I’m new to this community, and I would say that my centre of gravity is green. Maybe even lower, like most human beings (infrared), I do not need any structural understanding to eat, yet to understand that what I eat is part of an ecosystem, then I need structural understanding, no? Allegedly, ecosystems are a perspective that is only accessible at turquoise altitude, no?
At any rate, I feel that a healthy green would concern itself with multiple intelligences. From a green perspective then, we might argue that altitude and perspective are not enough we also need to know what line of development we are talking about. Here, green would of course argue in favour of lines that improve mutual understanding (LL), of being superior to all other lines.
We are even tempted to say that Growth-to-Goodness is a fallacy that happens due to not recognizing this fact. And there is even a paradigmatic (LR) reason why this is so. We would argue that the difference between the printing press and digital is the difference from one-way to interactive communication. This means that the environment in which the evolutionary stages were laid down in our culture, has shifted radically to favour pluralism.
This then might be one of the reasons why 1 tier think it is the only true way of seeing the world, and consequently also why the myth of the given is the myth that one-way communication works anymore. From my point of view, the lower quadrants are primary and the upper quadrants are inferior. And unfortunately, developmental structuralism is an upper quadrant perspective.