Talk:Clare W. Graves

Untitled
Due to possible copyright, intellectual property and trademark conflicts with this page I have deleted it's content. The owner of http://clarewgraves.com has pointed out some of the possible conflicts. Please do no restore the page

update: 03/18/04. owner of clarewgraves.com, gave ok to restore page as is. Page has been restored.

Please give a bill of sales to prove this page is okay to continue or it should be deleted or retailored to have non-copyrighted information.

Old Prod
This article was proposed for deletion on Dec. 20, 2006. The reason given was "original research." --Alksub 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Forrestlane42. You have now PRODed this twice. This is not allowed. If the PROD is removed as it was by Alksub, you need to take it to afD, which you are obviously at liberty to do. Personally, I would not support this as Clare Graves is referenced in published books. It is far from original research, all of which is contained in published papers by Graves and books by ECLET press. There does not seem to be any copyright violation with the above site as far as I can tell, so permission from the site owner is irrelevant. It is conventional to say something on the the talk page around why it should be deleted. --Backface 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Backface, what does PRODed this twice mean? How can it be irrelevant if the above notes speaks of permission from the site owner obvious there is so sort of copyright issue, and lastly look at the potential section....its even worse than Wilber's page. still learning wikipedia ways. -ForrestLane42 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

There is no copyright issue whatsoever. The site owner thought there might be, but the site owner was wrong. Later, the site owners actually came and edited this page themselves (including adding the paragraph that was deleted below).

This is MASSIVELY ANNOYING. So much so, that I say screw it. Delete the whole damn thing, I really don't care. I will certainly never, ever contribute a page to Wikipedia again, so long as this type of attitude persists. User:Samrose

DELETED - Potential for Graves' insights
In many respects, the work of Clare W. Graves marks a beginning and invitation to go further rather than a definitive statement or conclusion. Like his model, his work is open-ended and unfinished. Fortunately, the questions Graves sought to answer in relative isolation are now being broadly asked, and his point of view begins to resonate as the answers he found fit today's world. He was not a prophet nor a seer, but a rigorous old-school researcher with a mind, as he said, "out of its time."

Here is the paragraph above - This reads like a sermon, self-advertisement, and only seeks to give integralism an grandfather to their thought. -ForrestLane42 22:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42


 * It's funny that you think that the above paragraph is a pitch for "Integralism", because I believe it was actually written by Chris_Cowan, who has been a critic of some aspects of "Integral" theory. Cowan contributed to this page. DOH! :) 28 August 2007   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.153.128.248 (talk) 23:49, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize this is only the talk page, but please be careful how you use the term integralism, which is quite different from integral thought. I would hate to think that this is symptomatic (if not indeed the cause) of your apparent general bias against all things "integral". --Grey 10:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, grey hate to think that this indicates of your pro-wilber bias, no I am fully aware of integralism, could indicate some far-right party, I use it because it is easier to write for me. Grey, I am beginning to wonder are you wikistalking me? ForrestLane42 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Paragraph gone - all is well. no need to delete whole article. --Backface 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course not the whole article just that paragraph, backface. -ForrestLane42 14:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

What r the stages of post-adolescent psycho-social development?
I was unable to figure out from reading this article, the exact stages of development this thinker proposed happen in adulthood. If there was an article that addressed such better, such was also not made clear. Also, wasn't Erik Erikson the 1st to propose post-adolescent psycho-social development, shouldn't he receive some mention, or maybe Maslow too?Slarty1 (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe (based on his page) that Erikson's work on adult development was published in 1969, while Graves began publishing his work a decade earlier, with the 1959 Harvard Business Review article, followed by work in peer-reviewed journals and mainstream conferences during the 1960s. I'm sure it's worth a comment but they seem to have been working at roughly the same time.  Maslow was a definite influence and I hope to fill that out a bit. --Ixat totep (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics
The stages Graves mentions are discussed in Don Edward Beck in the Spiral Dynamics Section which should have its own article. This theory of Human Development understood as Graves Levels is far too big a topic to be referenced only under one person (Beck). Grave's levels 5 & 6 (Spiral Dynamics colors Orange, Green) deal with aspects of Erikson's level 5 & 6 (adolescent and young adult) but from different perspectives. Grave's Levels 3 & 4 (Spiral Dynamics colors Red, Blue) describe (explain) adolescent behavior and Graves Levels 7 & 8 (Spiral Dynamics colors Yellow & Turquoise) offer models of how to deal with the earlier levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthambly (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Or rather, a separate article for ECLET?
I agree that Graves's ECLET theory deserves its own page, although probably not until after I finish auditing the reference sources to make a case for scientific notability. Note that Spiral Dynamics (SD) (and even mores so, Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDi)) is not quite the same thing (it both minimizes some aspects and adds important new perspectives) and (particularly once Integral philosophy is added in) is also less rigorously scientific. The latter is not a negative judgement on my part, but does impact under what criteria it may be found notable.

I do not think it would be a good idea to combine these: that is the source of much confusion in the rather fractured world of Gravesian practice. However, I agree that there is too much of the theory on Don Edward Beck's page, including a confusion over ECLET vs SD vs SDi. That should be sorted out between Beck's page and a possible SD and/or or SDi page.

There is substantial work by both Graves and other academics comparing his system to that of other developmental psychologists. That should fit well on an ECLET page, but less well on an SD/SDi page. Conversely, SD/SDi deal with more things at the sociological level, and SDi gets into philosophy and spirituality to a larger degree – more reasons to keep these on separate pages.

--Ixat totep (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have laid out a plan for arranging pages for Clare W. Graves, Emergent cyclical levels of existence, Don Edward Beck, and Spiral Dynamics at Talk:Don Edward Beck. Please comment there if interested.  --Ixat totep (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There is some debate over the appropriate name for the separate page, see talk:Emergent cyclical theory. At this point I am somewhat leaning toward's "Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence".  A bit unwieldy, but it associates the otherwise generic word salad with an identifiable figure (not unlike the page for "Maslow's hierarchy of needs"), and resolves the (mostly off-wikipedia) debate over whether "emergent cyclical" or "levels of existence" is the more important thing.  Also, as I've found more academic publications citing Graves, emergent cyclical levels of existence theory seems common.


 * --Ixat totep (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove external links?
I've done a lot of cleanup on the page in the past two days, adding inline citations, adding an infobox, removing overly personalized opinion statements (or translating them to more appropriate citation-backed wording), streamlining wording and section organization, and removing bits that read as advertisements/promotions of derivative commercial work (although generally at least keeping a citation to the work somewhere in the article if at all relevant). I have removed the tag requesting inline citations (previously, there was 1. Now there are 58, with at least one in every paragraph).

Aside from the official web site link (which should stay), the External Links section has two things:


 * Two links to further work by Dudley Lynch (audio recordings and other work). Lynch's main book (published through Morrow so an actual major publisher) is now part of the citations under Influence.  I don't feel like these need to be here- if people are that interested in Lynch they can google him easily enough (he is not notable enough to have a wikipedia page).  I am not aware of Lynch having further influenced Gravesian practitioners (as opposed to Spiral Dynamics, Integral, and Metamodernism, all of which are driving further work in various ways).


 * A link to an archived (but otherwise defunct) site containing audio recordings by "The Radical Change Group" providing an intro to Gravesian thought. This group appears to be defunct.  They are not otherwise referenced in the text.  If I could find current work, I'd probably move this to a citation under Influence, but I'm reluctant to hold onto work that is neither active nor published through known print or other channels.  Again, I'm not aware of this being notably influential on further work.

I propose dropping both of these entirely. I think dropping Lynch is on solid ground as his most notable work is covered elsewhere on the page. I could be convinced to link to the Radical Change Group somewhere under Influence if anyone feels strongly about that. Some of the references that I kept are fairly marginal, but in all cases I could find a current link, or an alternate source like a notable published book.

Anyone object?

Ixat totep (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * OK I dug through the history and these links were added by accounts that no longer exist, and the archive update was done by a bot. I'm going to go ahead and remove them but will refer to the talk page in the comment.  If anyone objects, please feel free to revert and we can discuss further here.


 * Ixat totep (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As a further follow-up: the link that was not associated with Dudley Lynch (whose work with Paul Kordis is still referenced elsewhere on the page) was to content from the Radical Change Group at their defunct web site.  I have located their new(er) web site, and have found the appropriate pages corresponding to the old Adaptive Intelligence and Swimming With Dolphins (with Paul Kordis) series of audio recordings.  If anyone has the time to dig in and see if they are relevant enough to include still, there they are.


 * --Ixat totep (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorting through references, mainstream academia, etc.
I am currently sorting through the various references to determine (per Ulrich's Periodicals Directory) which are peer-reviewed scholarly journals, reputable trade publications (e.g. Harvard Business Review is obviously reputable even if not peer-reviewed according to Ulrich's), mainstream academic conferences, etc. vs which are not.

I am also trying to sort out which sources are specific to Integral theory (Ken Wilber), peer reviewed or otherwise.

I kept nearly all sources that were in some way mentioned prior to my work on this page and just converted them to proper citations and found homes for them. Some of them may not be suitable for wikipedia, so now I am going through an auditing them.

Please comment here if you have concerns or suggestions about the sources.

--Ixat totep (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A further goal of this would be to eventually move citations that are purely relevant to SD/SDi/Integral (rather than relevant to how Graves/ECLET influenced them) onto pages for Don Edward Beck, Spiral Dynamics, or elsewhere. It is important to explain how Graves relates to these systems (and to Metamodernism), but not to explain those other systems on Graves's page beyond what is absolutely necessary.


 * --Ixat totep (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you here - Graves is not Beck is not Spiral Dynamics is not Wilbers somewhat ego-centric take on Integral and he is notable independently of what came after him -Snowded TALK 05:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Continuing with the source cleanup, I am looking at what secondary sources should be emphasized. I am categorizing the sources as follows:


 * Independent Sources (listed roughly from most to least significant)
 * Mainstream and/or academic book publishers (Addison-Wesley, Blackwell, William MorrowInformation Age Publishing, Springer Publishing, John Wiley)
 * Peer-reviewed journals as determined by Ulrich's: (Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Journal of Rehabilitation, PLOS ONE, Industrial and Commercial Training, Approaching Religion, Dynamical Psychology**, Integral Review**) **Denotes journal focusing on Integral theory, which is less mainstream, but still noted as peer-reviewed academic/scholarly by Ulrich's
 * Conferences and seminars by mainstream academic, government, or trade organizations (National Institute of Mental Health, IEEE, National Society for Programmed Instruction)
 * Trade journals (research or practice-oriented): (Harvard Business Review, Personnel)
 * Dissertations at reputable universities/colleges: (Union College, University of North Texas, UNC Chapel Hill, University of Maryland)
 * General-audience magazines (The Futurist)
 * Alternative publishers (Shambhala Press, Integral Books)
 * Alternative non-peer-reviewed journals (Journal of Conscious Evolution)


 * Self-Published Sources
 * Web sites run by one or two people (Spiral Dynamics Online [Natasha Todorovic and formerly the late Chris Cowan], Integrated SocioPsychology [Keith Rice], Integral World [Frank Visser])
 * Foundations/businesses publishing about their own work (Center for Human Emergence, NVC Consulting)
 * Vanity press/personal trade names (Werdewelt [Krumm/Parstorfer biography], Metamoderna [Hanzi Freinacht], Editorial Duncan [that spanish education book], ECLET Press [Cowan and Todorovic], New Paradigm Press [Don Beck], ?Nelson Parker? [Frederic Laloux])
 * TEDx talks


 * ECLET Press is a bit of a special case as its two books are primary sources, and either reprint material published elsewhere, or print material that was originally prepared for a book under contract with an independent publisher (until Graves abandoned the project). but I'm citing Cowan and Todorovic's "editors' foreward [sic]" a lot as a secondary source so I included it in the list for that reason.


 * I am trying to maximize the top tier secondary sources, particularly academic ones, when showing influence and therefore notability.  you deleted several of the sources that I considered most worthwhile for this, so while I agree that there were too many in the places where you removed some, I'd like to switch around which are kept and which are dropped.


 * Reviewing Wikipedia's guidance on acceptable use of self-published works, I see the following as justified where no independent source exists:
 * Cowan and Todorovic under acceptable use #2 "previously published recognized experts" - Cowan co-authored the SD book published by Blackwell, and he and Todorovic are/were custodians of Graves's estate. They are/were unquestionably experts in Graves's work.
 * Likewise, Frank Visser has published a book on Integral/Ken Wilber through SUNY (State University of New York) Press, which is quite reputable, meeting acceptable use #2.
 * [Metamodernism] is notable, and Hanzi is notable within Metamodernism. I am only citing Metamoderna/TEDx material to support that Graves is cited within those works as an influence, which fits under acceptable uses #1 and/or #3.
 * Citing Don Beck's own account of his work in South Africa fits under acceptable uses #1 and #2, as does citing Beck and Dawlabani's conference talk.
 * Citing commercial groups' own account of their work also fits under #1, but is probably less desirable unless it is the only option.


 * Information about Graves's theory and process largely comes from either primary sources (for obvious reasons when detail is appropriate) or self-published sources. Aside from the original Spiral Dynamics book, which does not go into detail on ECLET as its own thing, I'm not aware of higher-quality sources covering this information beyond the "Editors' Foreward" by Cowan and Todorovic which meets the acceptable use of self-publication criteria #2.


 * Other possible secondary sources would be Keith Rice's site, and Krumm & Parstorfer's biography. I have seen both referenced by people applying Graves's work, but I doubt I can clearly meet Wikipedia's acceptable use guidelines.  Rice and Krumm have both written books about applying Graves, but both were published on vanity presses.


 * What is the ideal thing to do here? I am trying to show the distinction between ECLET and Spiral Dynamics and/or Integral.  However, much of that distinction is clearly visible only in primary sources, as almost by definition it is not discussed in the better-known SD/Integral publications.  It might be covered in that Dolphin book but I'm not going to track that one down just for wikipedia editing.  I could simply use Cowan and Todorovic as much as possible, and primary sources where needed.  Or could include citations to Rice and Krumm/Parstorfer to raise the percentage of secondary vs primary sources.  It is generally pretty easy to validate their content against primary sources, so I am not worried about misinformation.  But I'm unclear on how to balance "more secondary sources" vs "view self-published sources with skepticism unless they meet specific criteria."


 * --Ixat totep (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In broad terms the above seems to follow policy on reliable sources but we need to be very careful about Beck's accounts or puff pieces from newspaper interviews. Anything from those would need a qualigiation such as "Beck claims that, while in South Africa ...." or similar.  -Snowded TALK 04:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, ! I think the specifics of Beck working in South Africa aren't necessary here, just that he and Cowan adapted ECLET into Spiral Dynamics based on field work, which is supported by the SD book.  I'll let someone else figure out how to handle that on Beck's page :-)  I didn't initially realize the book was self-published.  If I can find a better source critical of ECLET specifically then I'll replace the Journal of Conscious Evolution.  The Futurist is significant as it probably brought more attention to Graves than anything else.  And the only thing I'm using Integral World for is Beck's own announcement of SDi.  I think the other dubious sources got dropped in your removal of superfluous citations.


 * Making a note that the Krumm/Parstorfer biography is endorsed by and has an introduction by Don Beck, which connects it to an expert and therefore makes it slightly less dodgy than a random self-published biography. Still not a preferred source but I used it for Beck's account of meeting Graves which seems reasonably safe- it's not a controversial topic. --Ixat totep (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Turquoise Institute
Not sure why you removed the work with Arlington and Wilber in favour of Wilber only? Thought I would ask rather than simply reinserting it -Snowded TALK 06:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks- I don't specifically remember doing that, it's possible it was an accident, can you point me to the change? I don't see Arlington in the last revision before I started working on the page.


 * My bad - it is still there in the Beck article does not really belong here -Snowded TALK 04:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * While I'm here, I'm curious as to your reason for deleting some of the citations. Are you trying to remove things that are purely referencing Spiral Dynamics rather than Graves? I would be fine with that in general.  But you deleted several that pre-date Spiral Dynamics and/or were explicitly derived from or reference Graves.  I would like to preserve those as they help show that SD and ECLET are not identical.


 * Also, I saw a "third party source" tag come and go- I'm working on finding more secondary sources.


 * --Ixat totep (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We use references to support statements in the text, not to make points. So one is enough for any statement or maybe two.  I just left the first one in everycase.  If there is something important in the reference it should be reflected in the text -Snowded TALK 04:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . My wikipedia editing is pretty sporadic.  I don't have a great feel for some of the conventions so I appreciate the explanation.  I think the issue is that I edited the text down a bit too much which left it to the citations to make the point.  I'll probably change some of the one-or-two but not expand the list again.


 * As far as making points in text, I think I should add a brief section on influences outside of SD/Integral and Metamodernism to cover that, instead of just stuffing all of that in a simple "psychology, cultural studies, etc." sentence. Or just expand the Metamodernism section into a non-SD/Integral section.  The other citations worth restoring would go better in some reworking of the "Development of the Theory" section to highlight aspects of the theory that SD dropped.


 * --Ixat totep (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Happy to help - its really good to have an editor working on this -Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 08:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)