Categories
2020 September

GT-Y: Intervention

As I think through a lot of the ideas
And try to look at application—remember if GTY holds true to SGD theory—which I have not fully made a commitment to—this system emerging (note: GTY is and has been present in individuals for…a long time, so to speak)…

Will be an express self system.

For all practical purposes this appears to be happening as we see individual activity right now emerging sans a metasystem which is linked through this emergence; yet.

The subject is intervention and my thought that a lot of these constructs like intervention, sensemaking even, performance, well-being will all start to look different in 2nd tier.

Intervention:

Knowing when and where and how much to intervene with who will look different at each values core.

If GTY is an express self system, the matrix would show it to be: to get later.

This does agree with the A’N’ Graves description but less so with integral—although I would concede that “integration, like intervention has that set of elements that will look a lot different across basins.

This “idea” is what makes 2nd Tier look a LOT different conceptually And does Give a lot of explanatory power to what’s happening now as the dominant system is: sacrifice of self to get now!

mike.

14 replies on “GT-Y: Intervention”

Could I suggest an idea?

If you have a box which is a matrix of first tier then you mirrored that box onto that box as 3 dimensional it becomes a cube-like structure for the purposes of the matrix…

Herb is Elliott referring to orders in this graphic in the bible?

Ok I have no drawing software but you might imagine that and I believe we now have depicted an order of complexity with time involved?

The 4th dimension starts at no time through time to no time again for…let’s same the human experience.

We have now entered complexity in the cube/matrix where “8” nodes make up the cube in the Center emerging from human being, doing, having, becoming, contributing and protecting have emerged and freeing has yet to emerge as “7”.,.(coral) before “unity” can brighten which has paths back to no thing.

Ok excuse that last part but complexity has emerged beyond universals at this point because you have to move beyond linearity to start describing dimensional complexity which now has emerged with paradigmatic reasoning to know that dimensional complexity now has emerged and it hasn’t transcended and included its blown up the paradigm!

Heterarchy has fully emerged dimensionally so we are “freeing” ourselves from a truth which represents only one position but paraposition and how CHANGE Is now to be thought of as a metasystem where many truths are paradoxically present;)

By superimposing an ordering mechanism we can avoid the entropy of the 1st tier disorder, and chaos which wants to live in the system of one dimensional thinking that most are facing as a construct which can’t be deconstructed!

Therefore GT-Y must design among these worlds that coalesced into an opppsing order—allowing the disorder to do the work of dimentionslizing reality in ways where disparate systems are synergy not entropy.

The United States is not an agreement to allow a single group or multiple groups to band together and “control” everything…but that is what is being suggested moving forward.

Where groups are banding together to gain control of everything and everyone—I hardly think the founders had that in mind.

So to organise things differently we must abandon the linear frames we are plugging into and understand that we can live together without controlling everyone.

We need to recognise these basins of values remain durable for a reason and that Hybridisation helps us all.

Even the space among them represents conceptual space for everyone to experience differences.

The question is how do you get people to objectify the PAAR that exists for tools of construction?

PAAR/PAAA =
1st Tier
Power
Accountability/Avoidance
Author-ity/Achievement
Responsibility/Affiliation

2nd Tier—guessing
Contribution*
Protection, as in well-Being
Freedom, as in degrees
Unity as a beehive-like phenomenon. Ants too, hehe

*Integral or integration is not a value and occurs at all points in the network by degree as does disintegration.

mike

I haven’t absorbed your second piece on this yet.

My take on your first piece is fairly straightforward. I think the thesis is right re: GT-Y as “sacrifice self to get now.” An express self system. This is accurate.

But what is missing from the theory is a complete missing of the commensurate leap in what “self” means at this point on the developmental curve.

Maturation at GT-Yellow will inevitably come with ego complexity development at post-conventional maturity – which means “self” is increasingly a construct.

What I have conjectured is that at GT-Yellow maturity, the work (and value set) draws one to unite self and task. This now is possible because of the fluidity of the “self” or rather identity does not get into the way of poring ones energy fully into a task or problem/problem space.

“Sacrifice self to get now” is another way of saying it in context of contribution. You have to relentlessly sacrifice (or rather invest being) “self” into the task, problem for emergence to occur.

This is the only way CAP can be addressed or rather complex systemic work can be accomplished. Again, I do not mean this in any way “spiritually” or nebulously or ungroundedly. It is the nature of these kinds of problems that require this investment.

I’d offer that is what this “sacrifice of self to get now” means. Fairly practical necessity.

I also don’t think it goes far enough to capture the energetic shift of “being all in.” Which is the real sacrifice of “self.” At this point, from an egoic perspective, ther really is not much of a “self” to sacrifice. There is life energy to sacrifice, a commitment of heart and soul to sacrifice, blood sweat and tears to sacrifice, sheer commitment to persevere through. These are real commitments and sacrifices and where the true “express self” work actually is vs. “sacrifice of self” – my sense anyway.

I think “sacrifice of self” language was coming from Tier 1 when drafted.

And “to get now” means impact on the emergent present. That is the coin of the realm at GT-Yellow. Whatever that person cares about impacting.

My take on your first piece is fairly straightforward. I think the thesis is right re: GT-Y as “sacrifice self to get now.” An express self system. This is accurate.”

——

Either i misstated the thesis or you misunderstood, the short is:

GT-Y = express self to get later.

It solves the problems of FS-GREEN( sacrifice of self to get NOW dominance.

The long version follows, for the record.

I’m not sure where to start because there is obvious confusion:

1. SGD puts forward a pendulum-like development swinging from communal to agentic because SGD called beige “neutral.”

2. Graves notation was formed through a relationship between “life conditions and neurology.”

Life conditions were denoted by A-M and neurology N-Z; an open system.

3. Graves research (Juried panel) boiled 60% of the profiles created from college students after WWII into 4 clumps, 3 of which followed a progression of conceptual space (hierarchy) and 1 clump that didn’t…accordingly as all researchers do, they moulded it into the construction of the structure we now have.

[The reason I point this out is that there is (like McClellands work) the “Jay” wand working here. Please remember that while my data is unpublished and not peer reviewed, it speaks;)

Out of Graves research came SD – 10 years after Graves was dead (1986). The reason that I use SGD is to note that I went back using my data and looked at Graves data and reinterpreted portions of the data for (ValuDYNAMICS) VD, which I explain in the manifesto. https://leadu.com/valudynamics/manifesto/ ]

4. I use notation for SGD that no one else uses—that I’m aware of to denote the vMEMES:

AN-BEIGE
BO-PURPLE
CP-RED
DQ-BLUE
ER-ORANGE
FS-GREEN
GT-YELLOW
HU-TURQUOISE
IV-CORAL
JW-TEAL

NO OTHER vMEMES were discussed in SCG, and Graves 1981 Summary discusses only the first 7, while referring to the 8th, but no mention of others tagged on by Beck and Cowan later.

Graves stated the system occurred in octaves of 6, I changed it to 4 in VD because of “intelligence shown in data to be significantly different between BO-PURPLE and CP-RED; and Commons data showing that intelligence shifts between systematic abd meta systematic reasoning (conjecture), which my experience has biased; as well as A,G,C,T; only 4 genetic notes creating all the human diversity known.

[It will be easy to research once the real GT-YELLOW basin of values emerges.]

5. Breaks from the SGD doctrine caused me after two decades of trying to explain Graves 2.0 and Spiral-NEXT (Madison, Wisconsin in a seminar with DR. Beck was recorded on video, but I don’t know where the digital files are Gary;), I gave up and moved on. My first ValuSYNC workshop was held in India in 2004, and I’ve since worked to codify ValuDYNAMICS for LeaderW@RE along with 6 other “paradynamics.”

6. Recurring back here is the pendulum: communal to agentic or what SCG calls sacrifice of self and express self, which Graves noted in his data for the 3 systems that fell into that model.

CP-RED – express self
DQ-BLUE – sacrifice self
?
FS-GREEN- sacrifice self

Graves 4th clump is conjecture because it didn’t fit the model I guess so my guess it became ER-ORANGE, I would have to check the SD Book (1996) to know if they called ER-ORANGE express self, I always have.

So if we fill in the obvious matrix of express self; sacrifice of self and add time (which Graves did) now and later you get this notion:

CP-RED; Express Self-get NOW
DQ-BLUE; Sacrifice Self-get LATER
ER-ORANGE; Express Self-get LATER
FS-GREEN; Sacrifice Self-get NOW

You can see why SGD didn’t create a matrix because when you add time, a rationale disappears;)

However since it does bother me to use metarationality to map reality, it doesn’t affect me in the slightest to see non-rationality emerge from reality;)

7. Finally, GT-YELLOW (GT-Y)

GT-Y:ES>GL

Express Self to get LATER

Express self is no doubt because the leap to 2nd Tier is being made by those who can…first, noting there are preconditions, such as capability and likely motives/values which are NOT core in 1st Tier, and likely nonrational, or metarational in the sense of not logical.

The “Get LATER” designation is in question because of the pendulum swing—again I think why SGD stayed away from the matrix I created which makes so much sense, metarationality; which bye the way SGD uses to “order” that 4th research clump?

The TIME or Timing element or wave is critical and always presents issues when you’re trying to describe a cloud…of which all the core attractors become “like” Lorenz Strange Attractor; appropriately found in weather research.

I renamed the vMEMES because they appear as “weak forces”, remain durable over TIME and have unbreakably, efficient, effective and sustainable neurology against particular life conditions.

With these basins of attraction or Values Attractor Basins (VAB) functioning as a result of being the “best” way for a human to express inbornness in a meaningful way?

I’ll stop there I know it’s not the end or even the beginning;)

mike

Perhaps I misunderstood Mike, but I read his comment to suggest that GT-Y would be ‘express self to get later’.

Wasn’t Green the ‘sacrifice self to get now’?

I think there’s an email where he delineates this. Maybe I can find it.

Alicia

You definitely pointed at something interesting, though. I started reviewing the Graves piece that’s also in my unreads on this list and the, uh, nature-of-self that’s expressed or sacrificed is unlikely to be a static construct. Whether this nature-of-self evolves along lines mapped by the ego development theorists, I don’t know.

Alicia

Yes it should be now if it continues the linear progression but…

I don’t think it does.

We can discuss it more after you read A’N’ (3 min) in the 1981 summary.

After that we can discuss now…as in now, near and far = get later…

I think it’s like Herman described the veer in REMEMBER the TITANS:

Like novacaine…just keep running it until it works.

Briefly: if you’re going to orchestrate, you have to allow time and in the short term there can be significant damage as the overplay of 1st Tier has a “momentum” an inertia.

Since we know the 1st Tier systems are durable and unchsngesble we need to look at the “sacrifice” to get later but through an expression system as alignment and design are nudged.

Graves does not say design but it’s clear to me he describes it in A’N’….

Thus design takes time and the means might be now but not the end…CP-RED is clearly express self to get now and that fits my model in that GT-Y is the mirror of CP-RED…

BUT

the increase in conceptual space requires a UNCHARACTERISTICLY SIZEMIC SHIFT in conceptual space.

The conceptual space requires TIME and a lot of discontinuous CPQQR.

For that sacrifice (especially resources, including deaths), the effort has to be to get Later, or why sacrifice?

It’s a conundrum and EXACTLY what you would expect at paraposition.

mike

I’d also add: “express self for later” could be better restated to “express ‘self’ in service to later”

But I’m also not sure “later” is particularly useful or accurate. It can be in the sense that you are working in the contexts of now, near and far. But I don’t think it is the focus of the value set at maturity.

My strong sense, as the maturation process unfolds at GT-Yellow, you have increasingly less interest in far or rather later. (And a deeper and deeper understandings of the unfolding and relentless now, because that’s where the future unfolds. There is no later. (I can kick myself a 1000 times how much I’ve overreached into the future, such a naivette, but that is how such horsepower likes to be used., spinning wheelies on the ice!)

Again, I don’t mean this in any woo woo sort of way, just pragmatically, how complex adaptive environments/problems unfold / evolve / emerge.

—-

My thoughts above all relate to someone with PAAR for a problem – This is in the context of real world problems that you are responsible for solving, if you are not actually responsible solving a problem than none of this would actually apply – that said I don’t know if you would be at GT-Yellow though because GT-Yellow screams at you for contribution. Hmm….

” My thoughts above all relate to someone with PAAR for a problem – This is in the context of real world problems that you are responsible for solving, if you are not actually responsible solving a problem than none of this would actually apply – that said I don’t know if you would be at GT-Yellow though because GT-Yellow screams at you for contribution. Hmm…. ”

The ‘you’ in the above interpreted as the ‘royal you’, not a specific individual. Except maybe it’s the mouse the hopped out of your pocket.

Anyhoo, GT-Yellow problem space calls for principles level solutions to shape the landscape the problems get solved along. Maybe call it assumptions-wrangling. In ‘contribution’ is held an intention for something being better in the future, but the energy must be focused on present, not on that future (or later). So future (later) pops up eventually, when it becomes now.

Maybe all BS, just riffing.

Alicia Parr

It important to think of contribution more collectively as well…

Like maybe, your contribution upping the contribution from other…

You can’t push a string therefore the sense of now is muted because the problems even compressed and layered arise over time and are solved over time…

A greater issue for me is the likelihood that HU-T is a sacrifice of self to get mod system.

Bye the way, I don’t see the need for precision and almost or mostly true or even probable is a disclaimer…

So later—imprecise—just means…well later, not right now;)

I keep running into this more lack of literal in my thinking which seems always a surprise to me when people view what I’ve said that way…

I ask myself, is it my problem or their need for the precision, the literal, because we are talking about things in terms of probabilities without real precision because an understanding I have is this is messworks and far from the truth…

Although not so far;)

mike

Spell check;)

My small old SE is burning battery keeping up with IOS 14…

I meant

HU-T sacrifice of self to get now…

While we are not there systemically or even metasystemically…

Jim has been laying some track that seems to go somewhere…

mike

“It important to think of contribution more collectively as well…
Like maybe, your contribution upping the contribution from other…
So later—imprecise—just means…well later, not right now;)”

Yes, thank you.

“I ask myself, is it my problem or their need for the precision, the literal, because we are talking about things in terms of probabilities without real precision because an understanding I have is this is messworks and far from the truth..”

I don’t understand what you mean by problem here? Or are you using that word figuratively? I’m not sure what that would even mean.

People have to slot new ideas into their own meaning-structure. When a client or consultant articulates an idea I’ve been pointing at in their own words, I see that as a success, even if the phrasing doesn’t capture all of the nuance I intended. Not a problem. It’s just not useful to impose my languaging on other people, if the aim is getting a point across in a way that it can be instantiated.

Alicia Parr

Leave a Reply

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