Thanks for hanging with the discussion @excecutive, this stuff is important to get right.
A few clarifications.
I think most people love to watch their side being defended or their opposition exposed.
I can say, this is not really the case for me. I mean, I can surely locate that within me, but it’s not typically how I conduct myself. I feel much more creative when I am talking with people who disagree with me. Sometimes because there is some new shared underlying agreement that helps reshape my own views, often because the disagreement helps me sharpen and reassert my own views. It’s a constant process of perspectival give-and-take. Which is why my closest friend group that I talk to every day is composed of some who often agree with me, and others who more often don’t, which greatly helps me identify the blindspots and biases in my thinking, and when I need to do some careful re-thinking. It doesn’t make my unique views evaporate, if anything it makes them stronger and more defensible. As it’s supposed to be, I believe.
Some of my best writing over the last couple years have come from disagreements in this space. Just last week I did a talk with Ken that featured a comment I wrote for a political discussion here, discussing the overall regression that Ken sees in Jordan Peterson. I basically took that entire comment (which was about the nature of regression, how “re-integration” can sometimes lead to regression, how our worldviews are particularly vulnerable to these kinds of regression because they are largely influenced by our peers and informational terrains) and repurposed it for the Ken Show. That particular discussion with Ken would not have surfaced if it were not for the disagreement in this space.
I hear you, and have some partial agreement here. But I just want to point out — after making a case for why we should “listen to everybody” without pointing out flaws in each other’s thinking, this is precisely what you just did with me. Which I do not take any kind of offense to, I’m just pointing out how challenging this particular frame can be, and the sorts of contradictions that can come with it. I don’t see a whole lot of distance between saying “your fundamental point is flawed” and “I see this view as mythological and/or belief-based”.
I think you and those who understand this should be probing and encouraging exploration around these sensitive topics to lead and/or redirect the discourse to accommodate these stage variables.
Sort of. If we want to have a talk about, say, “Integral Cosmology”, we don’t need to include the idea that the earth is a flat disk resting on four pillars supported by a giant turtle. If we are writing a book about “Integral Psychology” we don’t need to include a chapter about phrenology. If we are discussing Integral Medicine, we don’t need to include bloodletting. If we are talking about religion we don’t need to include animal or human sacrifice. Et cetera. We can talk about how different realities get interpreted up and down the developmental spiral, sure! We can talk about how astrology led to astronomy, how alchemy led to chemistry, how phrenology led to psychology — but that doesn’t mean we need to actually include the views from those particular stages. We always want to include “the rungs of the ladder”, but we do not need to include the views from each of those rungs (particularly the views from early rungs).
I would suggest that You specifically, as the face of this forum, lead this type of positive interaction.
Here’s what I think might be overlooked by this — I wear multiple hats. I built the site, I produce our media and writing and graphics and communications, I get on camera to host the ongoing programs and series. Which means that sometimes I am advocating the network as a whole, other times I am advocating my own views as a node within that network. And since many of my shows depend on having a cogent and coherent view as we look at multiple different kinds of issues, this is a space where those views can be developed and put to the test. It’s literally my job to have a view, and to find a way to make space for multiple other views. I don’t think it’s fair to ask me to only do one, but not the other — especially when people are responding to a particular view that I put forward, which may not align with their own.
So when I am acting as a single node in the network, I will inevitably share views that not everyone will agree with. Some views will be straight up incompatible with other people’s views. And I think that should be allowed. 2 + 2 cannot equal 4 and 5 at the same time, even if we are trying to get as many flavors of mathematical thinking as possible into the room. At some point there needs to be some bottom floor of basic shared agreement.
So I would invite you to take a fresh look at the various kinds of contributions that I regularly make to this forum, see how often I try to “lead this type of positive interaction”, and recognize that sometimes I am speaking for my own views (especially when those views are challenged), while other times I am speaking for the network and the overall integral principles of “non-exclusion, enfoldment, and enactment” as a whole. I can be both whole and part, yes? I think the issue here may be that you only seem to want to hold me to one of those standards, but not allow the other, and therefore not allow my own unique expression to also come through (funny enough, this feels like a classic Enneagram type 9/Type 4 conflict. I am a 4, but I don’t know your type. That’s just the dynamic this reminds me of, and perhaps part of our difference here is merely typological ) And this expectation is difficult, when my job is literally to craft and share my own unique view, my own sense-making, my own enactment of “truth” as I see it. Which, sorry to say, will sometimes run counter to your enactment of “truth”.
@FermentedAgave at least presents a contrasting view … yes that contradicts and triggers those on the Left. He may rely on those political reactions to flare rebuttals of “what-aboutisms”. He’s mostly alone here in his views and so a few of us have tried to show intellectual solidarity, acknowledging his side of an argument. Try using FoxNews to make a point with Progressive’s, you’re dead on arrival. I hope that makes my point?
I have told Agave many, many times in the past that I value our interactions, even when (especially when) we disagree — which is often. And I have made efforts multiple times to build some kind of bridge with him, but in my view he has quickly burned almost every single one of those bridges. From our very first interaction he has been rather antagonistic, aggressive, and dismissive of my views and contributions, both in this community and in the world, even when I am trying my best to find agreement with him — and even on non-political threads. There is only so much you can expect me to do with that.
Alas, I’ve also told Agave several times that this is a members-only community, even while we wait for the technology to be able to automatically sign non-members out of the forum (which may have been today, according to our tech guy? We are still testing the code in the background.) As I stated a month or two ago, there are already enough non-member Integral groups out there, this one was originally designed only for supporting members who give us the oxygen we need to continue running the ship, as we have done for the last 20 years.
And one final note — my name is Corey, not “Cory”
Hope this is all as well-received as I intended it to be. Be well.