materialism, that LOVE can’t work on its own, it must be part of a structure of memes forming enough density and frequency for all the more complex memes to function with the greater degrees of freedom that each more complex level assures.

For GREEN to just appear without evidence that it has evolved through stages creates a problem, especially if the FS-GREEN memes are devoid of density and frequency required to build upon earlier level of neurology:conditions:resultants.

NOW THIS IS VERY TRICKY HERE….

According to the spiral dynamics model, I labeled these manifestations (one of several examples which Jim provided)
= FAUX GREEN, or “false green;” Using the French term which to me symbolizes where the French seem to be in relationship to the Spiral–probably misguided;)

NOW, this is tricky!!

Jim and I have had a run and shoot over this topic and I can see now it emerged because of our naming systems.

Now, my idea of FAUX anything…

I experienced Faux RED in the marines and throughout my sports career and later in life as we meet those “tough” guys all gunned-up (“This is my rifle, this is my gun…”),

managers practicing Faux BLUE, who pretend to follow the rules, and

Faux ORANGE who live day to day on credit,

as quick, over-simplified examples used for this FAUX concept.

And of course Faux GREEN who are environmentalists when It suits their needs–I built a sea wall because of “global warming” so I have a place to put our rock is a quick example, or drive a hybrid because it gets better gas mileage.

I’m not “right and wronging” here, because I’ve tried to establish that right and wrong is a matter of perspective, rather than a “truth” to be found and carved in stone.

But back to the idea of how I’m unraveling my own confusion about a concept that “I” created;)

What’s tricky about this?

Jim noticed a particular nuance more than likely because he’s closer to the perspective than I could ever be–I would always be Faux GREEN according to Jim’s conceptualization, and his conceptualization makes sense, but blows up the model in SOME WAYS which I have discussed over time because if the real green are those memes emergent from Green Motives:

“It is about ones underlying embrace. The green basin embraces, includes, does not exclude, believes in the goodness of humanity. That the solution is “can’t we all just get along.” “Only love drives out hate.” “No borders, no deportations.” At its core it rejects the idea of difference or rather difference simply requires that we come together. These quotes reflect that genuine “openness” to other which is at the core of an authentic green expression. I recall Beck saying something like green would attempt to go pet the wolf pack circling. Might be a bit unfair but the sentiment is probably accurate.”

Tricky…

If FS-GREEN evolves, then how could it be present without the vertical complexity present (as I pointed out earlier)?

In wrestling with the nuances, it’s easy to get tangled up because if we use the definition of FAUX GREEN, or false green, the model says that green only evolves after earlier stages, albeit imperfectly and that the neurology generating the values and beliefs are directly a result of conditions.

So how can green be present if the conditions and the corresponding neurology emerging from that relationship are not present?

Green must have been there?

Already present in the neurology–already primed?

Now in someone like me devoid of typical green motives (Reiss): interdependence, family, low status, acceptance, low vengeance, beauty…do conditions produce green consciousness?

Not so far!

Yet they do allow my typical CP-RED motive structure: low acceptance, low family, independence, vengeance, and power to grab some of the green memes and assimilate them into a faux structure which I can hold for short (very short) periods of times (something which I heard Graves said about injecting hormones into subjects to create hormone-influenced psychologies).

So this faux stuff stuff is very tricky, as I keep saying.

In Jim’s depiction, faux are those who are not “motivationally-primed” and at rest in a basin* of memes unconsciously emerging from this primal state.

*Attractor Basin referring to those which Graves and later Spiral Dynamics clarified as AN-BEIGE, BO-PURPLE, CP-RED, DQ-BLUE, ER-ORANGE, FS-GREEN, GT-YELLOW, HU-TURQUOISE, etc.

In my depiction, I would call these same people faux because they lack the constructs that would mean that they evolved earlier systems with enough density and frequency to maintain integrity in a more vertically complex set of conditions that GREEN would both attract and generate.

Tricky continues…

This is what caused me to reinterpret the model.

In my ValuDYNAMICS Manifesto:
http://livingatflow.com/valudynamics-manifesto I point out the essence of that interpretation.

What’s key in this discussion is to grasp the ways in which FAUX emerges:

1) in Jim’s interpretation (I think), and unknowingly in my reinterpretation, faux means that which is not real, or primal* but pretend.

*REISS established that 15 of 16 motives are primal, and acceptance maybe evolved.

2) with this interpretation comes two venues, which are both nuanced:

a. Faux is that which is not reflective of motivational-priming–> thus it can’t be genuine.

b. Faux is that which is contrived to attempt to match conditions but lacks the full density and frequency of memes required to solve problems deeply–> those which require a broad array of density and frequency in multiple basins, where problems are just a part of a mole game if inappropriately dense or frequent.

This is still tricky, because in Jim’s first example with photos, faux green could be used in both method a and b accurately but mean different things!

Ok, this is the “tricky” that I want to resolve because I want to use the term consistently in order to use it to describe the same thing which is part of the reason that I have felt a lack of resonance with Jim since Peru;), we just “mean” different things;)

Which is why I wanted Jim to unpack his ideas around the example.

Now, I have unpacked my ideas around FAUX, although I have not solved the tricky but at least now I see where the resonance is out of sync.

If you remember earlier, we got stuck on faux blue and green, and I think it’s due to the ways in which we are nuancing faux <--both of which work. However, if we use Jim's ideas to reinterpret the model of spiral dynamics, it directly makes the case that "network dynamics" are at play, not a true spiraling, which begins to give additional explanatory power--using network dynamics--to the reinterpretation of both Graves work and the interpretation of that work using spiral dynamics--> for similar reasons that I have interpreted the research and model.

To be clear, it is the evolution of the motivational-priming, or genetic-guidance which is at the core of the authentic expression of individual memes. Communal memes are different because mimicking and hybridization occur without respect for motivational priming.

Example: “I can repeat what some says without having the same neurology or conditions, or results, but for all technical purposes, I replicate the meme.

Authentic green can always express core green memes with more genuineness than can non-core.

Because of Authentic GREEN (A-GREEN) and not FS-GREEN, pure green memes (such as this unconditional inclusion or perhaps form of “brotherly love” is made available in the meme pool for hybridization in a form that offers greater assimilation due to its purity, as AN EXAMPLE ONLY.

Before I go off on a tangent, I’ll wait feedback and discussion.

mike

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *