Talk:Spiral Dynamics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Yet to be integrated

• there are several variations of Spiral Dynamics: cfr. the Don Beck site (SDi is influenced by the work of Ken Wilber)

-- pweemeeuw, Mar 28 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pweemeeuw (talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 March 2004 (UTC)

This page violates both advertising and NPOV restrictions. There is not one word about the relationship of this small, vocal, but definitely heterodox self-help movement and the rest of the world of knowledge. Basically this is boilerplate off of the numerous websites that the company selling the book owns. Lots of google hits, almost all trace back to the same owners. Stirling Newberry 21:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The colors do have a meaning - they are mnemonic devices (memory aides) to help people remember the meaning-making system of that stage of development. For example: Beige = the african savannah in dry season. Reminds us that Africa is where we believe human life began AND the core issue of Beige value system is SURVIVAL - a core issue during the dry season as well. The levels had labels which were too hard to remember when Clare Graves created theory...so Don Beck and Chris Cowan converted to colors (with Graves' permission) so people could remember the theory and the stages better. Graves had a knack for creating hard to remember labels: he originally called this theory "The Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult Biopsychosocial Systems Development." That is why Beck and Cowan renamed it Spiral Dynamics...two words that capture the essence of what Graves was saying in a way that we can remember. If this article lacks anything it is length. I do not see a POV issue. If any of the developmental theories such as Abraham Maslow, Lawrence Kohlberg or Robert Kegan deserve to be in Wikipedia - then Clare Graves does as well. The link to Graves and his research should be more fleshed out and more explanation of the theory itself should be added. You don't have to agree with Graves' theory any more than you have to agree with Freud's or Jung's - but major contributors to the field of Psychology should be accessible in the encyclopedia. CSWigglesworth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cswigglesworth (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Spiral dynamics

While I believe the term spiral dynamics has been registered or copyrighted, it is also true that the body of theory and practice that has been building for several years based on the work of Beck and Cowan is very real. Their concepts have begun showing up in academic journals (see Ron Cacioppe and Mark G. Edwards, "Adjusting blurred visions: A typology of integral approaches to organizations," Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 3 2005). In addition, it seems that Ken Wilber has departed from the scheme with his own stage model using color indicators. Perhaps what is important is not the colors — which Chris Cowan indicated was the creation of a graphic artist in service of the publication of the book (see http://www.leadcoach.com/archives/interview/chris_cowan.html) and had no other direct significance to the theory built from the work of Clare Graves.

Integral theory includes the premise of stages of development. Several models of psychological stage development have been and are being considered in the evolution of integral theory. This includes the work of Jean Gebser, Robert Kegan, Jane Loevinger, Jenny Wade, Susanne Cook-Greuter, William Perry, Michae Commons, Kurt Fischer and others, in addition to the work of Clare Graves and Beck and Cowan's presentation of that work. There are theorists and practitioners around the world who are working with these concepts. It would seem to this student of the theory that removing access to these ideas would not be a case of protecting a copyright, but would be to destroy an important connection to growing efforts and supporting development in a world sorely in need of it.

Russ Volckmann 8.3.05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.124.45 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason that this page should be deleted. I am somewhat familiar with Spiral Dynamics theory and what I see on this page appears to accurately reflect that theory. That some might not buy in to Spiral Dynamics theory is no reason to delete the page. Should we delete Sigmund Freud because some of us are not Freuidians?

Dave Watkins 8/3/2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.95.214 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Both of the premises in pwee's posting are invalid.

Assuming there are several versions of SD, does that mean it should be excluded from Wikipedia? Well, there are "versions" of most ideas in the social sciences. Should we exclude them all? What would be left? Actually, there is only one SD. SDi, as i understand it, adds to SD as developed by Claire Graves but does not change it. It is instructive to make people aware of a major offshoot of the theory, as it would be to familiarize people with any theory. Rarely does a theory persist without further development.

As for the colors and meaning, yes there are some general associations. The Green level is very much consistant with, say, the Green Party in Germany. Red, if we think about its association with child rearing and the "terrible twos" is a perfect color for that level.

Considering "advertising restrictions", it should be noted that many concepts in the behavioral sciences have been copyrighted. Why shouldn't authors' intellectual property be protected? Again, if we deleted every copyrighted concept from Wikipedia, we would be eliminating valuable information.

That SD has no relationship to "the rest of the world of knowledge" is a patently false assertion. If you look at the book, Spiral Dynamics, pages 323-331, you will find 200 references organized according to a specific aspect of sprial dynamics theory. Authors include and are as diverse as Howard Bloom, Kenneth Boulding, Peter Senge, Tom Peters, Jean Auel and Ken Wilber. The relationship of spiral dynamics to other research and ideas is also noted throughout the book.

bill hajdu/firepig 8/4/2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.65.224 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 18:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for making a second posting, but in my first i only discussed why SD should not be deleted and not why it should be included in Wikipedia. I have ten years of graduate level study in the social sciences. I've taken courses at the U of Wisconsin, USC, Georgetown, London School of Economics and Cambridge. I can with confidence say Spiral Dynamics is the most powerful tool for analyzing and understanding human behavior that i have ever encountered in any of my studies. It is to Wikepedia's credit that it is exposing more people to the theory of the spiral.

bill hajdu/firepig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.65.224 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's really pretty embarassing. I mean, come on. If this theory really says that people weren't capable of those things until this year or that year, that's sheer absurdity. Are you that ignorant of history that you could possibly believe people didn't know how to express themselves without pissing off important people before 1000 AD? Read the Illiad. Read a history book. Read anything published before 1950. I can guarantee you every one of those behaviors can be found thousands of years before when it's supposed to come about according to this theory. I don't advocate this article getting removed, because I think the information should be available to people, but I find it depressing that anyone takes it seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.56.192 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So help me re-write the article in a way that is acceptable both to advocates of the theory, its critics, and those who dismiss it unthinkingly. --goethean ॐ 19:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a section setting out the more recent developments from a non-biased point-of-view and removed the npov tag accordingly. I believe this now gives sufficient information about the differing approaches of the two founders without bias to one or the other. The disagreements are personal as well as professional and, although this may contribute to the noise from one camp or another, this does not need to be reflected here.

Muswellhillbilly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.193.80 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Reorganize?

It seems it would be better if rather then having a single sub-section for each table (values, expressions, goal) that this needs to be reorganized so that each subsection is for the color meme instead. It would be easier to read and grasp what the meme means in this way. In this way you could go to the Green subsection and see the values,expressions,goals of green. Let me know what your opinion is. Stevenwagner 08:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Steve, I'm removing your additions. You can't just copy and paste text from the spiral dynamics website into this article. That's a copyright violation. — goethean ॐ 19:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

beware adding examples

Someone went to great trouble to add some entertaining examples trying to flesh out the various vMemes (not memes). Unfortunately, many of them were way off base. Thus, I've deleted them and inserted some generic thematic descriptions, instead. As I noted on the page, itself, trying to attach labels to people is pretty treacherous and often misleading. Some of the examples reflected some of the most common misconceptions about the model, and others were simply bizarre. It's a trap people new to the theory or with only a superficial view often fall into, and one which shouldn't be passed forward for others to model.

Human beings are rarely pure tones, and it's difficult to interpret motives and intentions without coming to know the person. That's especially true with celebrities whose personal lives and thinking might not relate to a public persona well at all. One of the mistakes I made in the 1996 book, Spiral Dynamics, was including a bunch of examples, many of which are naive and others simply awful (pp 45-47, among others). They should have been deleted from the paperback, but were not.

Tagging people just isn't all that simple, and using colors to stick them into boxes is simplistic. One of the things learned since writing that book is how important it is to distinguish between what people do and why they do it, what they say they believe and how they think about what they believe, both differentiations not easily made from press reports. This is a theory about ways of thinking about things, not a typology for people nor a catalogue of values.

I'd strongly suggest people do their homework before popping too much onto these pages. There are websites devoted to Spiral Dynamics (we maintain .org and .com) and Dr. Graves's work (clarewgraves.com) which will clarify a great many misconceptions and Wiki-poo that gets posted with good intentions but scant knowledge. I also appreciate whoever made the remark about respecting copyright and not merely lifting sections from the book.

Chris Cowan co-author, Spiral Dynamics co-owner, Spiral Dynamics trademarks --added by User:71.102.150.48, 7 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.150.48 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is it?

Does Spiral dynamics claim to be a science, or a paradigm, or a tool, or a spiritual truth? I.e. is it a parallel to Hinduism, or is it more like Edward de Bono's 'deliberate thinking methods' such as his colored hats technique? This is not clear from the article. My initial reaction was that I'd like to see something from a skeptic's point of view, for balance; but I can't figure out to what extent scientific skepticism is applicable. --Singkong2005 ^talk 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it does have some (fairly future-oriented) scientific pretensions, Spyral Dynamics is very much an empirical tool; in fact, it was originally and is still for the most part a resource for managers to administrate their human resources. Ken Wilber and many others find such a language useful for describing matters of spiritual significance, but they do so at their own advice and risk. Luis Dantas 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OR tag

Forrestlane42. There appears to be no OR or unverified claims in the opening section, and you have not commented on why you believe there is. Are you sure this is what you meant? --Backface 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface, the section on Memes seems to be taken out of Wilber's books, or possibly from the Net, thats why it was tagged. It should at least referenced where they were copying the info from. -ForrestLane42 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I put the not verified tag because it seems again that especially in the Memes section that its taken either from Wilber's book or another website, either way, it just needs a citation for them. Where did everyone get this information? It is a basic desire of an essay entry. ForrestLane42 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Lavender, Silver, Platinum

Three levels were added to the second tier, without reference (as far as I could tell)

Could someone please explain this?--Quizoid (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what happened to Teal, Plum etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.29.142 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Critiques of Spiral Dynamics

I feel there is an undesirable "Social Darwinian" colour to Spiral Dynamics theory, which would be deeply offensive to Australian Aborigines, Bushmen or Papua New Guinean tribesmen, as spiral dynamics suggests that they have to pass through the intermediate stages before they can enter the "modern world" of the emerging "second tier". Any system that suggests that someone's future is a version of our past is totalitarian and finishes up doing violence to reality. John D. Croft (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty unacceptable to anyone who isn't designated under the right colour! Personally I think we have another pseudo-science here and at some stage a bit of effort needs to go into balancing this article --Snowded TALK 11:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics

I was introduced to the Spiral Dynamics term when I heard a group of people talking about it after a "leadership development" course. I asked "Can you explain what this means?" and nobody could. This pricked my curiosity as they were clearly enamoured by the idea even though they couldn't explain it. What I learned was that the original work by Clare Graves had been "popularised" and to an extent "commercialised" as with many similar examples some of the message had been subject to deletions, distortions and generalisations. My current understanding is that SD is rather like Maslow's Hierarchy (Graves and Maslow were friends) in that the "levels" denoted by the colours build on each other - so you need a strong "purple" capability to support the "red" level. This means that there is no implied hierarchy - orange is not inherently "better" than blue. Also, each level has a ying-yang aspect; a positive and a negative side (blue provides order and stability but can become bureaucratic, obstrictive and create conflict between different "Truths"). The levels are more akin to levels of complexity and the level that you can achieve depends on building a secure foundation first; so the further you go the broader the base needs to be to maintain stability. For an individual a "broad base" of life experiences provides the material with which to construct an individual model; for a group a "broad base" of shared knowledge and wisdom (usually historical) is needed. The model allows evolution from one stage to another when the conditions are favourable and regression when conditions change. The SD model allows different people, organisations, and even counties to be centred at a different points on the journey and goes some way to explaining many of the sources of conflict that we experience in the World today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simondodds (talk • contribs) 10:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

removal of "new age" category

The close association of spiral dynamics with Ken Wilber makes the new age category appropriate. Just take a look at the lede on his article. Its been in that category for the best part of a year as well so the editor who is simply removing it without discussion should bring their case here. --Snowded (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read the book Spiral Dynamics, it is a management/psychology book and there is nothing new agey about it. — goethean ॐ 22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilber is not a New Ager. He even critiques the movement here: http://www.oregonvos.net/~jflory/new_age_thought.htm Regardless of what others have claimed him as being, he doesn't consider HIMSELF a New Ager. And even if he was, that would not necessarily make Spiral Dynamics New Age. Until Wilber describes HIMSELF as a believer in New Age thought, it doesn't matter what his proponents and critics describe him as.24.158.225.39 (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, and I would add pseudo-science to new age, it has many characteristics with NLP. It is more than possible for someone to criticise a movement of which they are a part. --Snowded (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you should not revert while a discussion is taking place, please self-revert. --Snowded (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that from his wording that he considers New Age something he's not in as he refers to it as something he's not within. There's no evidence at all of him referring to himself as New Age, but there are articles where he does criticize it. In fact, most of the mentions of New Age in regards to him come from opponents who are using the term as a pejorative. And I said before, Wilber's personal beliefs (whatever they are) does not necessarily affect Spiral Dynamics. And I reverted the edit i made--until the matter is resolved, we can discuss it here. 24.158.225.39 (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that and we have to look at third party references as opinions don't count! Some of WIlber's stuff is way out in any sense of the world. There are also two branches of Spiral Dynamics, one of which has more cult like aspects. --Snowded (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And another interview where he disassociates himself with New Age beliefs: http://www.holons-news.com/node/218 One more: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/my_take_on_Wilber.html His own view on himself should be taken into account. When critics are the ones who solely define an individual, they don't tend to do a good job (which is to be expected). What's needed is a neutral POV. We can establish certain facts here--1: Wilber does not refer to himself ever as a New Ager 2: Opponents and proponents (but mostly opponents) have labeled him New Age 3: the term New Age is itself subjective--I personally view it as a miss-match of unrelated ancient systems to create something new (it's not my cup of tea--at all--but I tend to think that's a good objective definition, but your mileage may vary). Wilber really just seems to be a pop psychologist, not a guy who uses stones to heal himself. And we can't label things just because they're far out--Wikipedia has to remain neutral. As for the cultist aspects, you'd be hard-pressed to find a controversial group that has not been described as cult-like. There are many groups *I* would like to call cults, but I can't just put that into Wikipedia based on my own opinion. The fact that Wilber does not see himself as New Age IS important here, and it should send up a red flag. After all, New Age is not the same as spirituality, the occult, religion, and pop psychology--they're different. 24.158.225.39 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he clearly wants to disassociate himself from new age systems, but that, while evidence is not conclusive. Some of the alien visits and other issues that are associated with him are problematic. It needs a bit of research and some more editors involved. --Snowded (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is: Wilber has commented on aliens, therefore Spiral Dynamics is new age? Brilliant. — goethean ॐ

Try and stay civil and please remember that the new age tag has been there for a long time and its not unreasonable to discuss its continued use. There are two questions (at least) here. Firstly is WIlber new age or not (the WIkipedia page on his notes that he thinks he isn't, but says that others say he is in which case balance comes into play) and how linked is he with spiral dynamics. Other than those two questions looking for third party citations resolves the issue. The category has been there for a bit, no one is going to die if a few days are spent looking into this. --Snowded (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring with nothing to back up your opinion other than "it's been there a long time" and "Wilber talks about aliens". This article is about the book and the theory Spiral Dynamics, not Wilber. Your edit warring is out of line and untenable. You need to revert yourself. — goethean ॐ 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the established position to allow discussion, the book is written by Wilber so his position is relevant. Just calm down a bit will you, this is not the biggest issue on Wikipedia and you should try not to make this article yourRamakrishna substitute. --Snowded (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore your personal attack for now. "The book is written by Wilber"? I can assure you that Spiral Dynamics, the book we are discussing, was not written by Wilber. You can confirm this by looking at the front cover of a copy of the book. It was written by Don Beck and Chris Cowen. Somebody doesn't know what they are talking about. — goethean ॐ 22:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link for your convenience. — goethean ॐ 22:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, Wilber wrote A Theory of Everything which incorporated Spiral dynamics. He is now closely linked with Spiral Dynamics through the work of the Integral Institute. Beck even talks of SDI now and you can see happy pictures of him and Wilber on the web site. The book you reference is one of the source books, but Wikipedia needs to report on what is as well as what was. There are of course multiple sites (Cowan has his own) and the whole movement with training etc. that has built from this. A colleague of mine has been researching its history but I don't have access to his notes at the moment. Interestingly there are a lot of similarities with NLP when you look into it (We are writing a paper on the way that cults emerge, split etc. and SD and NLP are both illustrations). As I said WIlber has some esoteric interests over and above Spiral Dynamics. However there is no question of his association and at least part leadership of SD. His status is described as new age by Hanegraaff (cited on his page) and elsewhere. To be honest the whole article is poor and the question of one category is not a major issue. It does however require discussion. My reference to Ramakrishna was a request not a personal attack. --Snowded (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh all you want. Wilber's books have incorporated Advaita, Zen, and a hundred other things as well as SD. That doesn't make Zen, Advaita or SD new age. Your above comment "the book is written by Wilber" indubitably shows that you are not even vaguely familiar with the topic at hand. — goethean ॐ 05:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Try and avoid value judgements on other editors, it will help things along and you might avoid failing WP:GF. The fact remains that this article has to reflect SD as it is and that includes Wilber as one of the two/three major leaders of the movement. Wilber aside the whole concept of different levels of awareness (when it is shifted from a rather dubious analysis of history) to the individual and the allocation of colours is distinctly new age in nature. --Snowded (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilber aside the whole concept of different levels of awareness (when it is shifted from a rather dubious analysis of history) to the individual and the allocation of colours is distinctly new age in nature.

You are talking nonsense. Allocation of colors = new age? Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to support this unlikely claim? The rest of your sentence I'm having trouble parsing because it isn't written in standard English. — goethean ॐ 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you capable of engaging with editors who disagree with you? I am of course mortified that I failed to add a comma after "aside", shame on me. now please try and address the argument.. --Snowded (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, I think his opponents may want to link him to the movement as a means of explaining away his ideas, given that "new Age" is a pejorative in some circles. I have no real interest in his ideas personally, but it seems unfair to label him as New Age when he clearly rejects the movement. I don't think we can box every "out there" (well, "out there" to the mainstream) into a single category. But more importantly, whatever Wilber's beliefs, that does not necessarily reflect spiral dynamics itself. It is a step removed from him and he's already distanced himself from New Agers. 24.158.225.39 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but equally lots of people try to avoid labels even though the consensus and citations say they are, this one may be no different. The whole multi-coloured levels and some of the higher understandings as you achieve higher levels (I know that is not universal) are very characteristic of new age. I'm fairly heavily committed on a project for the next few days but I will look into the definitions and citations (unless someone else wants to) later in the week. --Snowded (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, *I* consider New Age to be the synthesis of unlike religious beliefs (such as mixing Christianity with the belief in ancient astronauts) mixed with some speculative science. I think that's a pretty fair, non-pejorative definition. Now, with Wilber, I get the feeling he's being labeled New Age because he talks about metaphysics, philosophy, and science together, which might seem New Age-esque but doesn't really fit. We should avoid using umbrella terms to group everything together. Plus, if we let critics be solely responsible for definitions of individuals, we end up with passive-aggressive links in articles themselves, rather than objective facts--it creates a slippery slope. And as I stated before, Wilber's own beliefs do not necessarily reflect spiral dynamics. 24.158.238.130 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

maintaining the status quo

If you have a look at new age you will see that the definition is wider than that advocated by 24.xx. One of the key aspects of that definition is attaining or achieving higher levels of consciousness and understanding. At the moment we have three clear pieces of evidence that support the long standing use of the new age category to this article:

• One of the main leaders of the movement, WIlber is cited on his own article as new age and if we take the current wikipedia definition clearly falls within that
• Beck, one of the founders clearly associates with Wilber
• The idea of different levels of states of awareness (the memes) as well as the ascent through time clearly match the definition of new age in Wikipedia

I don't see that WIlber's denial of the "new age" label has much force. He wants to argue that he has crated something unique (the title of his book alone shows this) and would thus deny such a label. --Snowded (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

further discussion

Your points are flawed. Your definition of New Age as "achieving higher levels of consciousness or understanding" could be applied to many such philosophies. That's far too vague to refer to a single movement. As for your points: They're not clear pieces of evidence so much as your own opinions. Furthermore, it seems to me that the intent to label spiral dynamics "New Age" is simply an attempt to try to discredit the belief by using "New Age" as a pejorative. Let's examine your points and why they don't work:

1: Wilber has NEVER cited himself as New Age and has in fact criticized the movement. Other people calling him New Age--whether in support or opposed--does not make him New Age. To see how flawed this reasoning is, imagine labeling Salvatore Dali a fascist on his Wikipedia page solely due to the fact that he's been accused of being one by many people. This approach does not work, and it allows critics and hangers-on (both equally bad) to define movements not their own. It's totally contrary to a neutral POV. And again, while Wilber is associated with the movement, he is not its creator. Using ideas from a source does not make movements the same.

2: Association is NOT proof. If I work on a project with someone it does mean I share the same beliefs. And if I draw on the work of someone else to create something new, it doesn't mean that they're the same.

3: Again, your claims could be seen of many movements, such as the occult or psychedelic movements. All these movements are NOT the same, nor are they grouped under some umbrella term.

You STILL have not proven that Wilber is New Age (your speculation that he "wants to think he created something new" is not good enough--as is ANY speculation, you need factual evidence not based on your opinion) or that his beliefs affect spiral dynamics.

I've posted Wilber denying his ideas are New Age, but you have not proven that they are. And if you refer to the Wikipedia article, you'll see that Wilber has only been described by OTHERS as New Age. You need to find him describing himself as "New Age" AND prove that this is inexplicably linked with and defines spiral dynamics. Otherwise it's just your speculation. 68.113.126.132 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly WIlber does not want to associate himself with "New Age" ideas, but he is not the sole authority on that and he has been described by others as such. He is a leader of the Spiral Dynamics movement so its not a simple association. Many movements are "New Age", this is simply a category remember, its not an absolute statement. I think the tag is reasonable, if this were a content issue then a more elaborate description would be necessary. You see "New Age" as negative and want to remove it, I simply see it as a label and appropriately applied. Lets see what other editors think. --Snowded (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying he is the sole authority. But the man does have a right to define himself and you can't label him New Age just because you don't personally like him. He did not create spiral dynamics, his work was drawn on. Again, WHO decides who is New Age and who isn't? You seem to be suggesting that Wilber is not allowed to define himself or his philosophy and that it has to fit into an already established definition. I don't see New Age so much as a negative (although I personally am not into any New Age movements) so much as I feel it's being used as a negative; i.e. it's passive-aggressively put at the bottom in an attempt to discredit the movement. I have no interest in spiral dynamics or Wilber, I'm only interested in people and/or movements being given labels that don't apply to them. If that were the case (as I stated earlier), it would become okay to label other people as fascists on their Wikipedia pages if enough critics (not editors, mind you) agreed with that definition.

As for other editors, so far it's two to one in the favor of "not New Age." How long do you want to go at this? I'm open to compromising here. As I said, my only concern is about labels being erroneously applied. We can keep debating this or try something else. 68.113.126.132 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to other ideas certainly, although applying the category is a bit binary. I don't think the case simply rests on WIlbur, as I said above the whole higher levels things within Spiral Dynamics and the different colours (almost of mastery) are distinctly new age in type. Spiral Dynamics itself is split into two that might be described as pro and anti-Wilbur. So maybe one way is a note by the category which indicates the nature of the issue? Incidentally it would be useful if you could give some indication when your IP address changes, its confusing. --Snowded (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've logged in with my username (not sure what was up with my IP address), hope this makes things easier. I don't necessarily see the colors as so much New Age. After all, many respected philosophers (such as Plato) have used colors and spoken about the nature of them.

I would be okay with editing in the body of the article and placing the note you suggested there. It would indicate the differences and the controversy, though we'd need a citation in there as well. My only real issue is with the category listing at the bottom of the page. I have no issue with conflicting points of view within the article itself--in fact, that type of discussion tends to improve articles. Would something inside the article itself be acceptable to you? If so, what sentence/paragraph--exactly--would you suggest putting in? NotSuper (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for sorting out the ID - let me have a think about it and come back. Interestingly a few web searches show that Spiral Dynamics advocates put a terrible amount of energy into denying that they are New Age --Snowded (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking, why not just remove the "New Age" category at the bottom and just put in a "criticism" section in the article itself? (A section with citations, of course.) That would allow all viewpoints to be heard. Thoughts? NotSuper (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not a good article and it needs more critical material inserted. It may even need to articles given the split in movement, and that is part of the problem. One part is I think new age in the sense of the definition below the other isn't. This article is however going to have the same problem as NLP and other "cult" articles, where there is an enthusiastic following of believers/commercial practitioners and the like. --Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, I see a criticism section was inserted. That's good. I assume then that we've come to terms and the criticism section will be kept INSTEAD of the New Age tab at the bottom? Have we come to acceptable terms on this matter? 68.117.157.134 (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Its been there throughout this discussion so I'm not sure what you are talking about --Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that since there's a criticism section talking about this controversy, we can remove the "New Age" label at the bottom. Is this acceptable to you or not? 24.179.47.116 (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the tag is clearly appropriate to the dominant part of the movement--Snowded ^TALK 06:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing I've seen in this discussion has proven that. NotSuper (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

and are you the IP above? just checking who is involved here. --Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I forget to log in sometimes. In any case, I'd like to be able to settle this matter. As I've said before, I'm open to some sort of compromise. NotSuper (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? A note on the citation tab? Something in the criticism section which acknowledges it? --Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Something in the criticism section. There are some citations from Wilber's page that we could use here. Just as long as it's not listen at the bottom of the page. I suggest we put something like "Due to its association with Wilber, spiral dynamics has been characterized as New Age. However, others feel that this is an inaccurate label to apply to the system." Something like that. We'd need citations, though. NotSuper (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

But its not just WIlber, its the whole question of ascending through levels of enlightenment to take another example. The fact that Beck now appears to support Wilbur also seems to make such an approach problematic.--Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet there's still controversy on whether Wilber is New Age or not. He denies it and criticizes it, too. So then, if that's a problem, why not just not mention Wilber and instead write a different blurb? I'm open to suggestions. NotSuper (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to use indents. (i) WIlber does not like the new age tag, agreed lots of famous figures deny tags that the world applies to them (ii) the tag is not dependent on Wilber alone although that is strong support (iii) Open to leaving the tag but adding a note to the effect it is denied by WIber--Snowded ^TALK 07:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(I) And the world is not infallible with its tags. Otherwise we could label each other as whatever we wanted. (II) I don't see it as strong support, since the New Age tag is contested even in Wilber's case, not to mention Spiral Dynamics being distinct from him. (III) Since my opposition is to the tag itself, which I feel is solely intended to discredit the movement, I can't agree to that. Additionally, Wilber is not in a position to judge whether the movement is or isn't New Age--his opinion is certainly important, but so are the opinions of others. I am open to anything that results in the tag being removed but has these concerns of yours being put into the article itself. Since it is up for debate, it should not have a tag at the bottom, which suggests that the matter is closed. My ONLY opposition here is the tag. That's all. NotSuper (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅Existing position stands while discussion takes place --Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So, as of now, the only contention is the tag itself, not the text in the actual article. Anyone--including anyone who is reading this discussion--have any suggestions? NotSuper (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that editors stop using this article as an opportunity to promote their POV. The book Spiral Dynamics is clearly not New Age. It is a business/management book. The idea that Wilber's promotion of the theory makes the theory New Age is absurd on its face. If true, that would render New Age the hundreds of other theories that Wilber also promotes, like those of Jurgan Habermas or Charles Taylor. When I pointed this out to User:Snowded, he responded that "The book was written by Wilber so his opinion is relevant". This is a clearly false statement. User:Snowded's other contention, that the use of colors makes the theory New Age is as absurd as his other rationalizations. I don't expect User:Snowded to listen to anyone on this topic, since his modus operandi is to edit war and then to place message on other user's talk pages accusing them of edit warring. Suffice to say that nothing would surprise me coming from an editor who uses such tactics. — goethean ॐ 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:GF. This is an article about Spiral Dynamics, not the book which originated it and Wilber (if you check) has written a book or two. A substantial part of Spiral Dynamics today is clearly a part of the Integral Movement movement, and Beck has endorsed tha linkage. The colours is not an absurd argument, the idea of ascending levels of understanding/insight is classic New Age. Just saying something is absurd does not make it absurd Goethean although it seems to be a form of argument that appeals to you. If we were just talking about the book the argument that it was not new age would have more strength (although it would still be arguable). However the article is about Spiral Dynamics, not just the book that originated it. Oh, and if you edit war while a discussion is going on, especially against something which has been in place for some time, then don't be surprised if you get a 3RR warning and a report if you persist. Now try and deal with arguments and content and stop attacking other editors just because you don't like what they are saying. --Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Spiral Dynamics, not the book which originated it and Wilber (if you check) has written a book or two.

Wilber has written a book or two? God only knows what you think that statement is supposed to prove. The fact is that you've proved nothing, and you've given evidence for nothing, except your very personal opinion. No amount of accusatory messages on people's talk pages will change that. — goethean ॐ 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, well, we should still find a way to compromise on this if possible. I've suggested taking out the New Age tab and putting any controversies in the criticism section of the article. This would allow everyone to have their say, rather than just putting a label on it. I think this is the most rational, objective, and fair solution to this conflict. NotSuper (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the abrasive remarks of Goethean I made a very clear statement of why I thought the tag was appropriate (and by the way I see it is also applied to the article on the Integral Movement). Todate I have seen no refutation of those arguments. If you want to augment the criticism section fine, but removing a legitimate category is not. You can of course note the controversy of the new age label in the body of the article - that is a better solution. Goethean, if you edit war you will get a 3RR warning, its nothing to do with the argument here. I also note its something you are used to, I quote from an admin visiting your talk page "Why don't you (voluntarily) take a week off from working on the Ramakrishna article? Right now I've seen you violate 3RR and am within policy to block you but I don't want to do that." --Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You have seen refutations on them, you just don't agree with them--which is perfectly fine. The use of the category is still, in my view, based on spurious logic and seems designed to promote an agenda. I'm not okay with that. The article should have a neutral POV. Furthermore, none of the arguments for calling this "New Age" ring true based on the definition. It's just being used as a pejorative. It has NOT been proven that Wilber is New Age or that his beliefs (whatever they may be) necessarily affect Spiral Dynamics. Until I'VE seen otherwise--beyond a reasonable doubt--I see no reason to call this "New Age." Also, I have no interest in any conflicts between editors, I'm interested in the article itself, as I feel the term is being applied incorrectly. I'd rather end this as soon as possible, personally, but I can't see any real reason to leave the tag without compromising the article's integrity. It seems to me that putting these controversies in the article itself, rather than applying a label many don't agree with, is the easiest and most rational solution. It does not promote any agendas and allows every view to be heard. It's not really objective to use a highly debatable tag at the bottom, especially when it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If we can't compromise, perhaps some sort of vote? Although I'd rather it didn't come to that. I see no reason why we can't settle this ourselves. NotSuper (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. — goethean ॐ 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So, do we wanna do a vote or keep trying to compromise somehow? What do you think, Snowed? It seems like we three are the only ones discussing this issue, so if you're cool with it, we could vote. But if you're not, then I guess we won't. Everyone here does need to have their say in what happens. NotSuper (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅ 2:1 is not enough to establish a consensus to change I'm afraid. I've suggested you note the controversy in the main article. I think you are attempting to move this away from a NPOV. If there is no agreement then other opinions should be sought and dispute resolution used. --Snowded ^TALK 11:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally your arguments so far have been "Wilber says he is not New Age" and in response to the coloured levels you have just said you don't agree. That really is not engagement (I am speaking her to NotSuper), until Goethean reads WP:Civil I doubt we will see any arguments there. --Snowded ^TALK 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A more likely reason for Snowded's opposition to discussing the issue in the article is that there are no sources to cite, and thus no legitimate content to add to the article on the subject. A user whose preferred content is totally unsourced and obviously inappropriate will always hide behind categorization as well as bleeding idiocies like "Existing position stands while discussion takes place" — goethean ॐ 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please deal with content issues rather than serial attacks on editors whose position you don't like. Calling a standard wikipedia position a "bleeding idiocy" hardly helps. I suggest you tone down your language a bit or you might run a risk of a block.

Just to add to prior arguments. We have to remember that the two founders of Spiral Dynamics started in 1996, but by 1999 Beck was aligning his thinking with Wilber and we see the launch of SD-Integral which is still the dominant part of the movement, and if you check it out the category of New Age is also in the Integral article. Cowan subsequently split from Beck and has attempted (in a return to Graves) to try and prevent the various levels been seen as categories. However this remains a clear minority position. This description of SD Integral An altitude-loving inflationary consciousness - higher, ever higher, upward toward godliness and the saintly existence - is not unusual in human nature. Since Turquoise (B'O', Level 8) was the 'upper' end of Dr. Graves's theorizing (though he had scant data in support, and assuming you model it vertically up rather than an alternative), it should come as no surprise that some of these folks deem themselves to be at least of that top level, maybe beyond it, and most definitely beings of 'the second tier' meaning they have achieved no less than seventh level (Yellow) status and probably eighth (Turquoise) or beyond. (The assumption is that meditation or study increases one's level of consciousness rather than expanding one's knowledge about consciousness and comfort with it.) The more narcissistic take themselves to be well qualified to look down upon lesser mortals with a degree of condescending scorn mixed with plans for their eventual upliftment, anger when it is rejected. To get out of this impasse, we need to break from the 'or' logic trap and recognize that ideas and people are not either first tier or second tier, but interconnected systems and complexes - 'and' logic. Human nature is just not as simple as committed, True Believing tierists would like comes from a longer article by Cowan, and its description matches that of New Age in general.

the logical way forward here is to write a section on these major splits (and Beck has started to distance himself form WIlber) in the main article. I think it is fair to say that Cowan's work avoids New Age, but SD-Integral with Wilber/Beck is clearing in that category. This may change, but if you look at the sheer numbers of people involved then the dominant group is in the New Age category. --Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's not a reliable way to measure whether the majority is New Age or not. And due to New Age being so decentralized, it's hard to find common threads beyond mixing and matching unlike beliefs and using fringe science and sometimes non-fringe science) to add authority to it. I have no problems at all with listing these controversies in the article--that's what I've wanted from the start. My only issue is the tag itself, which I feel is solely there to impose a label on something when it is not agreed upon by a majority.

The way to settle this--and to maintain neutrality--is to list the arguments and counter-arguments for whether Spiral Dynamics is New Age or not. The tag itself forces one view on it, while putting these controversies in the article allows EVERY view to be heard. If one leaves the tag it basically says, "Yeah, there's debate but this is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH." That's unacceptable. With the solution I proposed, everyone gets their say and no one is devalued. NotSuper (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A tag is a tag no more or less and hardly the most important part of an article, New Age is an approach or a way of thinking, its only negative or positive depending on your point of view. Talking about objective truth (sorry shouting it was in capitals) is really out of all proportion to the nature of a tag. You idea of a "majority" is problematic, the label has been around for some time on this article and currently two editors would like it removed and one is defending it. In Wikipedia terms or common sense that is not a majority. Its pretty clear that a large part of the SD movement is New Age, although not all of it. I listed arguments for its retention earlier and didn't see a rebuttal (other than denial). Listing the arguments is one way forward - why don;t you do it? You are the one proposing change. --Snowded ^TALK 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to the "majority" discussing this article--I was referring to those who are followers of spiral dynamics. I was saying that there is no accurate way to determine whether the majority of them are New Age or not. As for a rebuttal, I saw no need as no real new arguments have been made. Much of this has been discussed above by us, and things seem to be going in a circle here. But if you insist:

1: The tag is an important part of the article. It gives the impression of superseding discussion and being the "real" truth.

2: Your view that the dominant part of the movement is New Age can not be measured in any scientific way. It's your opinion based on your own perception. It has no bearing on the article itself and it asks one to put faith in another person's subjective view. It's an interpretation of reality, not the facts. Therefore, I don't find it to be objective, rather it's one person's view.

3: The idea that colors or Wilber's association makes it New Age is equally hard to trust. After all, philosophers, psychologists, and others have used colors as metaphor to show their ideas. And Wilber himself is only described by critics as being New Age and is himself an opponent of much of the movement. Neither of these arguments--in regards to making something "New Age"--hold much weight. You haven't really explained why they should, other than saying that they're "classic New Age." But what does that really mean? From the definition below, we see that New Agers seek "universal truth" (as in an objective truth regarding reality and the universe), highest individual attainment, and a miss-mash of ancient pagan beliefs, controversial science, and nature. It's also characterized by an "individual approach" to practices and philosophies and is decentralized, which makes the idea of "classic New Age" more problematic. One would first have to define what that means and how it applies here. NotSuper (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

definition of New Age from Wikipedia

Since there's dispute over the term and what it means, I thought it might be helpful to list the definition Wikipedia has:

Wikipedia definition: "The New Age (also known as the New Age Movement, New Age Spirituality, and Cosmic Humanism) is a decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks "Universal Truth" and the attainment of the highest individual human potential. It combines aspects of cosmology, astrology, esotericism, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature. New Age Spirituality is characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, while rejecting religious doctrine and dogma."

This should prevent having to go from link to link all the time. 68.113.126.132 (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Again

To classify SD as New Age is WP:OR, not sourced, and the opinion of one single editor. --Pevos (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion did not reach a consensus and there are sourced references to WIlber as New Age. Please do not edit war. If you want to open the discussion again fine, but for the moment WP:BRD applies. --Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First, this is not about Wilber but about Spiral Dynamics. Second, it's you who needs consensus because you want the category. But I won't edit war with you. --Pevos (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Wilber is one of the main advocates that statement is disingenuous. The category has been there for a long time, consensus is needed to change it. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Wilber is one of the main advocates that statement is disingenuous.

Please see Ad hominem. — goethean ॐ 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilber's involvement with SD is one reason why the tag is appropriate, it is not ad hominem to say so. The prior and stable position has the tag in place and there was no prior consensus to change it. Neither is there now, 2 against 1 does not a consensus make. You are ignoring WP:BRD I am afraid, I suggest you self-revert. --Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis promoted an interpretation of Nietzsche's ideas. Does that make the Nazism category appropriate to the Nietzsche article? — goethean ॐ 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of SD one of the two founders Beck has allied with Wilber on the integration. To take you argument forward, if Nietzsche had been in a position to join the Nazi Party and contribute to its development then I thin we could add that category in. I am happy to agree that of the two groups in SD one is clearly New Age, the other less so but the fact remains that the category is appropriate. Oh and your last direct edit is still in breach of WP:BRD by the way --Snowded ^TALK 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hierarchy

I see a fact tag was added to this. In fact no part of that paragraph is referenced, but this may help. --Snowded ^TALK 10:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The new age issue

Having spent a fair amount of time looking at this today, and using my twitter and other networks to link with some experts in the field I'd like to suggest a way forward based on the following:

• Spiral Dynamics as originally set out by Beck and Cowan is not new age
• The argument is different for the Beck/WIlber work in particular the creation of a third tier, the linear interpretation of colours, the links to higher states of being etc. These are I think new age
• The article at the moment fails to really distinguish between the original Spiral Dynamics and the current two or more strands. Cowan and Todorovic are focused on expanding the work of Graves, Beck and WIlber in the wider Integral Movement.

My suggest then is to remove the category "New Age" but move the material that is Wilber/Beck based into a section Spiral Dynamics Integral that links to Integral (movement), or whatever it ends up being named and also references the continued work of Cowan post the split. As the article stands at the moment then the long standing category should be restored as there is not a consensus to change it, simply not enough editors for one thing. WIth the above changes I am happy to agree to remove it. Comments? --Snowded ^TALK 19:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah there is consensus to change it. Read this page. — goethean ॐ 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the page and at the moment there are two who want to change it and one who doesn't. That is not a consensus and the long standing use of the category would stand. Now how about the proposal above. --Snowded ^TALK 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for an elaborate compromise when you have yet to present a valid argument for adding the category. Wilber's adoption of an idea does not magically render the idea "new age". Does Wilber's adoption of autopoiesis suddenly render autopoiesis "new age"? Obviously not. The same goes for this article. — goethean ॐ 20:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not an elaborate compromise its a fairly simple suggestion to handle the issue of the two SD groups in the context of the New Age category. You are also missing the point rather. I have advanced reasons for the use of New Age and have responded to your arguments. You disagree with my position on this, but you are not the sole arbiter of truth here.

Your argument on autopsies shows the same error as your argument on Nietzsche (and you have not replied there by the way) If Wilber adopted autopoiesis (It is arguable if he even understands it but lets leave that for the moment) then no it does not make it new age per se. However if he creates a version of autopoiesis that includes concepts of higher states of being and the like, and that view of autopoiesis becomes dominant and at the same time he allied with Maturana in that development in opposition to Varela then it would be. That is what has happened with Spiral Dynamics.

The default position is that the category applies. You don't agree with my responses/defense but neither do I agree with your argument. In those circumstances the default and long standing position of category use will stand as you have not gathered a consensus to change it. I have avoided reversion for the moment in the hope of reaching a more sensible way forward, and have put some effort into that. Perhaps you would respond? If not I will simply revert to the long standing version given that you have failed to build a consensus for change and seem to be rejecting attempts to find a compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There was never valid reasoning to place the category on the article in the first place. Also, several people other than us three have expressed opposition to the category. Unsurprisingly, you have pretended that those comments do not exist. — goethean ॐ 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two were involved in the discussion in June, two are involved now. Two against one does not establish a consensus to change something that has been in place for some time. You are simply making assertions not engaging in discussion. If you read the discussion above you will also see that the idea of the split as a solution was also suggested by other editors more willing to seek a compromise that you are. I have suggested above a way in which we can move forwards which you are currently choosing to ignore. I am open to other ideas, but for the moment I am restoring the prior position per WP:BRD. Given the two recent examples of you failing to comply with WP:AGF I really suggest you engage with trying to find a compromise and don't resort to edit warring. --Snowded ^TALK 07:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Two were involved in the discussion in June, two are involved now. Two against one does not establish a consensus to change something that has been in place for some time.

That's a clever, if patently dishonest, way of putting it. Against are: User:Notsuper, User:Pevos, User:Goethean. For the New Age category are User:Snowded. Snowded's reasoning is ludicrous. You have no standing to change the article, and I will revert your changes. — goethean ॐ 12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that is a third breach of WP:AGF. If you check back Non-Super was open to a compromise and is not engaged this time. You are not engaging in discussion but are simply asserting your point of view and insulting other editors if they have the temerity to disagree with you. I notice that when someone replies to one of your arguments you don't even reply. I have no idea what you meaning by my having no standing to change the article. Firstly I am simply keeping a position that has been in place for over a year, you are the one changing it. Secondly are you saying that some editors in WIkipedia have more standing that others? At this rate it is going to end up as an ANI report, unless you are prepared to follow normal process and discuss matters. --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I meant that I have consensus and you do not. For the record, how many editors are required (on your view) to oppose your edits before you begin to follow consensus and stop edit warring? Please note that there is no support for your view on this talk page. — goethean ॐ 13:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually you don't have consensus. Last June (that is over six months) there were two editors who wanted to remove it, one who didn't. There was a suggestion then that the solution lay in splitting the article in some way, but then that discussion petered out. It came up again a few days ago and we have another 2:1 situation. I have therefore suggested an approach based on separating out the elements of SD which are clearly not New Age from those which are (see below) as a way of moving this forward. You seem to be confusing a vote with consensus. That distinction is important, especially in cases like this where supporters of the Integral Movement have a POV position that they are not new age. Those points aside I can't understand why you are not prepared to discuss a compromise. --Snowded ^TALK 13:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that your version has zero support on this page. — goethean ॐ 13:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

and one two occasions separated by six months you have managed to get one supporter each time. Doesn't that tell you its time to move on and engage with finding a way forward?--Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask again: how many editors need to oppose your edits, which have garnered NO support on the talk page, for you to accept consensus? — goethean ॐ 13:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You continue to fail to understand consensus. Read WP:CONS and WP:!VOTE. There is a clear obligation on you in those policies to consider compromise solutions and not to ignore them. I know of no case anywhere in Wikipedia where are vote involving under five editors would ever count as consensus. The solution is discussion, not to engage in edit waring or to fail to assume good faith. I leave it with you for the moment. If you want to engage great, if not then I think its going to be necessary to ask for some help, not on the content issue which is minor and easily resolved with a bit of good will, but with your behaviour. --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, its easily resolved as long as we agree to do exactly what you demand. Otherwise, you continue to edit war. You have cited no sources for your position, and you have no support on the talk page. — goethean ॐ 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if you calm down a bit and check you will see that the proposal below is not a demand but a suggested way forward. Have a cup of tea, relax a bit and revisit this. I remain happy to engage in finding a solution. However if you intend (as you appear to) to revert to your version rather than the version of one year plus standing without discussing any compromise other than deletion of the category then I will have little alternative but to report the matter and get some third party views on the behaviour issue. --Snowded ^TALK 14:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No consensus is needed to remove unsourced material. See WP:V, especially WP:PROVEIT. --Pevos (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true (and I may remind you of that with some of your other edits). The issue here however is the WIlber link (where there is sourced material on New Age) and the way in which Wilber's views are imbedded throughout the article. There has been a question as to the link with Wilber justifies the category being applied and there is a difference of opinion there. So the consensus point stands. The real issue for both of you here is your apparent refusal to engage in a discussion about a way forward - one suggestion is below. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, the ideas you are presenting here are WP:OR. Supply a reliable source. --Pevos (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion, see multiple discussions above and possibly, just possibly respond to the proposal below, --Snowded ^TALK 20:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this one right. I've put it on WP:OR/N. --Pevos (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling out my proposal

The idea here is to make the article about Spiral Dynamics as originally proposed and indicate current/further developments with appropriate links. That way we avoid the current ambiguity and I will be happy to agree the removal of the new age category. So here goes:

• Remove reference to Wilber in lede place in new section "Spiral Dynamics Integral"
• Overview as above, specifically remove references to the colours as linear, or representing "higher levels of emergence", move material in summary form to integral section
• First Tier: removal spiral wizards to Integral section (I think I am right there but happy to stand corrected)m I known Cowan has argued against it. In general tidy up the layers, possibly as a table and emphasise names not colours
• Second Tier: which is where the split starts, so allow this to lede into the new section which will include material from pathologies and mean green material and will open with the split
• Other theoretical elements needs to be shorted and placed in the section after the lede
• Further theoretical development goes as it will be covered in the above sections.

Just to make it clear, with those amendments (or similar ones) then I think we can remove the"New Age" category. Comments? --Snowded ^TALK 10:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, in the absence of any comment I am going to draft the above changes in a sandbox over the next day or so and then put them in place. --Snowded ^TALK 04:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your additions and editing to the article will drastically improve it. Also for a misuse, from the Russian perspective, of "integral knowledge" you should look into the book We (novel) as 666 is the number of tyranny, totalitarianism as a human number as human creation without God called utopia or paradise and to reduce man to machine. As in the book and the real world the God of free will, of freedom is called the devil by the deterministic pagan mystics (nihilists-who believe reality is an illusion, a joke) and their ideal or utopian society. They engage in misuse and distortion by way of what is outlined in this article.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've lost me. — goethean ॐ 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)