This is about bringing integral (and political metamodernism) to the community level. I did this support POD for ILiA on how to establish and grow local and regional meta-hubs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00Cguh7Rf0 your comments are welcome. Please let me know if you’d like to establish and grow a meta-hub in your community. This might start with a local in-person integral group that then would help promote better journalism in your community and also perhaps having local inner development support groups and probably also building ties with local spiritual and religious groups that transcend faith and denomination lines and also, importantly, getting people inspired to participate in the political process at the local level. Along the way, this also involves people supporting each other in their initiatives to provide for themselves economically and also sharing arts and culture experiences. What do you guys think of this?
Been working on this for a few months now. Centered in the Seattle area. Latest iteration described below.
Decided to use bioregionalism as a baseline for organization. This is to allow for face-to-face community around a wider range of themes. Also, sustainability is a good unifying action target.
Taking a network of networks approach. Not necessarily trying to grow a specific branded group. Instead, finding groups reflecting one piece of the puzzle or another, joining each of them, then cross-fertilizing when it makes sense.
Richard Flyer has an excellent roadmap: https://www.shareable.net/birthing-the-symbiotic-age-an-ancient-blueprint-for-a-new-creation/
On more of a project level, teaming with Robin Lincoln Wood and others to facilitate action learning processes at various scales. https://regenovation2050.com/
My own action learning about trying various approaches to get something like an integral discussion group going locally is that a broader, more rooted, regional base is required. I am seriously having conversations about integral and related topics But the context is usually something else - environment, organizational development, spirituality, etc.
Cool thanks. One element of this that is pretty important and I think, so far, we haven’t emphasized it enough, is promoting better journalism at the local level. Marty Behrens and I have been talking about this recently. I’m thinking that an MVP for a local meta-hub would connect 1) nonprofit, participatory journalism and regular and vibrant cafe discussions with 2) inner development (meditation, mindfulness, authentic communication, etc.) with 3) civic engagement and democratic activism. We’re trying to figure out how to do this in our Northern California pilot project.
Generally working on that sort of approach, I went looking for the best available local group in that niche. Joined one called “Meaningful Conversations Tacoma”. The center of gravity for that group is the local Baha’i community, but the Meaningful Conversations group works as a sort of local clearing house (both online and face-to-face) for topical discussion, social action work, spiritual gatherings, and - to a certain extent - keeping a pulse on local events.
I see the role of the Baha’i community in this as consistent with Richard Flyer’s Ancient Blueprint. The Baha’i teachings sample a lot of other spiritual teachings, the way Flyer also does. Whether the community core is Christian, Buddhist, or some sort of blended spirituality really is not the key thing to me. The key is that communities with a spiritual center are more cohesive and adaptable than communities formed around pure commerce or other material interests.
This brings to mind a thought: if you want to actually accomplish anything besides endless discussions over the origins and ultimate purpose navel lint, Whatever you do, dont call it a “Meta Hub”.
A little marketing mindset is required to attract people. What will people get out of participating? What is the goal to be accomplished?
I and probably many of you have sat in groups that may well have discussed some deep thoughts - but 20 years later looking back, why did the group end? Why are you still not meeting? I would venture to speculate that everyone only continues to participate in a group so long as it fulfills one or more of their basic core needs. “Endless pontification and debate” isnt on Maslows Hierarchy, afaik. I would say they are instead delaying tacticts to avoid “showing up”.
After all, why do something if you can instead beat the topic into dust didactically? Groups without a driving purpous and a goal to accomplish get stuck in analysis paralysis and from there attract people who prefer this.
This is what I am increasingly associating with the term “Integral”. Not much really getting done to solve any of the calamities facing humanity, but tons of discussions about solutions.
The absurd hubris of declaring anything “solved” merely by two talking heads discussing it over three to nine hours is eye roll worthy, and hundreds of them gathering to meet and discuss these things in a conference and believing that they are “solving” anything is sigh inducing.
Discussing is not solving. Funnily enough, the results of a discussion is irrelevant to a solution except that it took place. Choice A, B, C etc are all viable solutions and only self interest makes one establish one as “better” than the other. Once you realuze that self interest is the deciding factor between “solutions”, its very easy to skip the rest of discussion and mive to implementation. It is the fear that a solution might be against self interest that produces a desire to further debate before implementation.
Ray, I can tell you didn’t read nor watch any of the linked material and you have no idea what you are talking about. Your critique has no merit because you are making fundamental assumptions that are factually off base because you didn’t bother to read nor listen to anything that I said. Here is an important point: nobody participating in these individual hubs needs to think of the meta-hub. They just function that way because of visibility and interconnection. Also these hubs do things and have a practical impact. You come off pretty cynical and someone who just wants to throw cold water to dampen other people’s positive energy. It would be one thing if I got the sense that you had taken a look at what I put together and you were offering constructive criticism, but you just come off as a jerk, and one who wants to rattle out biting criticism without bothering to take even a few seconds to understand anything meaningful about the subject matter that their critique is supposedly directed at.
Note to self:
Brandon wants to know, “What do you guys think of this?” (chuckling once again at the use of “meta”), I find myself appreciating Ray Bennett’s words.
Seems like there’s a lot of corroborating historical evidence demonstrating the entropic nature of collective utopian dreams, yet we persist.
I want to say something like, “we’re already doing everything we can at the pace the collective finds allowable. The most accessible agent-of-change we have to work with always comes back to the ‘Upper Left,’ that’s the individual interior.(a different part of the brain, apparently mostly nascent in us).”
Something like that.
Apparently doses of reality aren’t always well-received. Brandon did ask for feedback, did not specify “positive feedback only.”
Constructive criticism is welcome. Cynical rants are pretty unhelpful and not welcome. Sidra, if what Ray wrote resonates with you then you probably also didn’t bother to read, watch, or listen to what I produced. The critiques would need to actually be in reference to the work. If you want to straw man it as a utopian dream, then I get the sense that you are doing this to protect yourself against the use of positive energy to try to improve things at a societal level even incrementally. That is what we are trying to do. Also we have significant materials that explain the practical impact. If anyone says it’s just idle talk then they are apparently driven by too much cynical energy to even bother to read anything that I asked for feedback on. If you don’t want to spend any time or energy to actually take an honest look at my team’s work, if you don’t want to be bothered to read any of it, then please don’t comment. I’m surprised there is so much cynical energy here. But I want to use my energy to inspire people to try to work toward something better. We can improve our lives, we can strengthen communities, we can work toward a more just and sustainable future. Constructive criticism is welcome. Thanks everyone
Hi Brandon. I did watch your link and left it alone as I didn’t feel I had anything to contribute.
But then read Ray’s response, and felt there was something worthwhile in it.
This thread looks to devolve so I’ll pull the plug on my end, with Wilber’s, “everybody is partially right.”
Thanks, and good luck in your trajectory.
We could make the this topic of one of the after-dinner open discussion groups at the upcoming Future Human Conference in Denver. The conference organizers are deliberately leaving space and time open for self-organizing emergent discussions and events. I would love to see this be one of them.
Yeah that would be great. I’m looking forward to it. I want to support people who are doing community-based integral groups in their cities. Thanks Karen
I’ll point out something here and let it speak for the general gist of what I am saying.
You can say whatever you want about me - words are words. I neither take what you say about me seriously just as I don’t take seriously your name “Enlightened World View”. words are just words unless a state exists or an action is taken to prove the word. In the words of the great Philosopher the Big Lobowski “Yeah, that’s just like, your opinion, man.”
So, the Video channel is called “Integral Leadership in Action” So, tuning in I would assume it would be chock full of videos describing real concrete actions being taken and many actions already completed.
Every deception has a tell - and the deception I will point out is slight, but informs me as a listener. I don’t mean that this deception is bad - it’s just how people speak nowadays when they are used to not speaking or hearing the the unpolished actuality of situations.
These are words that you chose to describe what you “are doing”:
“What we are looking at is crating these groups, these in person meetup groups that can be seen as hubs in a lot of cities within the united states … I wanted to try and start something up and try to help set up something like this in maybe the East Bay”.
Then you describe how the groups “would work” - once they are formed and how after they are formed, then they would take action.
So … my understanding from your words are that this isn’t something you are Doing now, but something you want to do - maybe sort of in the East Bay. You want to get people together - and then do something after these groups are formed.
My point is that (if you used the correct grammar in your speech) in these hypothetical groups that in actual fact do not currently exist but might in the future - my opinion is that this group will just talk more. You can’t say this is factually off base, because it is my opinion about a possible future event. Potential futures are neither factually on base or off base. Facts only become true or false in the past.
I may be wrong and there may be thousands of hubs already in existence - all I have to go by is the grammar you used to express your ideas.
You may also have taken some of my cynicism onto yourself that I was actually directing to a far wider group.
I will take on the label of Cynic in the original meaning, sure. I have no problem being called a cynic. The branch of philosophy known as the Cynics believed people are reasoning animals and the purpose of life and the way to gain happiness is to achieve virtue, in agreement with nature, following one’s natural sense of reason by living simply and shamelessly free from social constraints.
This is the ACTION I take daily and I understand in our current Orange-Green Worldview that this is seen as a bad thing, or even an insult to be hurled by the self described enlightened at the deemed unenlightened.
More on Cynicism:
- The goal of life is eudaimonia and mental clarity or lucidity (ἁτυφια)—literally “freedom from smoke (τύφος)” which signified false belief, mindlessness, folly, and conceit.
- Eudaimonia, or human flourishing, depends on self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια), equanimity, arete, love of humanity, parrhesia, and indifference to the vicissitudes of life (adiaphora ἁδιαφορία).[12]
- Eudaimonia is achieved by living in accord with Nature as understood by human reason.
- Arrogance (τύφος) is caused by false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions, unnatural desires, and a vicious character.
- One progresses towards flourishing and clarity through ascetic practices (ἄσκησις) which help one become free from influences such as wealth, fame, and power which have no value in Nature. Instead they promoted living a life of ponos. For the Cynics, this did not seem to mean actual physical work. Diogenes of Sinope, for example, lived by begging, not by doing manual labor. Rather, it means deliberately choosing a hard life—for instance, wearing only a thin cloak and going barefoot in winter.[13]
- A Cynic practices shamelessness or impudence (Αναιδεια) and defaces the nomos of society: the laws, customs, and social conventions that people take for granted.
I myself am finding that philosophies that can be practiced constantly and integrated into one’s daily life bring better results faster than philosophies that rely on the cooperation of others, or in the case of Freinacht are mostly descriptive. (I do like Freinacht though mostly when he is slinging barbs)
Well I can find some admiration for the original philosophical notion of cynicism, since it is oriented toward eudaimonia and discourages arrogance. Your first post to me honestly seemed to come more from the modern definition of cynicism, which is “bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic”.
So to clarify a couple of things: One is that my team has been working on actually doing and enacting a meta-hub in Sacramento, California. We have it running and there are tangible things that we’re doing. In the video, I was explaining how we would like to do a proof-of-concept of a network of these meta-hubs in multiple cities by branching into the Bay Area, more specifically the East Bay, where several people on the call are based. I’ll admit that this video is not the best representation of this concept in action, but it is meant to inspire action. Thank you for your feedback.
Also my organization is called The Enlightened Worldview Project but we explain that this means that we are seeking to become more enlightened and to promote enlightenment and that this is the Enlightenment 2.0 that integrates the Western rational enlightenment with the Eastern spiritual enlightenment. Check out https://www.instagram.com/p/CIT0g8ULQNH/
I look forward to being proven wrong when your hubs to “get shit done”.
Much of what i wrote was not at you directly, but a trend I have seen most my life when intellectuals and activists conflate organizing with action. Monty Python made a joke of it 40 some odd years ago in their movie “Life of Brian” so it has been common at least that long.
Even in the volunteer organization i work with there is a constant give and take between those who prefer 15 minute meetings and those who want to make more and longer meetings mandatory. The need for action is constantly at odds with those who use organizing to bypass action.
On the other matter of “bitterness, sneeringly distrustful, contemptuos and pessimistic” - Lets consider that for a moment. What if an individual or more than one individual are expressing themselves this way about a dynamic they see in an organization? Do they have no place at the table? Is such negativity to be cast out from thes hubs you are creating? Are they to be labeled as such and judged less than?
I would say if that is the case then it would not be a Teal space, but Green masquerading as Teal. I understand valid reasons to do this - it may be worthwhile to attract others who are Green but imagine themselves Teal and approach projects from that doorway.
In such an organization an original Greek Cynic would indeed “deface the nomos” of that organization and would practice “shameless impudence”.
I actually think we need more Cynics in this movement towards Teal.
Thank you for indirectly placing me on this train of thought
Criticism should be interwoven with positive-minded encouragement. I figure that is a good Teal ethos. Your initial post was just pretty negative in tone. Also the first thing you wrote was to ridicule the name “meta-hub”. Several people have found that name interesting and inspiring and one of the main points of this whole thing is that most rank-and-file people doing actual work within one of these local participating organizations (hubs) do not need to see the meta-hub nor conceptualize it. The fact that you came out swinging at the name indicates to me that you were bringing negative energy to this discussion right off the bat and, in that initial post, you didn’t find anything positive or semi-positive to say. So I acknowledge that community development work is hard and we do need people to offer criticism that would come from their experiences where things didn’t really work out very well and where a lot of time and energy seemed to be wasted. If someone is just too burnt out from those experiences to say anything encouraging along with their criticism, then I don’t feel much need to converse with such people. But I do thank you for your thoughts.
I am familiar with all you are saying and after 30 years of it - I have to say it is not taking us as a society to the promised destination. I understand with five year olds, mentally disabled and adolescents there is a need to nurture positive growth. I expect with a mature grown man with years of experience in business that he can receive straight talk without frivolous unfelt adornment without getting angry. What I find is that yes, some portion of the population are fragile and need to be built up and not told directly how the situation is. The vast majority , however in my experience prefer to be given bad news straight from the get go. It’s like having a smudge on your face. Some would prefer to never be told and just walk around with it on their face all day, but most people are grateful you tell them “Hey, you got something on your face.”
There is a certain absurdity to deliberately closing one’s ears unless they give you a cookie first. If you call that Teal ethos - ok, drive on with that. I actually don’t think it is. I deal with angry and irate people all the time and there are actually other techniques to working through it.
I find in my experience the quickest way to show a person claiming to know all about teal that they don’t, actually - is to elicit a negative emotional response from them. It’s easy to be Teal when all disagreement is avoided. Heck, it’s fairly easy to even maintain an enlightened view and experience love for all existence when isolated in a cave in the Himalayas. The challenge is maintaining that state when someone trods on your toe.
This is probably the crux of why I don’t offer a cookie first. The claim of being Teal and trying to dictate to others how that should look for them. In this case - you stating you are the one to determine how I should behave in order to adhere to what you believe Teal should be. Frankly I don’t have time to mess around with positive reinforcement, feedback sandwiches or similar when confronted with that b/s.
My original point is that far, far too many people have found the word “meta” interesting and inspiring. Virtually none of them can actually say for sure what they mean by the word or define what “meta” means. It just sounds cool and inspires them. It’s also the name of a major social media corporation, which also adopted it as a flavor of the year word without actually communicating why “Meta”. It’s just a trendier word than “X” by three decades. If you want to copy and ride the trending words train with Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg … ok. But I’m going to point out those words are losing their “zing” due to overuse.
Using memes and trendy clickbait in titles that do not reflect the content is worthy of ridicule, I figure. You figure one thing I figure another.
Bro, you’ve got a lot of negative energy. I’m getting a bad vibe from you and I’m getting the sense that you are projecting negative energy into others. I don’t feel angry or irate but I have been getting defensive in this conversation because you seem to be phrasing your messages in a way to get under my skin. I’m not saying it is getting under my skin, but I get this sense that you’re trying to do that, whether you are consciously aware of it or not. I figure it is more shadow than deliberately being a jerk, but either way, I have decided that I no longer want to converse with you anymore. Of course I can take constructive criticism, but what you’re doing is quite different. I’m going to avoid you going forward. Best of luck to you.
It is not possible to inject or project negativity “into” others.
I am not trying to get under your skin, but instead:
- I Just dislike the word “meta”. I don’t like it at all.
- Resist you attempting to dictate how I should communicate my dislike of the term “Meta”.
As they say in shadow work - you spot it you got it.
The negativity you feel is all yours.
Your welcome for being your mirror.
TL:DR: “talk is cheap”.
Generally agreed. The challenge is to get any of the big ideas down to the implementation level. On the “regional meta-hub”, the approach I’m taking is to be a “regional meta-hub” of one by basically making all the connections in my own head first, then reaching out socially (by physically showing up places) and making connections with different groups already doing things of interest to future-oriented developments. Then, when it makes sense, cross-connect people from group A with group B. Eventually, the “hub” become this growing group of social cross-connections, not just one dude with big ideas. The paradox is it takes a visionary lone wolf to get anything done, but if it all gets stuck in the head of the visionary lone wolf, nothing will happen either. In AQAL terms, no UL quadrant, no action. All UL quadrant, no action. AQAL = embodied action.