I'm not writing off anyone, least of all the neuro-scientists. I'm merely making the point that "regulating" religion is a dangerous game. Not doing so can be equally dangerous.
I am not unaware of the practical successes of spiral dynamics. IQ tests had/have their practical successes also while continuing to marginalize certain kinds of intelligence. SD seems to be the best we've got for now, but implicit in it is the same danger that lurks in religions: I'm turquoise, you're green, so I get to say how we play this game. Or, China is mostly blue moving into orange. True enough, but it leaves out too much: Chinese heart value, for instance. Greater happiness among people, even when they are dirt poor, than in orange/green and thus "more evolved" America. I'm just for extreme caution. --- Stu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dear Hagen, Lieber Landsmann, > > > > Now, in spiral dynamics a couple of white boys > devise > > a test to see how "evolved" a culture is, and > then, by > > some miracle, the predominantly white cultures are > the > > most evolved on this here green earth of ours. > Not > > only that, the system includes a spot for any > critic > > of the system: She is forever stuck in the mean > green > > meme, so that no critics of the system ever get to > be > > truly enlightened (as defined by those same white > > boys) until they give up their criticism of all > > hierarchies (however qualified). > > I think that is an excellent criticism but > unfortunately it does not > address the practical successes of the SD movement. > The SD view has > been embraced by peoples of many cultures. It has > been very helpful in > analyzing conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestine > one. It supports an > openness to opposing cultural viewpoints. > > As long as we are going to subscribe to the notion > of humans as evolving > or growing, we are going to have to admit some > humans will be more > advanced than others. > > I am not convinced there is a second tier. Or that > our "orange" culture > is on the edge of a movement to "green". (sorry to > those readers not > familiar with SD jargon) We can't know these things > until the world > plays out. Who knows? Maybe humans are destined to > make vibrant steps > into science, pluralism, cooperation and then step > back 3 steps into > tribal myth based societies for the next millennium. > > > 3. A neuro-scientist has a stroke and as a result > has > > an experience which she describes and which I > > recognize as one I can have at any time, an > experience > > which is described in the mystical literature of > the > > world with startling consistency. But, like > Curtis > > and like Ruth, this lady is an empiricist with an > > excellent mind. To her, the experience signals an > > impairment of the left hemisphere of the brain. > > Another neuro-scientist, Antonio Damasio, would > agree > > that mystical experience is an "impairment." > They've > > got a point, an excellent point. We can't allow > > impaired types like us run the world. > > The neuro-scientists are the closest to getting this > thing right. I > have become a great fan of modern neuro-scientists. > They don't make the > moral leap to condemn the subjects of the > observations. I doubt they > would label your trippy experiences as non-normal > and destructive. For > example recent research is showing autism to be a > different form of > thought and not a pathological one. This has been > extremely liberating > for autistics. > > The use of the word "impairment" sounds pejorative > but it is merely > scientific jargon. The jury is out. An observation > that mystical > experience has a similar footprint as a stroke > doesn't tell us anything. > But it is a step in a process that may help explain > much about the > psyche and mystical experiences. I wouldn't write > this off so fast. > > s. > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
