This has come up from the WhatsApp list. We seem to have a vague intuitive understanding for ourselves about values and morals, but we can’t find out if there is actual agreement until we get deeper into dialogue: invited here.
1 Like
If we consider VMemes - it shows how our interpretation or understanding of certain “values” (?) changes (in time, in stages, in cultural/individual development ?).
In the Blue vMeme - we might be looking at equality as of knowing where one’s place is in the system of social hierarchy (pedigree, etc…)
Orange - some sort of meritocracy
Green - social justice
Let’s analyse this development.
Believing in one’s own supremacy over others is not only cultural and normative, but existential. It feels like history and culture provide you with arguments to form a “worldview” and within that perspective - “compete” on the basis of certain interpretation of equality.
This is not so much the embodiment of values in a positive sense but rather the result of social conditioning that reinforces certain power dynamics and inequalities
From my basic understanding of spiral dynamics developmental stage theory - it says that
-
every stage builds upon the previous one and each subsequent stage becoming more complex because of our awareness of the plurality of interpretations and reasonings.
-
stages are not clearly delineated
-
stages apply to individuals, cultures and societies
What else is there? How is mental wiring contrasted with psychological development within this theory?
What advantage does Spiral Dynamics have over Maslow’s pyramid of needs. Just trying to flush out anything I might have missed before going further.
Wondering about how memes and values relate.
That’s the term used in Spiral Dynamics to describe specific wordviews that contain values and beliefs, among other things…
Yes that’s right, and calling them memes indicates that such worldviews and value systems can be analysed as sets of behaviour patterns (including the behaviour of explicitly describing things from the perspective of that worldview, or explicitly ascribing a value to something) which evolve through a process of variation and selection similar to biological evolution.
1 Like
Thanks Jonah. I’d like to fill-in some gaps in my knowledge.
My understanding so far:
We’ve got an “evolution-like” augmentation of cognitive, moral, emotional… lines (let’s call them innovations as they appear for the first time) and the formation of “worldviews” (zeitgeist?) based on perspectives.
Those, in turn, influence our sense-making and there’s constant (quantum-like) feedback that works on all aspects and moves individuals and collectives along the corridors of history.
What would you say are actionable aspects of this framework?
Beck (spiral dynamica) emphasises the implication that your choice of action, when trying to benefit some person or community, should be based on their developmental stage. What works for one stage will be counterproductive for another. And all stages are copresent in different areas of modern society.
Personally, I think the biggest practical takeaway may be a map of development that you can use to understand the benefits of the higher stages (including catastrophic risk reduction) and so steer your own development and that of society.
Newsletter article that touches on the topic of morals and intuition: Moral Intuitions - Being and Becoming Community Newsletter
Jonathan Haidt’s thesis in moral psychology posits that our ethical decision-making is primarily guided by intuition, with rationalization following as a secondary process. This perspective suggests that when faced with moral dilemmas, we first experience an immediate response and then seek logical justifications for our intuitive judgments. In our quest to validate these moral stances, we often use convoluted reasoning, attempting to support judgments that may lack a solid logical foundation. This results in a cognitive dissonance between our intuitive moral compass and our desire for rational justification.
Haidt’s theory resonates with a philosopher named in the last newsletter—David Hume—and his philosophical assertion that reason is subservient to “passion” (feeling) in matters of moral judgment. This striking parallel between contemporary research and centuries-old philosophy raises an intriguing question: Was Hume correct all along in his understanding of the human psyche? The convergence of these ideas across time and disciplines suggests that our moral judgments may indeed be more intuitive than we care to admit—with reason often playing a supporting role. This perspective challenges us to reconsider the foundations of our moral beliefs and invites us to explore the delicate interplay between intuition and reason in shaping our ethical landscape.
2 Likes