A suggestion about the colors / levels issue in our discourse.

I've noticed with delight that the integral theory crowd is getting sick of talking about the levels in terms of colors.  It feels to me like there is a call for a way to reference the different levels of development in a way that is easily recognizable and does not need to be explained or translated to a layperson.  This post is a hopeful answer to that call.

I suggest that we begin to talk about the stages in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  Since second-tier sees development, it's not necessary to craft our language to the perspective of second-tier folks who are not from this particular line of study.  Since first-tier folks see the world in terms of deficiency, they will intuitively understand the levels framed in terms of the object of need.  Here are my suggestions, with conversational shorthand in quotes and elaboration in parentheses:

Infrared: "Sustenance" (food, shelter, safety.  immediate bodily needs.)

Magenta: "Relationship" (family, sex, friendship. bonding with others.)

Red: "Personal Power"  (collecting, building, or otherwise acquiring a desired situation for oneself)

Amber: "Community Codes" or "just "The law" (rules, roles, norms.  living under a common code along with others who are alike to oneself)

Orange: "Recognition" or "Achievement" (being seen for one's distinct, individual qualities and perspectives via personal achievement or action)

Green: "Equality" (being allowed by the social system a fair opportunity to obtain for oneself any of the previous needs) *(this is what I think Occupy Wall Street is about, by the way, and I think it's quite a good thing even though it's green.... maybe green is what needs to flourish right now!)

Teal: "Self-Expression" (being oneself authentically)

Turquoise: "Transcendence" (detachment from definition.. I think this explanation could possibly use work.  suggestions???)

This seems like a really simple way to explain what we're talking about to others without even telling them that we're talking about integral theory.  I feel like if you brought up any of those needs in a casual conversation, the average person would be able to understand you, save possibly for transcendence.  If this works as well as I hope it does, then it will simply be up to us as guardians of this language to recognize when one domain is being used to trample on another and bring it to the attention of the offending party.  To frame it in terms of Occupy Wall Street again (What can I say, I'm really in love with this movement), we would encourage integral behavior by maintaining dialog with the orange perspective that highlights a fair chance for everyone, and we would talk to the green perspective by highlighting a person's right to achieve.  In both cases, we insist that both need to be healthy.  I can't see that being argued against in any rational way.  To elaborate, we would suggest that the law be applied to offenders in big business (so many of them committed crimes they were never prosecuted for -- this would be attention to how achievement and personal power disposed of community codes), that the social system create a way for people to have opportunity (a green overlay on the very strong orange element of achievement), that people be allowed access to sustenance (so many amber-level rules and laws prevent people from growing their own food and living in "off-the-grid" situations when the economy is so terrible that they cannot participate in the money system) etc etc etc.  Oh, also, I think that the gay marriage issue is amber choking magenta.

It's just a matter of identifying what's getting in the way of each stage finding its needs by using this simple framework which is already conveniently rooted in the English language.  Saying something like "but if you just do what you want without considering how it affects others, it makes it hard for people to live" is a lot easier than saying "you're being partial to red and not including amber.  wait, let me get out my Ken Wilber collection and I'll show you what those things mean."

To sum up, I think that if we teach ourselves to speak of the levels in terms of their needs, it will give us the skills we need to communicate to others why they may be doing harm in a fashion which is very difficult to argue with rationally and objectively.  I think that with enough refinement, we may all be able to learn to stop partiality in its tracks - or at least to expose it - with a mastery of the language surrounding the levels of need.