here is a link to a good video, on projections of arctic ice disappearance.  Only 2 minutes long.

Check out Zaadz, collecting posts BY Zaadsters, that then tag their post with Ken Wilber.

You will see a few familiar bloggers, but also some people you don't normally see.  But make sure to scroll down.

Joe Perez left a comment yesterday, on the Bootstrapping post, regarding this question of 2nd tier. (As well, he left some good suggestions about integral communities.)

P.S.: I think you're right that we do part ways on the value of labeling (actually using Levels and not keeping them tucked away in the closet never to be seen in public), though I do want to add that I don't use the "first-tier/second-tier" distinction in my recent writings, as I view all labels on a holistic mandala or band that reflects both absolute and relative values. If anything, my writing now distinguishes not between tiers but co-equal hemispheres, separated not at integral/teal, but postmodern/green AND ultraviolet/infrared. In short, if YOU see "us vs. them" or "defense mechanisms" as inherent in any sort of Levels distinctions, that's YOUR projection onto the heuristic, not an inherent feature. :)

I thought this was a particularly useful comment, that deserved response.

First off, Joe is right - in his writings over at his blogspace, he doesn't really use first-tier/second-tier.  But it worthwhile also to explain a little more, why I think there is, in the 1st tier/2nd tier view, a lot of "unnecessary projection", and unnecessary accusations of projection - and this comes through, even for the best of us. 

This post at Zaadz, is a long one on this 1st Tier/2nd Tier distinction.

Now, like all pod threads or discussion forums, that discussion meanders.

The thread starts off:


Now I know this is a new thing and all, and I really do have compassion and patience for the process - but i wonder if zaadz has fallen prey to a kind of green/blue politeness combined with an orange/green enterprising positive thinking and is calling that “second tier”.

Notice here, the high level of abstraction that exists, in a comment like this - purportedly around real people and their virtual conversations - "kind of green/blue politeness", "orange/green enterprising positive thinking", "called second-tier".

For myself, that type of abstraction from what people are actual DOING or SAYING - well, it doesn't strike me as particularly useful, you know?  This is wandering about in concepts, rather than a lived experience.  It is applying MAPS to particular people, particular conversations.  As such, it isn't real.

Secondly - the confusion illustrated by "labeling" 2nd tier - will be coming from people who are mostly 1st tier to begin with.  Which means all the projections of a less mature consciousness, talking about an idealized version of what they think "2nd tier" is.

Thirdly - labeling such as this, runs particularly counter to wholeness work, as encourage by SHADOW work.  Again, 90% of the time that one is labelling a person 1st Tier, three fingers are pointed back at yourself, pointing at YOUR shadow!


Now, I believe the point that Joe is getting at is the following (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)  - that there are distinctions in maturity, in growth, as represented by individual behavior and individual perspectives.which are adequately captured by 1st Tier/2nd tier, or Spiral Dynamics language.
And the objection to "dropping" labels, is you take away a useful - and true - descriptive tool of the situation.

I don't disagree with this - if you read Gary Stamper, he discusses in his group work, how over time, he begins to be able to suss out WHEN a discussion is more "2nd Tier", and when a discussion, is captured by a lower level perspective-value.

And I'm sure Gary is on to something there.  One analogy that makes sense to me is "drive".  When a discussion started to be captured, by fear, or by a person's narcissism, or by too much concern for egalitarianism, then a conversation, behavior, has veered from taking into account ALL values and drives - concern for others, powers, status, harmony, etc - and being unreflectively dominated by ONE particular drive.

My view though, is that the analysis of an unreflective drive/values capturing a conversation/perspective, is dissectable.  This can be analyzed without reference to applying the MAP of colors, the MAP of 1st Tier/2nd Tier, to messy actual behavior.

Again, I just don't see the utility. 

Thoughts?


UPDATE:  Joe Perez responded at his pad - and a colorful response it is too!