spacer
Thinking in Numbers
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Monday, July 31, 2006Considering the work of Dr. Clare Graves and the semantics of his “values set” positions ...
Mornin’ All,
I just sent a letter off to a colleague about the work of Dr. Clare Graves and his, “Emergent, Cyclical, Levels of Existence”. This is just one of the names Dr. Graves used to express what he thought his model could/should be called. A great quote from a website devoted to the work of Dr. Clare Graves from him about what his attention was on in his work is:
“The psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating, spiraling process marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as man’s existential problems change.”
- Dr. Clare Graves
That’s quite a mouthful and I think much of how Dr. Graves wrote himself follows the trend to “psycho-scientific speak” which was very much the mode of the day ... take a look at B.F. Skinner’s work for more examples if you like. Yet I also think his message has profound implications and represents the brilliance of his work as well.
Let’s make it simple, eh? Over his professional career Dr. Graves a professor of social science (a social psychologist specifically) at Union College in New York developed his model of evolutionary value sets that show up in societies around the world. He posed that as cultures evolved, becoming more capable of addressing what they found confronting them in their world as they knew it to be - especially in regard to the people occupying the world around them - they built values that served them in dealing with the context they operated within. In each place at different times, different values would serve the people living there. As they used these values to progress themselves and the world as they knew it to be, while old issues dropped away, new issue arose. As this evolution of the context occurred they required different values to adjust to what was going on.
For example, at some point in every culture we could speculate that getting enough food was a primary priority of the individual, group, tribe, society, nation ... and then at some point food in that culture became abundant as the technology of the people adapted (think “agricultural revolution” or “genetically modified organisms"). Then the issue of the abundance of food became a background issue - i.e.: it had been addressed and for all intents and purposes resolved. For most people in the U.S. there is no consideration about how food happens beyond whether it is “organic” or “free-range” maybe. Food just “is” for most folks living in the U.S. - the money to buy food might still be an issue for some, but not the relative abundance of it. Dr. Graves speculated that when this kind of shift occurred there was a corresponding shift in the values of the people in that context.
So continuing our example, we could say that the issue more currently confronting us here in the U.S. is making sure more people are well-fed than how to make food happen. It’s more a matter of distribution than farming. This requires a different values orientation according to Dr. Graves. I agree.
What I was writing about are the most common “numbers” of values sets we are confronted with in the U.S. according to Dr. Graves’ system. What he described as level “Five” and “Six.” I would argue, although probably unnecessarily with folks who know the system, that we’ll also engage with “Threes,” “Fours” and even some “Sevens” in the U.S. population, but in a bell-curve layout the “Fives” and “Sixes” would rise to the top of the curve without a doubt.
So what are Graves’ Fives and Sixes all about? And, why does it matter to us today?
(To be continued tomorrow ...)
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
Making Sense
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Sunday, July 30, 2006Hello all,
I had the pleasure of attending a friend’s wedding celebration last night, and even the honor and privilege of “charging the couple.” I’ve never heard that term before but I understood it to mean that I was somehow supposed to present some words of wisdom about how to live as a married couple and remind them of their obligations to one another (it was that “charge” word that did it for me).
I’m married myself, but I have no idea that I know what to tell anyone else about being married - except of course my experience of it. So I told them a few things that I have found out that seemed apropos at the time. I said that I learned from my wife that marriage is a commitment you make everyday all over again. That the idea of “getting married” and having it finished and done so you can move on is at best an illusion, more likely a delusion. I told them that I personally learn everyday what it is again to be married and how I can continue to improve within my relationship and become more astute about the wonder and joy I’ve found in this unique form of commitment and coupling. I also spoke some words to them about symbols and ritual, how some people today have begun to think that the symbol and ritual of marriage has become irrelevant. How these folks consider the rite of marriage quaint and out-dated. Yet there is something about acknowledging this commitment and coupling publicly and “officially” for the congregation to see and participate in with you.
And I can assure you that there was a “congregation” last evening - I’m guessing we had representation from every continent and most ethnic groups present in the gathering they invited. There were couples that looked like brother and sister, couples that were to use the quaint form “mixed” and obviously from two remarkably different ethnic backgrounds, there were same sex couples, there were children who represented the beauty of the intermingling present among these couples all. Truly it was a privilege to be asked to participate in such a complete and joyous celebration.
AND - there was dancing, a lot of dancing. The bride was stunning in her ethnic dress donned for the wedding ceremony (I was specifically instructed to show up in “casual formal” dress myself). Then at some point mysteriously she reappeared in a beautiful pants outfit that seems custom made for her to show herself off in while she danced the night away - and she did. She was a whirlwind of movement and grace, joining first her husband in “the dance of life” expressed to the music and through the movements of their bodies swirling together and their smiles lighting the room. Then she danced with family and friends, and most of all I noticed she danced with the children - and others joined in freely, effortlessly, joyfully ... and truly I can tell you that in dance done like this there was joy.
As the night moved on a few people came and spoke to me about my words “charging” the couple and I thanked them for the kindness of their compliments. However, I know that the real message of the evening went far beyond any words I could have chosen to speak and was embodied in the actions present as these disparate groups of former strangers came together to join in this celebration to bring this new entity of my friend’s marriage into the world amid great noise and confusion - as well as overwhelming joy.
Best regards,
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
Reflections of Performance
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Saturday, July 29, 2006Howdy folks,
Welcome to the weekend ... hot and balmy here in NJ ...
I just got finished with the MythoSelf Facilitator’s Update Training Program here in Princeton. About 20 folks that have taken or are taking the MythoSelf Facilitator’s Training were invited to a couple of free days with me to update their skills and get some of the new ‘tricks” I’ve added into the model. Of course as is usual time and again the lesson shows up ... “it’s all about the basics!
While everyone loves the *New Stuff*, what everyone really needs are the basics to build the foundation for the new stuff. So we started there and then went off into the specifics of some of the newest stuff I’ve added into the model ... mostly material about social performance ... “How do people actually get along with one another and create relationships, families, businesses, communities, societies ... or even just when they get together to spend some time in the company of another?”
I love doing this work ... I love the life it has given me ... and I find myself continually fascinated with the material I must pursue to be competent to present. This has led me more recently, more deeply into the structure of human relationships ... what I think is the most essential aspect of being human ... GETTING ALONG!” My G-D ... if we could only do this one thing how the world would be different. We’d build businesses that would care for their people as well as their bottom-line, we’d build schools that nurture children as well as educate them, we’d build societies that ... well simply get along with one another and the needless dying that makes up so much of CNN’s coverage in the last couple week might come to an end. Even at the simplest level less people would feel the pain of lonliness and others would see their children and their children’s children grow up happy and whole.
So you can see I really do think that “getting along” is the essence of human performance - even in solo sports it takes a team to win, or at least a coach. And, in some small way I think we moved a little further towards this in our small group these past few days - now I hope to see it spreading out from here.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
PS - I’ve opened my Private Access Telecoaching Seminar program up to new members again. I began this program in November of 2005 and I haven’t accepted any new members since then. There are now nine audio files that will be immediately available to new members, a couple of special reports and access to the live telecoaching seminars each month where I present the latest cutting-edge information about applications that dramatically influence performance on every level. Now with the new infrastructure in place on this site I’m ready to accept new members and I’m offering a “Risk Free” 90 Day Trial in this program ... for more information go to: EPC2™ Private Access Membership Benefits.
Wondering … “Why?”
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Friday, July 28, 2006Morning All,
One of the things I must say is that I often wonder, “Why?” I wonder how come things are as they are instead of some other way. I wonder if it’s “me” or “the world” and I wonder why I’m wondering instead of just moving along.
FIrst of all I think wondering is a natural human preoccupation ... “I wonder ... therefore I am ... human.” We’re designed to wonder, it helps us get along. I wonder what you’re thinking when I see you act in a particular manner. I wonder what you’re thinking when I see you NOT act in a particular manner. I wonder at what you say and what you don’t say. I wonder why I haven’t seen you or heard from you ... and why I have. I find myself in endless wonder about you.
Then I make guesses ... hallucinations really ... about all these things I wonder about you. I “figure out” what it all means and apply my meaning to you and that’s what “IT” is for me in regards to you. We see this all the time around us ... people hallucinating about others and then imposing their hallucinations on others. “He/She did ...” or “He/She meant ...” And, of course that leads to “Now I have to ...” And, as a result sometimes we have wars and lots of people die.
So we’re built to wonder and as a result sometimes lots of people can suffer because we’re capable of believing what we come up with and act upon it as real. This really stinks, I think it just plain sucks that people will impose their particular hallucinations on others. What makes it especially difficult is that various groups of people have entirely different structures to the basic halluncinations they have about others. And, part of the hallucination of the group is that the other groups are using the same hallucinations!
That’s when lots of people can die.
So it seems that we have to begin to wonder about our wondering to me. We might begin from wondering whether what we’re even wondering about is useful ... is really getting us the outcomes we want. Then we could even find ourselves free to wonder about other things that we haven’t wondered about before that are more wonderful ... to ourselves ... in regard to others ... even for the whole species or planet.. Now wouldn’t that be a wonder!
Hoping no one dies today because people are wondering what it means for others to be who they are ...
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
Finding a Way Back
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Thursday, July 27, 2006Howdy again,
We all depend on certain “realities” to remain constant. We expect for instance that we’ll recognize ourselves when we wake up in the morning and look in the mirror. (A great film which plays with this idea and the idea of identity and social response is “Watermelon Man” with Godfrey Cambridge). We expect the world to be constant in some ways as well, that the home we live in and the street that it’s on remain the same day to day. These are evident things, and yet as we have heard - “The most constant thing is change.”
The taoist poet Lao Tzu wrote the “Tao Te Ching” over 2500 years ago a book about change, and a book often associated with taoist principles the “I Ching” is the “book of change.” So we’ve been wrestling with the concepts of change and how to address living in an inconsistent world for literally thousands of years. What’s interesting is that some folks believe that some of the best advice we have for dealing with change may be in the very pages of the books I’ve mentioned above.
Where the relevenat information about technology is almost always at best a few months old, never years the best information on the perennial and persistent topic of change in the cosmos, and how it impacts us directly and intimately hasn’t itself changed enough in 2500 years to bring into question the basic principals regarding it yet. If we consider the topic of “neurocognition” or the technology of how we think, how our brains and nervous systems work to allow us to make sense of the world - as I’ve said the current relevant information is often less than a few month old. This is also true about the technology we currently use to run the world around us a we know it. This disparity is astounding ... 2500 years of relative consistency vs. a few months of currency.
So what’s that all got to do with where I’m going ... well first we have to establish a basis direction to even ask the question. I’m coming home, literally I find myself endlessly seeking the path back to myself. As with all people who live their life (as opposed to having it lived for them - but that’s another topic for another time) ... I am faced with the question, “Who am I?” at a deep and existential level every day. ... “Who is this that knows who I am?” ... “Who is this that does what I do?” ... “Who is this that experiences the things I experience?” ... These kinds of questions remain present in each moment. When I hold the sense that I know “Who I am?” there is profound peace ... the system comes to rest. When I am seeking ... the system is chaotic - both internally and externally. So maybe, just maybe we have the beginnings of a direction to take ... maybe this “I” that “I am” is the “I who seeks itself.” And, by the corollary evidence, the “I” that I am is the “I who comes to rest when it has found itself.”
This analysis brings up another very sticky, challenging question, “Where is the “I” that seeks itself?” And, again using the corollary form, “Where does the “I” that finds itself come to rest?” The most basic answer as we ordinarily use time and space to consider “where” is either “here” or “somewhere else ... there.” Then in terms of the “I that seeks itself.” - we could say the basic form of the answer to the question “Where?” would be either internal or external. Yet these forms “here and/or there” ... “internal and/or external” create dicotomies and dualities. In a consideration of the question “Where?” from a position of singularity there is no “here” or “there,” no “internal” or “external,” there is no “now” or “then” - only this which “IS.”
The thing that throws me so deeply when considering this position of the singular is that it too is changing, there “is” no “IS” - there “is” only that which is becoming. The Universe unfolds before us, within us, around us ... and seemingly we are “IT.” We close our eyes and the “Universe” disappears ... or goes inside. We open our eyes and there “IT” is again ... expanding endlessly before us. The scientists will tell us - “The Universe is constantly expanding ... and it is all there is.” ... so of course every schoolchild asks ... “So where is it expanding into?” ... the simplest answer must be “ITSELF.” Using the test of Occam this resolves the questioning ... at least for now.
Best regards,
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
