Help
Sign In
andrew cohen
August 2007 
Thinking Through The Numbers ...
Posted on Jun 29th, 2007
by 
Joseph
Joseph
Hello again ... here's one for the weekend:
One of my intellectual mentors has been Dr. Clare Graves. His model has shaped my thinking, specifically his concept of the evolution of social consciousness. A protege of Dr. Graves, Dudley Lynch of Brain Technologies, Inc. in Plano, Texas, has also helped shaped my thinking in the arena of social influence.
I expect around these parts Dr. Graves model is relatively familiar. It's the same model that was made more popular by the authors of "Spiral Dynamics," Don Beck and Chris Cowan and more recently by Ken Wilbur and Andrew Cohen. While Dr. Graves was developing these models in the late 1950's through the 1980's, only now are his ideas becoming more widely known and recognized.
Simply, Dr. Graves says that we are living largely in a world populated by folks who have developed through the first four levels of values on a social evolutionary scale he described in great depth ... (1) Survival, (2) Tribal, (3) Independence and Autonomy and (4) Social Order and Organization. Those of us who are living in the most industrialized countries in the world are embarking on what Dr. Graves describes as the next three developmental levels of his social evolutionary scale ... (5) Entrepreneurial and Opportunistic, (6) Pluralistic and Inclusive and (7) Systemic.
Beyond this Dr. Graves suggests a possible eighth level on his scale, (8) Global ... and there are those who believe we have evidence of the emergence of a group that holds this value set as their most basic default pattern. Yet regardless of where a person defaults their values both drive and guide them, while also remaining open to modification and developing futher along the social evolutionary scale.
One of the things that most intrigues me are how people and groups transform ... letting go of old patterns and adopting new ones. It seems to me that this requires a willingness to question everything ... even those things you "know to be true." When a person can set themselves free to see what they have not seen before, they remain open to the path of personal transformation and become the harbingers for social transformation as well.
I'm curious ... do you find it off-putting or exciting that the good Dr. Graves has given us a way to examine where we stand in our values in regard to others ... e.g.: "looking out for number one" or "looking out for the system that contains us all."
Until we meet again ...
Best regards,
Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist
Princeton, NJ
Access: PublicTagged with: Social, Society, Transformation, Dr. Graves, Spiral Dynamics, Ken Wilbur, Andrew Cohen, Don Beck, Chris Cowan, Dudley Lynch, Social Transformation, Evolution, Systemic
Joseph asked: I’m curious … do you find it off-putting or exciting that the good Dr. Graves has given us a way to examine where we stand in our values in regard to others … e.g.: “looking out for number one” or “looking out for the system that contains us all.”
I find it exciting.
I have a regular discussion with my physics colleagues about the nature of universe. Are our models fundamental, or effective, that is is there an underlying structure to the cosmos which is platonic, and knowable, or it is a mishmash of patterns, and we use mathematics to impose a structure on what we see which enables us to exercise a degree of control, but that actually the model bears no real existence; it's just the closest we can get.
Of the graves model one could ask a similar question. Is it fundamental? Is there something real here which is fundamental and immutable, or is it just a set of observations constructed in such a way that they appear to have internal logic, but somewhere does the line when we know more would seem naive.
Myself, I don't know which it is, but I like the logic it encapsulates, as in the words of Carse it
offers the possiblity of transending the finite game and allowing us to operate in relation to the unknown levels, engaging us to find the infinite game, to find ways of changing the rules so that we can continue to play.
I don’t know if Dr. Graves model can be properly called fundamental … for me this would mean that the observed object/aspect/phenomenom/function … would exist whether or not we observed it, described it and named it.
Surely I would say that by my direct observations what Dr. Graves observed in terms of the value sets he described contain behaviors that would be fundamental by my above definition, at least in terms of both phenomena and functions (in this case behaviors). What I’m less secure in calling fundamental in the same way are his categories of the observed phenomena and functions.
I too like his logic, the patterns he observed. Yet I also know that we will see those patterns we are capable ourselves of seeing … and even more so those we are noticing for most. So while I find a certain validity to his observations myself, I recognize that I am noticing for the same patterns (at least now I am).
For me what it often comes down to can be something that more and more has become elusive and ephemeral … aesthetic validity … i.e.: are the patterns observed beautiful … do they make aesthetic sense. I find very few people know how to notice for aesthetic validity … prefering instead a kind of quantitative validity instead. This might be a preference for quanity over quality … a “more is better” vs. “less is more” approach.
I am an old architect (by training and trade) … and I grew up educationally in the shadow of folks like Mies Van der Rohe … who stated that in architecture at least, Less Is More … and you could say I incorporated this idea as a fundamental truth. In the world of physics, mathematics and AI I believe you call this elegant.
When noticing for aesthetic validity the most elegant solution will always be the favored solution … if for no other reason than it will be more beautiful … by doing more with less.
I don’t know if I’ve added anything, but maybe I’ve taken away something that might make what we’re looking at more evident …
Joseph