Comments on: Integral Strategy

By: Peter Bennett

Peter Bennett — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:36:21 +0000

Pondering the combined posting, articles and consequent commentary I feel a need to rise below Maslow and throw the whole thing into n-dimensional space.

In this space hierarchy, pyramids and all the other efforts of collapsing in (integration) or collapsing out (differentiation) become non-sensical and mere whimsy … the point of focus becomes the fusion of our old favourite paradox best represented by the Mobius Loop as the half way point.

In Mobius’ famous paper strip we have both zero and infinty represented in one tangible form … everything in between exists — the stratified layers, which we seem to be compulsed to know, colour-code, make cartesian and sequence, are just the ocular reaction to our drive to seek clarity … yet lucidity (in we reach clarity, wisdom and expression at the same instance)is only found in freefall when we manage (somehow) to let got of numeric dimension and enter n-space.

To get there … simply listen for the sound of no hands clapping (I have a simple demonstration of this sound for anyone who is interested) … it happens when the complex and lucid cross … after which I wrote a poem (now lost)when my eyesight vanished in 1987.

I am sure it will show up one day.

Excellent reading from William, Elliot et al.

Thanks PAD

By: William Varey

William Varey — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:46:24 +0000

Graves’ work on which the NVC article is based comes from a twenty plus year research project, which I understand initially began by examining Maslow’s principles. Graves’ original hypothesis, which would have validated Maslow, did not seem to emerge from the data as expected, and as contemporaries they discussed this. There are some distinct differences, mostly that Graves’ model is not a pyramid, but an open and expanding system, possibly containing each of the Maslowian needs at each level. Also Graves’ work is limited to ‘adult’ biopsychosocial systems - and while it reflects the childhood developmentalist models (Piaget), its not meant to overlap - which is what makes it so interesting. Another distinction is that levels do not replace - but include and shift as a complex dynamic, so they are not satisfied, but more incorporated. Also, while development is described as linear in the macro-societal it may appear non-linear in individual development, particularly if environmental conditions require this, but allowing for later regression. The lack of evidence for prepotency in Maslow might be explained in the Gravesian levels. In essence - ‘no man is an island’.

Which brings us back to the question, without a survivalist need why would one shift (or need to) assuming that one does not become aware of being at any ‘level’. There is some new work being done on when and how shifts occur. So its the same - because it draws on/reflects all the other developmental theorists findings - but different because its research base is not only about the individual but also the environmental effects of the social-collective on the individual. A social systems theory linked with psychology that is not sociology. Many unanswered questions.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 07:05:56 +0000

After reading the article and the one by Cowan and Todorovic I’d be interested to hear how individuals do move through each of the levels? Particularly moving from the first level since survival is key from a psychodynamic perspective, and so a need for power or being nurtured, or independence etc develops as a way to ’survive’ in the context of the early childhood environment. Without some work and insight into one’s own denials and the way in which one habitually acts in order to survive might one not search out particular perspectives in order to meet original needs, rather than ‘realise’ the value of these perspectives in and of themselves? I agree that the higher one moves the more conscious one becomes (as a person and presubably as an organisation), however I don’t see how simply ‘being’ at one of the higher levels means one appreciates being at that level. I see elements of Maslow in here but I guess since I disagree with the notion that one ’satisfies’ a need to move on to another ‘need’, I’d like to see how the lower levels are resolved in order to make each subsequent level valuable as an independent experience.