Planetary Dynamics

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-09-2017, 04:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tried to move this discussion, without luck so far.

Did you try creating somewhere to move it to?

Eric.

In planetary dynamics, you seem to have gathered a number of world views, a number of ways of looking at the world.  Each one is associated with a color and a planet.  So far, so good.  Then each has been valued for how advanced or evolved it is.  You get to judge.  From my perspective, the more a world view agrees with your own, the higher or more evolved it is purported to be.

People with different world views will select and evaluate world views differently.  With my leaning towards evidence and science, I’d evaluate world views from the angle of evidence, of what can be repeatedly and reliably observed.  Warren Dew is way into economics, or a certain personal angle on economics, and also might select and evaluate different world views from an entirely different perspective.  Cynic Hero is into a military and direct authoritarian politics.  He would consider certain old ways of thought as important and true, while dismissing some more modern values and perspectives as false paths.

Thus, the structure of planetary dynamics can be a tool to help an extreme partisan not listen.  If someone views the world differently than you, you can peg them with a color and a planet, say that this viewpoint is not evolved, and reach for the strawman.  You have seemingly closed notions of each worldview.  You will go for the strawman rather than the argument actually being presented.  All people from a given planet are alike, so why listen to them?

You don’t much listen to me, but you’re dead set certain of what color I am.  Guess what?  I’m not a color.  My world view doesn’t much match your personal way of looking at things.

And that’s typical.  An awful lot of us have very strong world views.  An awful lot of us have concocted personal schemes for defending their world views.  A lot of us have schemes to dismiss or disparage inconvenient stuff like facts that might be brought against our perspectives.  Most such schemes don’t precisely match the structure of planetary dynamics, aren’t so blatant in embracing certain ways of thought and rejecting others.  And yet, each personal world view will focus on one way of looking at things while rejecting others in conflict.

Many (most) posts on this forum might be written to say “this is how things are.”  I can’t read things that way.  I read, “this is how my world view perceives things to be.”  Posts don’t propose truths.  They expose perspectives.

As one aside, at one point I was much into the Golden Dawn’s spin on tarot and the tree of life as an occult system for understanding and predicting the world.  I saw the four suits reflecting types of human activity or types of energy.  For example, the suit of swords exemplified conflict and strife.  In each minor arcana a story, a perspective on the world was echoed.  You start with the pure and unrefined energy of the aces.  A path was drawn from this initial state to the completion, the end of the path, shown with the tens.  This completions show both accomplishment and achievement, and a flaw and death, an approaching failure and ending.  The major arcana told of a similar but extended path, lacking the flawed ending.  ’The World’ shows a stated of completion and enlightenment, showing the end of an enlightened mystical path, while lives lived pursuing the world views of the mundane pursuits were depicted as empty.

I found it positive that the minor arcana suits were more or less equal, that they showed different aspects of human culture and activity, while not judging that economics (Dew) is inherently superior or inferior to the military (Cynic).  At the same time in the story line of ace to ten, I saw a theme, a judgement of how the world operates.  That can be construed as a bias in the deck, an assumption of how the world works, or of how one should best view it.  One starts with bright optimism and energy (aces), but ends, perhaps having achieved one’s goals, but empty.   (Tens.)  This not so subtle repeated theme that to me sets the tone of the deck and everything that might come from it.

Any world view, whether deliberately or not, has such biases or themes.  Finding, absorbing, respecting and learning from such themes is a large part of the exploring anyone’s world views.

Your planets do divide human endeavor, perspectives and energy into many flavors, much like tarot suits.  OK, cool.  However, the value of each perspective is prejudged.  The result is a scheme for advertising your own view of things while disparaging or rejecting that which you do not like.  ‘You remind me of this color, or that planet, sneer, spurn, insult.’

One key difference is in embracing the approach of Newton, I have come to look for repeatable evidence.  While religious and mystic tradition supposes wise minds without brains, what I saw in practice was not wisdom.  ‘Christian coincidence’ and similar occult induced weird happenings were more emotional than wise.  I saw a similar pattern in parapsychology results.  I pursued not what made me feel warm and cozy inside, but an approach which explained what I had actually experienced.

Anyway, I’d expect from anyone who cares about seeing and understanding the world a scheme for defending one’s own scheme.  It seems that planetary dynamics is just that, a series of judgements of anyone who doesn’t think like  you.  As such, I consider it a poor tool if one is seeking to understand things naturally.  The purpose seems to be to protect and defend, rather than to grow.

[Bob Butler 54]

I still don't see either of us as being fundamentalists.  I really reserve that label for groups with a detailed interpretation of a holy book that do not accept any interpretation other than their own.  JPT was a fundamentalist.  the two of us are off the beaten track wackos.

I will admit to being fond of Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and the leading paragraphs of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.  To a lesser degree, I respect parts of the Bible, but that's a historical document written over many centuries reflecting many conflicting cultures and world views.  I find myself having to be selective there.

I do sort of expect a rigid arbitrary defense of Planetary Dynamics.  Your thought patterns can be as rigid and inflexible as a fundamentalist's.  Still, one person rigidly defending said person's viewpoint doesn't feel to me like fundamentalism.  Fundamentalism to me involves a big group pounding on a holy book while breathing fire and brimstone.

But if Fundamentalism just means believing firmly in one's world view, one might say there are lots of fundamentalists visiting the forum.  Lots of us are committed firmly to our beliefs, our ways of looking at things.

[Eric the Green]

(06-10-2017, 08:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-09-2017, 04:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tried to move this discussion, without luck so far.

Did you try creating somewhere to move it to?

Of course! How did you miss it?
http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid26180

Quote:Eric.

In planetary dynamics, you seem to have gathered a number of world views, a number of ways of looking at the world.  Each one is associated with a color and a planet.  So far, so good.  Then each has been valued for how advanced or evolved it is.  You get to judge.  From my perspective, the more a world view agrees with your own, the higher or more evolved it is purported to be.

At least you took a look this time. That's good. What I hope you noticed is how similar each world view (values meme) is to the ones you have mentioned, at least up to and including the Neptune level.

In my article I mentioned "Spiral Dynamics too has the well-recognized danger that interpreting some stages as "more advanced" than others could conceal a hidden agenda. I will deal with this as we go along."

Keep in mind that Planetary Dynamics is based directly on Spiral Dynamics, which was not created by me, but by a group of psychologists and social scientists, and has a wide following. I merely added three additional phases they seem to have left out. So while the scheme is certainly evolutionary, it could apply to your own "judging" and that of all followers of Spiral Dynamics, not just to me. You tend to emphasize your opinion that I am close-minded. But remember also that Spiral Dynamics is also based on the idea of transcend and include, and seeing the perspectives of other world views and their contribution to the whole. It agrees with your statements that there may be good reasons why people hold their world views. They have come into existence in a struggle against the current dominant world view.

Take a look at this wonderful video by a Vedic astrologer, which summarizes the psychological and sociological planetary phases up to Neptune (ketu), and includes also the Sun (yellow-integral), but not Pluto (Green). It's not so much directly about history, but it's a short step to interpret it that way. I interpret his statement about when we "arrive" on Earth as meaning when we arrived at what we know as "civilization."

https://youtu.be/5Qoqf-w46JE

Quote:People with different world views will select and evaluate world views differently.  With my leaning towards evidence and science, I’d evaluate world views from the angle of evidence, of what can be repeatedly and reliably observed.  Warren Dew is way into economics, or a certain personal angle on economics, and also might select and evaluate different world views from an entirely different perspective.  Cynic Hero is into a military and direct authoritarian politics.  He would consider certain old ways of thought as important and true, while dismissing some more modern values and perspectives as false paths.

Warren is definitely Orange/Uranus, in the least-valuable interpretation of that liberty world view, and Cynic is about as typically Red/Mars as one can get. You are also set in your ways in the Saturn mode of science and evidence. But I am as familiar with that dogmatic approach as anyone, after 50 years of debate with them and having converted away from it myself. Being scientific and valuing evidence is just another one of the world views that came into prominence through conflict with the prevailing Blue/Jupiter religious-authoritarian world view. The great hero of Saturn/Brown is Galileo.

Quote:Thus, the structure of planetary dynamics can be a tool to help an extreme partisan not listen.  If someone views the world differently than you, you can peg them with a color and a planet, say that this viewpoint is not evolved, and reach for the strawman.  You have seemingly closed notions of each worldview.  You will go for the strawman rather than the argument actually being presented.  All people from a given planet are alike, so why listen to them?

You don’t much listen to me, but you’re dead set certain of what color I am.  Guess what?  I’m not a color.  My world view doesn’t much match your personal way of looking at things.

And that’s typical.  An awful lot of us have very strong world views.  An awful lot of us have concocted personal schemes for defending their world views.  A lot of us have schemes to dismiss or disparage inconvenient stuff like facts that might be brought against our perspectives.  Most such schemes don’t precisely match the structure of planetary dynamics, aren’t so blatant in embracing certain ways of thought and rejecting others.  And yet, each personal world view will focus on one way of looking at things while rejecting others in conflict.

That's the value of spiral and planetary dynamics; to see each world view as involved in a culture-wars conflict, and thus understanding its needs and motives. It depends how you use the idea of spiral dynamics. It is evolutionary, and defines stages. That can be judgmental. It also sees each stage as contributing to the whole, and some value in recovering that contribution. The integral yellow/Sun/Chiron meme is the ideal or latest meme to emerge, and it is based on recognizing the entire spiral and integrating all the stages. If you can also see how you are stuck in a world view, and that there are others even some more advanced than yours, it's an opportunity for growth--- IF someone can take it. Yellow is a bit challenging to my own tendency toward Green, whose definition actually pretty-much matches the traits we associate with "Greens" today, of which I am one; although I am not so much an equalizing "post-modernist," and am certainly also an integral philosopher.

Quote:Many (most) posts on this forum might be written to say “this is how things are.”  I can’t read things that way.  I read, “this is how my world view perceives things to be.”  Posts don’t propose truths.  They expose perspectives.

As one aside, at one point I was much into the Golden Dawn’s spin on tarot and the tree of life as an occult system for understanding and predicting the world.  I saw the four suits reflecting types of human activity or types of energy.  For example, the suit of swords exemplified conflict and strife.  In each minor arcana a story, a perspective on the world was echoed.  You start with the pure and unrefined energy of the aces.  A path was drawn from this initial state to the completion, the end of the path, shown with the tens.  This completions show both accomplishment and achievement, and a flaw and death, an approaching failure and ending.  The major arcana told of a similar but extended path, lacking the flawed ending.  ’The World’ shows a stated of completion and enlightenment, showing the end of an enlightened mystical path, while lives lived pursuing the world views of the mundane pursuits were depicted as empty.

I found it positive that the minor arcana suits were more or less equal, that they showed different aspects of human culture and activity, while not judging that economics (Dew) is inherently superior or inferior to the military (Cynic).  At the same time in the story line of ace to ten, I saw a theme, a judgement of how the world operates.  That can be construed as a bias in the deck, an assumption of how the world works, or of how one should best view it.  One starts with bright optimism and energy (aces), but ends, perhaps having achieved one’s goals, but empty.   (Tens.)  This not so subtle repeated theme that to me sets the tone of the deck and everything that might come from it.

Any world view, whether deliberately or not, has such biases or themes.  Finding, absorbing, respecting and learning from such themes is a large part of the exploring anyone’s world views.

Your planets do divide human endeavor, perspectives and energy into many flavors, much like tarot suits.  OK, cool.  However, the value of each perspective is prejudged.  The result is a scheme for advertising your own view of things while disparaging or rejecting that which you do not like.  ‘You remind me of this color, or that planet, sneer, spurn, insult.’

Or, see past your limits. Grow and awaken. No doubt a tall order.

The tarot journey, which I also wrote about extensively on my site, does indeed feature the major arcana which leads toward a state of consciousness which does not jive with your world view, and is based on the hermetic or alchemical world view and also based in ancient philosophy of the Platonic stripe. It is a spiritualist viewpoint. So, if one does not agree with that world view, one might not agree with how the journey proceeds. It IS however the "hero's journey," which is at the heart of most stories and myths in our culture. I'm glad you have some awareness of the story within the tarot. Even many readers who use tarot are not aware of it.

http://philosopherswheel.com/tarot.html
http://philosopherswheel.com/toccata.htm

Quote:One key difference is in embracing the approach of Newton, I have come to look for repeatable evidence.  While religious and mystic tradition supposes wise minds without brains, what I saw in practice was not wisdom.  ‘Christian coincidence’ and similar occult induced weird happenings were more emotional than wise.  I saw a similar pattern in parapsychology results.  I pursued not what made me feel warm and cozy inside, but an approach which explained what I had actually experienced.

Anyway, I’d expect from anyone who cares about seeing and understanding the world a scheme for defending one’s own scheme.  It seems that planetary dynamics is just that, a series of judgments of anyone who doesn’t think like you.  As such, I consider it a poor tool if one is seeking to understand things naturally.  The purpose seems to be to protect and defend, rather than to grow.

And yet, it is remarkably accurate (including the majority of the phases I didn't create) as a summary of the stages in history and their world views, regardless of which one you might prefer, and which one is placed in the higher stage.

What you saw led you to your world view. However, you need to see that the Newtonian and evidence-based world view is just one among the world views, and not at all beyond the limits of such world views. To defend and protect it, makes it just as problematic as the others. The highest state so far achieved by people in Spiral Dynamics, the yellow integral, while "judgmental," at least seeks to value the whole process.

[Eric the Green]

(06-10-2017, 08:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I still don't see either of us as being fundamentalists.  I really reserve that label for groups with a detailed interpretation of a holy book that do not accept any interpretation other than their own.  JPT was a fundamentalist.  the two of us are off the beaten track wackos.

I will admit to being fond of Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and the leading paragraphs of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.  To a lesser degree, I respect parts of the Bible, but that's a historical document written over many centuries reflecting many conflicting cultures and world views.  I find myself having to be selective there.

I do sort of expect a rigid arbitrary defense of Planetary Dynamics.  Your thought patterns can be as rigid and inflexible as a fundamentalist's.  Still, one person rigidly defending said person's viewpoint doesn't feel to me like fundamentalism.  Fundamentalism to me involves a big group pounding on a holy book while breathing fire and brimstone.

But if Fundamentalism just means believing firmly in one's world view, one might say there are lots of fundamentalists visiting the forum.  Lots of us are committed firmly to our beliefs, our ways of looking at things.

That's right.

Myself, I am still growing in my awareness that at bottom, I am pure consciousness. To me, it's no longer a matter of debate. Debating cannot get you to awareness of pure consciousness. It's a matter of perception, in the widest sense, or not.

I see you as dedicated to the evidence provided by our senses, and its tools. As I see it, pure consciousness is prior to, and is the basis for, all sense perception. That does not make sense perception wrong or un-valuable, however. Since pure consciousness is the basis for all consciousness, it transcends and includes sense perception. While we need to see how limited sense perception is, in my world view, once one has transcended those limits, it is redeemed and becomes useful again. I see empirical investigation and evidence as very necessary to some kinds of knowledge. Some may be fanatical and reject it, but that's not me. I also use it. And I value the delights of the senses, as well as the feelings, which are also problematic if one is stuck in them, but very valuable if not stuck in them. And the same goes for our more purely-intellectual functions.

[Bob Butler 54]

You know, I don’t need the labels ‘red’ and ‘martian’ to figure out where Cynic is coming from. I also view him perhaps as an extreme member of the martian way of looking at things, but not the most advanced, astute or learned representative of that way of thought. Like it or not, for all the other ways of perceiving the world, in many ways, when other perspectives lock up in stubborn quagmire, it is the martians among us that have to decide things. I’m glad to see some martians defending the US way of life, while wanting said martians under control that incorporates other ways of thought. I also suspect that many who believe that their hard edged pragmatic deadly perspective might scorn the soft hearted dreamers.

Lumping all martians into one clump and judging them as not evolved is simplistic to me. Certainly, as much as I disagree with Cynic, just because he is lumped together with other martians shouldn’t reflect absolutely on other martians. While I don’t perceive myself as a militarist martian, I do have a strong interest in military history and strategy. I’m a big time advocate of Powell’s Doctrine. You shouldn’t try to force something on the world if you aren’d able and ready to force something on the world. Yet, if something has to be done it has to be done. Provide the tools and a green light.

Generally, as a contributor to this thread, I couldn’t place my position in a single place on your planetary system. I’m in lots of places, which I gather would be the norm. With Newton, something that can be reliably repeatedly observed has precedence, should not be dismissed, putting science first. That principle stands independently of the many worlds / Copenhagen question. I don’t see your dividing science into multiple colors and planets on that issue. You haven’t shown enough awareness of things quantum for me to take any of that seriously.

Second, I’m with Enlightenment philosophy and political approach. Jefferson’s self evident truths make for a good short summary. This deals with principles which have not yet been structured sufficiently to use the scientific method on. This doesn’t mean they never will be. In time, some day, Newton’s heirs might or might not co-opt Jefferson’s. Until then, and I’m not there yet, I will hold certain truths to be self evident.

And Jesus had a lot of good ideas that haven’t much to do with proof. His teachings came to us not direct from his hand, but are filtered through a bunch of guys with different perspectives, as documented in a book written over many centuries by members of very different cultures. I’ve also dabbled in the Tao, Born Again, New Age and other religious and mystic perspectives. While I’m more content with my poor understanding of Jesus, he wasn’t alone in having neat ideas. Yet, neat as these ideas are, it is not for me to impose such on others. People have to find their own neat ideas.

While Newton, Jefferson and Jesus are my base in most things presented on this forum, my computer is also a MIDI studio and has a copy of DAZ Studio with no small library. I’m into music and art, if only has an amateur, with any quality achieved with ungodly computer technology rather than pure talent. I don’t know which planets that puts me on, but I suspect I touch to some degree on a lot of the planets in your system.

I kind of figure that’s how it is for many people, and how it ought to be. In looking at the greater world, certain anchors and perspectives will dominate any contributions to a political and historical forum, and we’re apt to be more than we typically show in these pages.

I’m just not content judging one associated with one color and planet, then throwing a lump judgement on everyone on the planet.

Even just on Mars, are we talking about Napoleon or Powell? There is far more to people than a quick partitioning scheme.

[David Horn]

(06-10-2017, 08:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ... But if Fundamentalism just means believing firmly in one's world view, one might say there are lots of fundamentalists visiting the forum.  Lots of us are committed firmly to our beliefs, our ways of looking at things.

On this, we shoudl all be willing to agree.  Few posters here, or on the old forum, are wishy-washy in the opinion department.

[Eric the Green]

(06-12-2017, 09:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You know, I don’t need the labels ‘red’ and ‘martian’ to figure out where Cynic is coming from. I also view him perhaps as an extreme member of the martian way of looking at things, but not the most advanced, astute or learned representative of that way of thought. Like it or not, for all the other ways of perceiving the world, in many ways, when other perspectives lock up in stubborn quagmire, it is the martians among us that have to decide things. I’m glad to see some martians defending the US way of life, while wanting said martians under control that incorporates other ways of thought. I also suspect that many who believe that their hard edged pragmatic deadly perspective might scorn the soft hearted dreamers.

Lumping all martians into one clump and judging them as not evolved is simplistic to me. Certainly, as much as I disagree with Cynic, just because he is lumped together with other martians shouldn’t reflect absolutely on other martians. While I don’t perceive myself as a militarist martian, I do have a strong interest in military history and strategy. I’m a big time advocate of Powell’s Doctrine. You shouldn’t try to force something on the world if you aren’t able and ready to force something on the world. Yet, if something has to be done it has to be done. Provide the tools and a green light.

Lumping all of everything or everyone into anything is simplistic. So is lumping all millennials into an S&H description of them. That is admitted in my article, and has to be assumed for any system of categories of people. Also, in this scheme it's assumed that once a worldview comes on the scene, it's active within society and within all people to a degree, even though it may no longer be dominant or exalted in the main Western current. As Vic diCara says, they are parts of the human experience.

Quote:Generally, as a contributor to this thread, I couldn’t place my position in a single place on your planetary system. I’m in lots of places, which I gather would be the norm. With Newton, something that can be reliably repeatedly observed has precedence, should not be dismissed, putting science first. That principle stands independently of the many worlds / Copenhagen question. I don’t see your dividing science into multiple colors and planets on that issue. You haven’t shown enough awareness of things quantum for me to take any of that seriously.

Second, I’m with Enlightenment philosophy and political approach. Jefferson’s self evident truths make for a good short summary. This deals with principles which have not yet been structured sufficiently to use the scientific method on. This doesn’t mean they never will be. In time, some day, Newton’s heirs might or might not co-opt Jefferson’s. Until then, and I’m not there yet, I will hold certain truths to be self evident.

And Jesus had a lot of good ideas that haven’t much to do with proof. His teachings came to us not direct from his hand, but are filtered through a bunch of guys with different perspectives, as documented in a book written over many centuries by members of very different cultures. I’ve also dabbled in the Tao, Born Again, New Age and other religious and mystic perspectives. While I’m more content with my poor understanding of Jesus, he wasn’t alone in having neat ideas. Yet, neat as these ideas are, it is not for me to impose such on others. People have to find their own neat ideas.

While Newton, Jefferson and Jesus are my base in most things presented on this forum, my computer is also a MIDI studio and has a copy of DAZ Studio with no small library. I’m into music and art, if only as an amateur, with any quality achieved with ungodly computer technology rather than pure talent. I don’t know which planets that puts me on, but I suspect I touch to some degree on a lot of the planets in your system.

I kind of figure that’s how it is for many people, and how it ought to be. In looking at the greater world, certain anchors and perspectives will dominate any contributions to a political and historical forum, and we’re apt to be more than we typically show in these pages.

I’m just not content judging one associated with one color and planet, then throwing a lump judgement on everyone on the planet.

Even just on Mars, are we talking about Napoleon or Powell? There is far more to people than a quick partitioning scheme.

I mentioned that you might be more than one already. But your description above suggests Saturn is your dominant planet in the scheme with respect to worldview. You give it "precedence." Saturn represents "realism" in general. Even Jefferson and the Enlightenment was, you could say, Saturn with Uranus rising, according to my scheme, since Uranus only really predominates once the Revolution starts. But since Jefferson supported the Revolution once it started, you could call him Uranus politically. But politically, since you lean left, that's more Neptune too. Neither Saturn nor Neptune stages were included in the original spiral dynamics scheme; using that alone, you are predominantly Orange. Truth be told, some of their authors have cobbled the Neptune phase together with Green, and Saturn with Orange in worldview and Blue in politics.

Nice try, but dabbling in New Age and then rejecting it does not make you Green or Yellow in any degree, and Neptune only in the political sense that you support social programs, to the extent that you do.

[Bob Butler 54]

If I'm a complete rainbow according to your scheme, I hope that doesn't say anything about sexuality.

At this point, you're just throwing around labels and pre judgements. I've enough of those.

[Eric the Green]

So, your not a prophet, then, according to Strauss and Howe? Hows about an INTP? Just labels to throw around?