I’m a member of an international organization in which over 70,000 people have participated, is caring, has a hierarchy, and was trending positive for three decades before the COVID pandemic.
There are many forms of hierarchy. For example, a “council of elders” is a Hierarchy. A training requirement in compassionate leadership before assuming a position in the hierarchy as well as strict protocols to prohibit dictatorial leadership is also a key requirement for compassionate leadership. Such protocols also enable challenging uncompassionate leadership in an established format, and also challenging weak mamby pamby leadership as well. A hierarchy can be strong and also compassionate.
In actuality - this is the only way forward. Yes, politics and therefore government will be the last to implement it but it’s already trending towards that direction in corporations. Talented and emotionally balanced workers today just are not going to tolerate an unhealthy hierarchy. With a shortage of talented labor, employers will have to meet their needs or attract workers with a whole bunch of social drama that comes along with them.
We have significant political activity going on to weaken integrity of our voting system. States, along party lines, are either trying to strengthen or weaken voting integrity of our voting processes. One side wants ID and signature verification in order to vote. The other claims this is racist. Roughly 3% of eligible voters do not have government issued photo IDs.
Legislation has also been proposed to essential fund incumbent Senators and Congressmen election campaigns. End result is an already entrenched ruling class (oligarchy) that would essential erect walls around themselves from the people and the electoral process. If passed, it would be a fundamental change in the structure of the US system.
There is much coverage internationally on this but much like our US media, there is a bifurcation along ideologies. The Australian “right” media covers this quite thoroughly.
Can you be a bit more specific on what you see the US lagging behind on?
Social programs, immigration, …?
Thanks Ray - very insightful post. Thank you for sharing. It reminded me of Grete-Hofstede’s “Power Distance” trait on Cultural Compass. (Grete-Hofstede Cultural Compass linked here) @Julia248
I wonder if we could look find some observations out of the Cultural Compass regarding Caring and Compassion? I have found that specifically regarding Power Distance, in some cultures people are “looking for a leader” - aka Minions style. While others expect to find “followers”. I’m remembering the time I spent in Japan. LOL
Here’s an excerpt (also linked above) regarding Sweden:
This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal – it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
Sweden scores low on this dimension (score of 31) which means that the following characterises the Swedish style: Being independent, hierarchy for convenience only, equal rights, superiors accessible, coaching leader, management facilitates and empowers. Power is decentralized and managers count on the experience of their team members. Employees expect to be consulted. Control is disliked and attitude towards managers are informal and on first name basis. Communication is direct and participative.
Hey Fermented Agave, I’m assuming the conversation about IT’s “predictive power” has concluded for you, is at closure?
I’m going to move on to a question for you that I’ve asked before. You have spoken specifically of the numerous disappointments you have with IT, and you have spoken of your initial attraction to IT, but I’m wondering what your attraction to IT is now? When I asked the question some weeks back, you said basically “for the mystery,” Can you expound upon that? Just curious.
I’m also wondering where or from whom you’re getting information that forms your opinion that there is a “tight intertwining of IT with Critical Theory/Wokeism.” (And in other posts, you have said with Marxism.) I’m not on Facebook, but are you, and perhaps getting this impression from there? I don’t see it coming from the people at this site. And IL has hosted countless podcasts that basically trash wokeism, while trying to uphold the underlying deeper values and address the underlying problems that the woke point to.
Do you ever watch the Ken Show? (conversations hosted by Corey deVos with Ken Wilber). A couple of months ago, there was an episode on Integral epistemology that addressed Marxism. It was clearly stated, as it has often been before, that Marxism has problems in addressing the “total environment” of human experience in that it largely addresses the (IT) lower right quadrant or the collective aspects of material existence, and leaves out and is limited in addressing the left-hand quadrants or human interiors. This recognition alone would give most true Integral thinkers pause.
Perhaps you and I are in contact with different groups of people drawn to Integral, but the most progressive left-leaning ones among them that I know do not confuse the original Marxism or communism with what some these days call “neomarxism” or “democratic socialism,” the kinds of systems @Julia248 was speaking of or that are talked about in the Nordic Ideology book(s). Several people on this site have made the differentiation. To conflate these things is not a good look, on anybody. And to say that IT is intertwined with Critical Race Theory or Wokeism or Marxism-well, I just don’t see that. Not among the “leaders” of the Integral project, nor among the “common folk.”
I will grant you that many Integral people here, and integral people in general, are left-leaning, and to be among them as a conservative Libertarian has its certain challenges, I’m sure. I am appreciative of that. There is a lot of vital energy that comes through your posts, you introduce topics that draw interest and spur conversation, make some good points, and have some very descriptive language and imagery, and, true confession, I have sometimes thought those traits would make you a good slam poet or rapper! But discourse is a little different than performance art using the spoken word, It’s important to be informed about that which is alleged or that you are highly critical of, particularly on a site that allows one a free platform to speak those (some unfounded) criticisms against it. Of course critique of IT is part of what does and should happen here, but can you share any positive thoughts or impressions you have of IT currently?
I realize this post may be a little out of context in terms of the most recent very decent conversation between you and Julia and Ray, and I’m sorry to interrupt, but it harks back to the conversation you and I were having, and I hope you can follow it. Thanks!
My attraction to IL was that it has a loose franchise on KW if you will. Why is interest waning might be the better question. The guest speakers, other than KW, and moderator on IL rarely seem “inclusive”. Much of the time the conversations turn political with a healthy dose of Critical Theory applied to the rear view mirror and also to anything Right of seemingly Far Left. Politics and political views are part of Integral Life - it’s the target audience - and that’s fine when you’re curating content for the market place - it’s just doing business. As I’ve said, I do acknowledge the almost token mention, yet no meaningful critique and absolutely no Critical Theory inspection, of the Left. But to claim it’s all about the betterment of Humanity, ascending to new levels, Including and Transforming just doesn’t pass ring as “Integrally Sincere” if you will.
I don’t get much outside of family birthdays on Facebook I’ve posted in several threads what I have been coming together with regarding the lineage of Critical Theory as well as it’s modus operandi. I’ve shared links, asked clarifying questions, it’s all out there.
While there are many discussions here outside the domain of politics, most of the active posters do have well thought out political views. And that’s great. Same holds for religious discussions. And I get it that the Integral community probably shows up as more Buddhist’ish than anything else. If it works for you, then do more of it is my motto.
But back to the Critical Theory operating system - it’s not only common to the IT community, but seemingly almost universal with folks on the Left. The more Critical Theory is exposed to the broader population the less effective it is at deconstructing the systems that enable all the Critical Theorists to, well, do their deconstructive work on the “status quo”. One litmus test on Critical Theory is to ask, “We can definitely improve . Where is a better example of how we should be doing ?” As a hint, this is the new Right/Conservative/Anti-Woke/Anti-Critical Theory myth-buster question.
And in reality the answer to almost any Critical Theory question is actually be “it’s an in-my-mind-which-is-my-reality Meta sphere where no one ever disagrees”. And hey, that’s ok if the IT community has zero intention of creating change in the world, it can stay academic, esoteric, Noosphere’ish.
There are many alternative (IT was my first, go-to if you will) threads out there than can go all day talking about new governmental systems or religious concepts without mentioning any of the Pavlovian triggers. They’re actually having Generative conversations that might show up in the world.
This may be your viewpoint from the Left and I perhaps have a different listening from the Right for the Pavlovian triggers that say Corey, Salzman, and several others love to chuckle and sprinkle throughout their talks. I will say that if we could excerpt out just KW speaking, it would likely be clean, clear and generative - Integral if you will.
Thank you for the acknowledgement Lawanna. Yes, I do have energy and also strive to have discussions from a position of learning what others think/see. You might also be able to tell the difference in the threads I’ve started - it might be good for the community to at least see some perhaps alternative views scroll by whether they want to discuss or not.
I’ll admit that I’m perhaps an incoming Freshman in this new world of Integral 2.0. Many thanks for bearing with me as I realign my molecules.
I’ve been trying to reconcile IT and IL specifically with my religion, my political beliefs, my world view. I’m here to learn and alter myself, my world view and potentially my communities. From my “inside the whales belly” view from seemingly “the other side of the coin” on religion, political beliefs, and living here in the western world, I have to say I’m disappointed in the lack of understanding and the continual reuse of, again from the other side, completely unfounded, inaccurate, and disappointingly common narratives.
What are the positives that I see with Integral Theory and Integral Life?
First let me thank @corey-devos and the IL team for curating, producing and making available the discussion forum. The site is extremely well composed and works exceedingly well. And the people here have some completely fresh viewpoints for me. I really like the ability to interact with folks really trying to sort things out, be better human beings, have some in-depth discourse, and share what they are going through. This is a blessing for me. Thanks you @corey-devos and team for creating this space for us.
Second is Integral Theory and for the most part Ken’s work. Ken’s work is structured (at least in my rudimentary understanding) in such a way that I can understand it. I’m not a developmental psychologist, sociologist or anthropologist and Ken packages it in such a way as to make it easy for me to take in (at least what I think I get). Ken is one of the most brilliant, hard working philosopher/sociologist/innovative thinkers alive today.
(few edits for clarification and typos)
I’m peddling as fast as I can doing my homework.
I’m confused regarding your rebuttal regarding IL/IT being tightly intertwined with Woke+Critical Theory which mentions Neo Marxism and Democratic Socialism.
Are Neo Marxism and Democratic Socialism the implementation structures to get us to higher altitude Integral levels?
If so, it appears at least Neo Marxism does make use of Critical Theory, which is the underpinning for Wokeism.
I have to agree with @LaWanna’s curiosity reflected in her questions for you @FermentedAgave … you seem to always be standing out alone as a bold advocate for contrast in this forum of left leaning viewpoints.
Thankfully we all learn because of your sharp understanding and consistent explanations defining your world view. Even when slamming things you vehemently disagree with you are always well mannered and respectful of others on this forum.
You are clear about your identity and where you stand on issues, which is excellent in providing information and understanding for the majority here that only read and learn. I sense you have a desire to actually hold onto the happy world you have lived in and this is admirable. This is the conservative that I see in you, not the political slurs that get targeted against you sometimes.
The younger people here and those of us on the left often define our world-views by grievance and suffering. The thinking among the majority commenting here reflects an honest intellectual exploration into world problems using tools of critical theory, psychoanalysis, and/or existentialism if you wish.
Many here are actively in a search of answers that you @FermentedAgave seem to have already found. At the chance of sounding like a broken record I see an often repeating pattern that as soon as things start to gain clarity for a consensus they quickly devolve into shadow boxing.
Maybe we’d ALL have a better understanding if we tried some Jujitsu instead.
I know @LaWanna, @raybennett and you deserve to receive an acknowledgement of understanding for your sound well articulated beliefs. I would invite you to discover and acknowledge the valuable assets within the sound beliefs of others. Perhaps integrating these into your conversations from a holistic understanding of unification will have better results than shadow debates among egos?
Happiness is the idealistic destination of those on the left. If we have attained that destination in our own life we can better share that with comradery than with battling the contrasts?
I hope you all know that I still love you! ~ peace
I wasn’t really saying the US was lagging behind, but was more questioning your viewpoint because it seems to be very concrete for you and wanted to explore the reasons behind it. However, I do think the US is lagging behind some other countries, in the biggest way in terms of free healthcare. Being unable to get lifesaving care because you can’t afford it seems devastating to me, and also in a smaller way just being able to have one’s general health taken care of.
However, when I think of politics I’m not specifically thinking of the US, and my original reply had nothing to do with US politics. It just always goes in that direction…
Well these are two very different things - my viewpoint and the US as a whole
My litmus test question is always the same - “Where on the planet would you want to raise your lesbian daughter?” The answer will likely depend on what’s most important too you (health care, economic opportunity, safety, lifestyle, cost of living, etc…), but I’ve never had someone list anything other than a “Western” nation. And often the US, with all it’s problems, is the destination of choice.
As far as the reason behind it, at the national level, it goes back to our foundation as a nation. We’re founded as a nation where individual freedom and liberty is sacrosanct. Government mandates or expansion with increased taxation, is a big deal. It’s also part of the reason why the US is one of the top destinations of choice.
Just look at our “Vaccine Mandate” consternations. I personally have all the vaccinations, but also vehemently oppose the government mandating I get them.
Yes I agree completely that Healthcare IS an issue in the US. The absolutely worst position to be in is working, have some property/savings and are uninsured. The medical community will quickly turn you into impoverished and homeless. If you’re poor, or have great insurance it’s very good healthcare.
When I encounter a sound belief, I recognize it.
When I encounter a complete an utter fabrication projected onto me by another, I’ll challenge it.
It’s also fair to ask someone to substantiate why they believe their projections onto me or other groups are valid, especially when those claims are negative and repeated several times a day ad nauseum, as if repeating it will lend it valitidy.
Again, simply “no”.
In this case:
A pretty bold claim
1 - that it is “tightly interwoven” - show me in black and white where this is true. Not just kind of sorta connected, which I suspect is the case - show me “tightly interwoven”.
2 - that it is “woke” Here’s wikipidia on woke:
@FermentedAgave Show me where Integral Theory is “tightly Interwoven” with Identity Politics. Show me where LGBT issues are tightly interwoven. Heck, show me where the IT community are supporting BLM and racial justice for that matter. I think I’m the only one in these discussions who challenged the false equivalency of Antifa & BLM when people were tending to use them interchangeably in here.
Show me where racial issues are even regularly addressed, lol. Show me some kind of policy statement on racial justice. Show me where even a significant minority of IC have stated they support BLM.
I would argue that the IC still has a way to go to Integrate wokeism.
The second bit about Marxism and Democratic Socialism is academic and much ado about nothing - Integral means to integrate. So of course, yes … maybe 1% of Integral Theory might take something useful from these “leftists” ideologies. That’s what Integration means. There seems to be a constant fixation by @FermentedAgave on that 1% to such a degree that it’s impossible to talk about anything else in here. Day after day that 1% of integral theory is the focus for the single reason that one or two members simply can’t integrate it in themselves.
I mean I was responding to you concerning your view about left wing politics and also your view of integral theory and you immediately start talking about American politics and how American conservatism is the best view in the world and America, in it’s Conservative state, the best county to live in the world - and that’s not even what we were talking about.
America does have a lot of positives, but similar positives to many other countries. America is a place where diverse views are largely accepted, as are many other countries.
But anyway, I don’t wish to argue or debate with someone who just wants to talk about how great America and conservatism are at any question they’re asked.
But yes this also sounds incredibly hard, that someone could lose all their life savings because they get ill. I think we should all be paying tax to a universal worldwide healthcare so healthcare and finances, and where a person was born, aren’t interlinked at all.
Interesting that you are so brilliant and yet so closed on grasping this one simple concept.
If a person holds a belief it exists in the world … if you agree or do you disagree it still exists.
When you accommodate “the other” belief into your thought process you gain a new talent or a new skill in your tool box of human connection. You can actually reach them by speaking to them through the window of the world they’re looking through.
I sure see your brilliance and I see everyone else’s too! ~ Peace
@FermentedAgave, is that to do with wanting to have freedom (respectful question)? Something that I really value about free healthcare is I know I can go rock climbing, skiing, surfing, I can be free to do whatever I want, and I know that if I get injured I’m going to be okay, because I’ll get treatment and support and I won’t lose my home.
In theory I’m ok with funding the UN and WHO, but not at the level you’ve proposed.
It doesn’t take too many levels of administration - state, federal, regional (EU), global (UN) - for my ability to influence decisions. The “freedom” aspect comes into play when we are taxed without having meaningful representation.
We have a saying in the US (perhaps else where), “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Don’t know your sentiments, but the UN is viewed by many as necessary, but highly inefficient at best, and corrupt at the worst. At least in the US, many are not happy with how the WHO first responded and communicated regarding the COVID19 out of Wuhan China. Unhappy to the point that they want the WHO officials brought up on crimes against humanity for genocide.
My (yes, conservative if you will) philosophy is that closer the people are (voters, tax payers, recipients of services) are to the decisions and administers of a program, the higher level of integrity in the system.
It’s a risk/reward decision. Risk is too high for Rewards that we could address in other ways. But I absolutely agree that healthcare is an issue.
I’m aware of pacing and leading or whatever you want to call it in whatever form - nonviolent communication, etc.
The presupposition here is that I want to “reach” them", and that they are “reachable” through what I would call “Green Tier” methods.
Green Tier methods don’t work with all people. Ghandi knew this, as did Marchall Rosenberg (Developer of NVC), Milton Ericson (pioneer of pacing and leading), Richard Bandler (cofounder of NLP) and a whole host of others, even Gautema, even Jesus lol - knew the limits of Green Tier communication strategies.
Interesting that you are so [Integral] and yet so closed on grasping this one [Integral] concept.
But also it’s interesting that there is this presupposition that I’m necessarily trying to reach HIM specifically, instead of using him as a dramatic personae for other to see the flaws along a toxic line of thinking that is easily rebutted.
The risk of this course is that people might see ME as toxic as well - but since my self image isn’t dependent on how others view me, especially people outside my social and professional sphere - this is an acceptable risk for me.