I’m case it’s helpful 
A diagram of different methodologies belonging to each zone:
A diagram of the zones applied to an artwork (which you can then extrapolate to other subjects):
And here’s a deep-end overview from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/ExcerptC_KOSMOS_2003.pdf
We can follow this by taking a close look at an average meeting among Democrats 
In asking you if you recognize yourself as using these rhetorical devices which I defined, I described these devices or tactics as “hampering if not killing communication.” So that’s partially the point in my bringing it up–suggesting it does not help and indeed does hamper our communication. When deflection or sidetracking, for instance, is used, it sends a message that basically says: “I don’t value or care about or respect this thing you have said,” or the message is “I have no interest in responding or don’t know how to respond,” or the message is “I don’t want to give any ‘weight’ or apparent validation to this point you have made, so I’m just going to ignore what you’ve said and talk about my points.” In a nutshell, this makes it a relational issue, and can be both confusing and frustrating for the person on the receiving end.
We all assert our independence in these conversations, our independent views and such, and nothing wrong with that; that’s how it should be. But when independence is asserted in a conversation without regard for the interdependence that is inherent in and necessary for effective communication between two or more people, then we run into problems.
To be clear, most of us at this site have probably at one time or another, or at one time or another in the future, will use one of these rhetorical devices, intentionally or otherwise. No big deal, in my opinion, the occasional deflection, sidetrack, both-siderism, etc. The topic becomes worthy of discussion, however, when these tactics are used regularly or often by one of us.
While I think this is a bit of a deflection (shifting the focus, diverting the conversation from you and rhetorical devices to me and what you see as my inaccurate information gathering), I also consider it a bit of a “fair play” in the sense that I did speak about you personally, so you are now speaking about me personally. Tit for tat!
I’m always open to suggestions for close approximations of unbiased media information, including from conservatives, so if you have some suggestions for me, please share. I do not watch Rachel Maddow nor Don Lemon. I do not in fact watch any news broadcast full-through on television. I watch brief You Tube clips (Rachel Maddow maybe 3 times in the last year, total of maybe 15 minutes; Don Lemon maybe once in the last year), but mostly I am a reader. Of those mainstream cable stations, at MSNBC, I find Ari Melber most palatable of those I’m aware of; he is a lawyer, seems to be more careful with language, is relational with his guests, occasionally “raps,” and has and shares some good humor! But I don’t “follow” him either. Jake Tapper at CNN and Chris Wallace at Fox have both had a few good moments in the last year, but I don’t follow them either. This past week, I have spent quite a bit of time with the conservative George Will, as he’s promoting a book, I find his facility with language attractive, and have just wanted to catch up with where he’s at. I watched a 15-minute 60-minutes clip of the interview of the conservative Republican Liz Cheney. While I don’t consider her an “intellectual,” I would listen to more of her policy views, because she has shown courage and integrity around you-know-what. I plan to search out Corey’s recommendations about conservative intellectuals, and as I say, if you have suggestions, I’ll take a look. Caveat: I will not entertain spending time with Trump-supporter conservatives extolling his “virtues” with no mention of his “vices.” Hopefully history will give a full and fair rendering on Trump, his positive accomplishments and the other stuff.
Check the paragraph just before the one in my post that you extracted this quote from. The very first sentence, I speak to the “perhaps” or “probable” political motivation of Biden-Harris statements. I then went on to put their statements in context. My question for you: Was or was not Trump an unreliable source of information about Covid?
Can answer your first question here with an “absolutely not;” I did not have discussions or make the kind of statements about Trump that you’re referencing. I was too ignorant of the overall situation, actually, to have an opinion. So I didn’t.
As for the AZ. Audit, kudos to you for listening to the entire read-out. I haven’t had time to get into the details, although I did read a brief Guv’s statement that there will most likely be some follow-up in the legislature, looking at a few things. I like that in your “So what’s next?” section, you mention your assumption that Fox and Friends will continue to honk about a “stolen” election. Those kind of statements give you more credibility, imo, because you are willing to criticize “your side.” I am willing to criticize “my side” too. For instance, the recent Bill Maher video on the discussion on the tv show “The View” about a second national anthem.
New Rule: Don’t Segregate the Anthem | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - YouTube
I didn’t see The View discussion, and while I can understand the thinking of those in support of a second national anthem (the Black people’s anthem), I don’t agree with it either. Too divisive, too “woke.”
Finally, just want to say, I don’t really see AZ. as being a solid Blue state. Yes, in the last election, we sent a second Dem Senator to Congress and voted for Biden-Harris. Also, two referendums passed with Dem majorities: a wealth tax to support education and the legalization of recreational marijuana. But we still have Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs in the House, Republicans many people nationally know by name, particularly the infamous Gosar. The state legislature is Republican majority, and the Governor of course. And most of the small counties, which are more rural, are quite conservative-Republican. We do get quite a few California transplants which may or may not turn us solid blue, but right now, I think we’re still up for grabs.
Thanks Comrade! I need a safe place. LOL, He/Him
I found Pres Trump very clear, transparent and decisive regarding literally everything known in a time of many unknowns. Very refreshing to have a getter done leader instead of a life long politician. I am also not a big fan of second guessing decisions in hindsight without looking at what was known at the time of the decision.
I view thru a lens identifying domains - political doman bridges public perception to policy/legislation. From a normal course of life, family, community, business perspectives politics operates by rules we consider unethical. It is what it is so gnashing too much about it is a oft unproductive. Sadly our media has devolved into a perception milking amygdala hijack machine mostly devoid of journalism.
Policy, legislation and administration are what i focus on.
Yup, i dont see many swing states getting bluer and many becoming much redder in 22, including AZ.
Brnovich will likely crush Kelley, just my take.
I missed almost all of Dr MITs presentation, but The Federalust article might be a little less hyperbolic and bit more data based than most sources.
If we want to discuss this topic impartially, without polarizing into opposing political views, we might try to reframe the problem from first principles. I’m still not confident, as it still seems that there are parties here that are steadfastly entrenched, and refusing to let go of prior assumptions… but let’s give it my best shot. Nonetheless, we do need to get the science right. To this end, I recently posted the following in response to a query exploring the nature of consciousness:
There already exists at least one science that has defined the properties of consciousness. It is the semiotic theory of Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce’s categories relate to motivation, association (learning by association) and habituation. Peirce’s theory is then taken to the next level, as a general theory for ALL creatures, in the biosemiotic theory of Jakob von Uexküll. His key insight is to factor in the role of a creature’s body in establishing what kinds of motivations, associations and habituations matter.
Now with reference to Jakob von Uexküll, his theoretical extension (biosemiotics) can be applied to understanding sex and gender roles, and how they evolve in culture. So, @corey-devos , if you want an answer to your query, we need to factor in what impact abortion and our contraceptive technologies have on the evolution of mind. I suggest that more of the same will yield more of the same. Let’s explore…
The neo-Darwinian paradigm, with its emphasis on mutations as the basis for adaptive traits, is a step-wise account of evolution. A successful mutation becomes an adaptive trait, and bingo… you go from having pinhole eyes (like in the Nautilus jellyfish), to having wonderful lensed eyes capable of color vision. The critter with the lensed eyes goes on to found a whole new prolific species that survives into future generations. [NOTE: This is a simplistic interpretation that I use to illustrate my point. Neo-Darwinists, like Richard Dawkins, proffer a more gradualist interpretation of smaller steps, but crucially, with its emphasis on adaptive traits, it still remains a stepwise interpretation of evolution]
But step-wise evolution is not how life actually works. Life evolves gradually, as a flowing around experiences, incorporating experiences into history. Life is semiotic, evolving gradually, as meanings change, and NOT as superior agents, suddenly materializing by a mutation birth, taking over.
If one assumes this neo-Darwinian, stepwise account of evolution, then they will interpret contraception as analogous to an adaptive trait, and therefore it’s all good. It’s all just a part of the natural-selection process. But on the contrary, it’s not all good. How long did it take for humans to evolve from the hunter-gatherer stage to now? How many millennia? If nature had intended sex to be casual, she would have designed it into our biology, and we would not have had to invent the contraceptive pill.
In the space of half a century, with the sexual revolution, we’ve undone chiliads of millennia of evolution. Contrary to how nature works, our contraceptive technologies, co-emerging with the sexual revolution, represent an abrupt leap in evolutionary change, and not a gradual flowing into a shared cultural consensus. Cultures that have taken millennia to unfold gradually, around shared experiences and meanings, are suddenly thrust into alien contexts of clashing beliefs. Do we doubt this? Consider our forum of polarized, politicized interests. In this context, it is all set to unravel with no solution in sight.
I get it that this is a controversial slant and that I’m unlikely to get anyone to agree with me, but hey, I’m giving it my best shot. Maybe I’ll be rewarded for the effort in my next life in another part of the universe 
Looking at all sides of these polarizing issues. What is the integral holistic cognition that would help us all assimilate a comprehension and acceptance of it all? What might that Integral Life community look like?
Would this be based solely on our own logic and reason or “our group” think? Would that be integrally sound? Rather then the obvious of asking which side is most accurate or acceptable to us as an individual, would it better to ask how can we be leaders in a direction of healing or bridging these threatening divides?
Perhaps a more integral question or inquiry might be … how can all of these views, evidenced as true and accurate in practice and in expansion in our community collectives, be reconciled into a holistic whole? A comprehensive integral understanding?
Perhaps brining a spiritual view, above and separate from it all might prove wise? Asking what structure in our common reality brings all these differences to arise and propagate in opposite directions simultaneously?
What human tendencies trap us as individuals into debating only one side in a polarity echo-chamber? Does the integral evidence not clearly show us that all ideas do exist and all are genuinely relevant to the adherents of their particular side?
Would anyone or any belief not be welcomed into an integral understanding? Which group of humans are we willing to execute from consideration and acceptance? These certainly are better more integral ideas to pursue, no?
I wish we were contemplating these together in accepting all people from all sides in our integral understanding? What is this integral community really for? Does anyone here agree with me? Perhaps I am the one that does not belong here?
I think Corey mentioned some good Conservative intellectuals that I also find very stimulating and extremely insightful - and none of which would you ever likely consider as “political commentators” (no Shapiro, Rubin, …) .
A few additions:
I’ve noted race or other intersectionality traits to perhaps have people introspect on their “knowing about those Conservatives”. None of the above are politicians or public attention seekers, and when they do look at politics or public opinion it’s from a sociology, economic, or global (meta) contexts.
I think if you presented more discussions from these sources rather than political commentators you might find many people in Integral are fairly conservative in the traditional Pre-Trump meaning.
What I notice is that the one you list as the “Top Conservative Think Tank” doesn’t even remotely cover the same topics as the Political Commentators. The Political commentators use fear and separation to get people all excited in an unbalanced fanatical and unreasonable way, often casting logic or moral compass completely by the wayside. Or as in the case of Jordan Peterson, just one section of their work might attract a disproportionate number of fanatical and unreasonable people and so he kind of gets pulled (not altogether unwillingly) into a narrow political commentary. While he might cover “heavyweight” topics, he gets dragged by his followers more and more into the politics of grievance and victimization.
The “Think Tank” on the other hand, is refreshingly free of victim or grievance mentality, and is not reliant on “us vs them” - because the have a position that is well reasoned, logical and congruent with their morals. They are not against a people or a movement, but support well thought out policies. They don’t just suddenly flip-flop and do a 180 on policy just because the white house changed hands, then another 180 when it changes again.
I think the more people stick to covering the topic or the policy and the less they form their political identity as being “against” other people or groups - the more “Heavyweight” they are.
Excellent insightful comments Mr. @raybennett
I’ve found it difficult to discuss what I consider very non-political topics without it devolving extremely quickly into political or Politi-gral or Integral-ics. And also I acknowledge that is quite easy to, actually very difficult not to, “domain shift” to what we are each most comfortable with. With the realm of public perception and politics perhaps being the “rock bottom floor” since by definition are fraught with opinion and subjectivity. It’s not easy.
This thread that @excecutive started, is a prime example, of an attempt at a high level Epistemology review/discussion on Education, Propaganda, How to Tell the Difference which then with just a few emotive condemnation posts and we end up with front row seats at the shit show.
It might be worth while for each of us to review this thread with a particular focus on our own posts.
Did I help create a context for dialog?
Did I help further the conversation?
Did I disrupt or distract from meaningful dialog?
Am I domain shifting, both-siding, deflecting to “win” an argument?
Are there small things (wording, language, phrasing, etc) that I could clean up that would perhaps make a big difference in creating a space for dialog?
Is this the right thread for this posting?
Should I create a new thread, or perhaps shift to an existing thread more relevant?
Self flagellation isn’t necessary, but we do have a pretty good log which we can each review for ourselves.
I do find it HIGHLY POSITIVE when I look at the vast terrain we have covered in this thread alone 
Yes, self-flagellation isn’t necessary.
Self challenge is always healthy.
From my view - I see my critiques and accolades regarding many of the people you listed as very similar to my critiques and accolades in this thread and perhaps a dozen other discussions.
When we address the topic as a point of agreement or disagreement, the discussion evolves. It’s easier to find a middle ground when it is a topic rather than our identity that needs to be compromised. Nobody wants to compromise who they are or feel that they are wrong as a person. An idea, however can be adjusted and it is easier to do so when we do not equate the idea as our identity. If a person identifies with an idea as part of them, when the idea is criticized they feel they are attacked personally and may retort with personal attacks against the other person rather than discussing the ideas.
From your list, I see a few people who have fallen into this less productive mode. After reading about them, some of them are actually quite liberal and even openly so, but on one subject they disagree with liberalism. Then people on both the right and the left try to push the dialogue on identity rather than the topic, and it becomes impossible to find a reasonable position because the sides become entrenched.
It’s just occurred to me, from writing my own post. Now it makes sense why nothing makes sense. Funny how unfolding works.
Bingo! What I refer to as domain shifting, almost always into more subjective domains where the ego, identity can rip, snort and tear!
In complete agreement here as well. I would add that it’s also ok to “not agree”. Sometimes it’s a difference of problem statement as example Pro XYZ doesn’t necessarily equate to Anti ZYX. If we can give each other the space to “explore” these discussions they might be more meaningful for all, but perhaps not as expedient. And it’s tough when we lose the expediency to not drop into emotive or provocative domains/languaging. That almost never helps increase understanding and/or agreement.
Oh yes, of course. “Coming together” on an issue is great, but many times nonagreement gives either or both sides (or all sides) an opportunity to more deeply engage the roots and source of nonagreement.
It’s the integral version of the socialist “comrade” meeting I shared above. They love to make up a thousand rules in order to pass a single rule. We love having a thousand conversations in order to have a single conversation
Yes, now that you’ve listed them here, I remember these are the names Corey mentioned. Thanks for what you’ve added. I’m somewhat familiar with everyone on the list, to one degree or another, except Victor Davis Hansen, and maybe John Anderson, although the Australian rings a bell.
Some particularly good clarity and sobriety you’ve brought to your last few posts in this thread. Easy to read and appreciate.
Thanks also @raybennett for your additional comments.
I missed a few as well. Sir Roger Scruton is a heavy. He and Peterson just looked at roots of feminism in abiut as dry a fashion as KW might.
Who does everyone else go to for deep thinking?
