Jim recent piece is worth reading several times because it makes a lot of sense and is coherent an argument I’ve read on the topic.
While this one is the most salient, I continue to be “(arrested) in several ways at GT-Emergence.
I don’t fully embrace prerequisites, that’s a sticking point and another is that it takes work to get into GT-Y (Jim suggests a long period of time)…
And while I’m arrested, something is saying to me, that’s not what’s occurring, although he’s partly right if you going to adopt the KSE path that for me is the basis for Fischer/Lectica…that you can achieve skills that cause you to be a more vertically-able reasoner.
For me, it’s partly true…somewhat, and like Jim who—I think—works out of prerequisites, which is also partly true and probably true to some extent, I’m still arrested because I don’t believe the KSE PATH (KSEP) + prequisites is enough; necessary perhaps, but not sufficient.
I differ with Jim in that I do believe you’re born into a “dispensation”…
A proclivity where you become what you are rather than construct the path consciously…the dispensation constructs you.
Now this brings about issues for sure and almost exposes the nature of requisite…GT-Y.
What jammed me up about a decade ago was this notion that SGD puts forward that the next evolution of the mature adult personality will be GT-YELLOW, GRAVES A’N’. (1981)
Jim’s perspective seems to emerge from that and it’s arrested in SGD in my view because when you deconstruct the theory you realize that these DCABs have formed long long ago as cores which may not at all be populated but have certain ways of Being, Doing, Having, Becoming, Contributing and Protexting that relationship to a set of life conditions that may, in fact, have been attracted to the DCAB through time, even in small, unrecognisable amounts, but nonetheless existent…always there, like the problems we can identify once we can see them—they were always there, waiting for D&F to reach them?
So they have always been there?
If they have, what are their attributes, characteristics, forms, structure, artefacts and most importantly values?
Just because we don’t know them…
Doesn’t mean they haven’t known us and become attractive?
Graves used conceptual space as a generator; as he did “dogma” relativity and others.
His theory of everything leaves inborness with too little D&F, and while in a pure linear development it might work, it really hasn’t.
We find that largely that we are fitting reality to the model…as I feel Jim and I are (ssted).
In my arrested state, if nothing we know is mostly true, then what is?
Are there prerequisites for, let’s say DQ-BLUE?
Is it necessary to develop along a KSEP to reach the D&F that makes sense?
I’m working in that space…of OR.
PS: I was triggered to gather these thoughts because I wanted to pass you this…
In this piece I noticed something…aside from CP-RED sophistication. I don’t know when it was recorded.