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.
1 Like
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 
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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?
Good question. I’ve been thinking about it since you posted it. Where do I go? I’m familiar with most of the names mentioned, but I don’t “go to” any one of them. I take on board what people say, and then make up my own mind. Here’s the problem as I see it. We are all trapped in the silos of our cultural assumptions, each and every one of us. My go-to authorities are therefore those who factor this realization, regarding our dependency on signs and meaning, into their theories… namely, Charles Sanders Peirce (semiotics) and Jakob von Uexküll (biosemiotics). They’ve provided for the life sciences, the same sort of axiomatic framework that Isaac Newton provided for physics.
Me, lol
Even if I find someone who I can discuss deep topics with, there are inevitably third parties around who drag the dialogue into the world of tropes.
Or people who I previously enjoyed listening or reading - to at some point it gets repetitive because the dialogue is not interactive. For example, at one point I like listening to Terrence McKenna - but now I’ve basically heard all his ideas so it’s boring to listen again. Alan Watts is starting to get that way for me now.
With Integral Theory - I find theory at some point starts to lose its luster if it isn’t practically applied. I know there are applications of Integral Theory, but quite a lot of topics for discussion is descriptive, and then drilling down deeper and deeper into the descriptive without practical application.
1 Like
So perhaps we could add for others. Would you characterize them as deep thinker/heavy, middle weight, or spokesman @steljarkos, @raybennett
- Charles Sanders Peirce (semiotics)
- Jakob von Uexküll (biosemiotics)
- Terrence McKenna - Ethnobotanist, Psychedelics
- Alan Watts - ??
We should also add:
- Hanzi Freinacht - metamoderna.org, Metamodernism - Nordic Ideology - mid level - thanks to @Julia248 and @WillE for the recommendation
- Peter Thiel - Capitalist - mid/heavy weight intellectually - heavy weight on action/implementation
A few of my fans on the left Eric Weinstein and Sam Harris
Sam Harris is an interesting one.
I first came to know the name through his “Waking Up” app. It seems to be a fairly decent introduction to meditation (I haven’t tried it though). It skyrocketed in popularity because it has a business model where people can try to make a bit of pocket money by offering their friends a free trial (and if they don’t cancel they’ll be charged, yada yada yada).
I actually haven’t listened to any of his podcasts, but I know the name.
Peirce and von Uexküll: heavy. Both are Newton heavy, as in “axiomatic-framework” grade. But the real magic is in the synthesis of Peirce with Uexküll. This synthesis sets the stage for properly interpreting the relationship between mind and body and doing away with Cartesian dualism. Despite their significance, though, they have difficulty gaining a foothold, in a cultural narrative overwhelmed by neo-Darwinian, humans-r-speshul, materialism.
We havent seen too much critique of the Biden/Harris administration outside of the Righty outlets.
It must be pretty grim if The Atlantic breaking ranks with the Leftist Kabal.
Less than competent decision making and execution is not all about “being political” even itf it does have significantly impact in the political domain.
Sad that our tax dollars are being used for propaganda advertising but worse yet is we could have a functional VP to help sort out all of the Big Guy’s “unforeseen consequences”.
Is it possible to analyze this with the integral framework and use synthesis to draw a multi-systemic, cross-paradigmatic view and include some positive stuff ?
My head hurts from seeing all this data. Rationality, quantified whatever. Most of the people in politics regardless if left and/or right have no level of consciouness or awarness of consciouness. Mostly it’s just ad hominem attacks beacuse of emotional immaturity. That is how currently my dating experience is working out.
Even big thinkers like Schmachtenberg or whatever is just sheer concepts over concepts making it a brain oriented / knowledge centered perennial. Some of the JP stuff is good, yet I am still young and mostly this guy just has wrecked more havoc in my life by influnecing people with an unhealthy perspective of stage blue and colorblind ideology. By promoting it funnily enough. Not leaving room/space/etc. etc. For people to explore and find their interest as well as language. I don’t deny stage greens aperspectival dogmatism. Yet, it’s very hard to sort of keep up with the conversation and to enjoy that while being dehuminzed of every out group experience that is not shared be the in group.
As I notice myself in myself. Proper integration of the emotional line at teal would be way way more appropriate and cause less bias in itself. I don’t know if I need to be an “expert” biologist to figure that out. Because this would be a Zone 2 view solely.
I prefer Sam Harris as he seems more healthy green and empathic and does not constantly talk about effort, consistency, pathology, pathology, pathology. This is also what is completely amiss in psychology itself. I did some techniques during meditation retreat that address issues better than my psychotherapist which sends me now to being tested for giftedness.
Also, it’s not easy for instance to read all of this stuff and not build stage orange and yellow intellecutal hubris. Based on rationality and scorn for me atleast.
I can read any newspaper and find some bias, yet I want to see integral bias because I prefer that even if I am biased in that way. It generally feels more comprehensive I like some of the right wing stuff, the point is it’s always local and it’s mostly about virtue and completely misses the target of spirituality. As well as the concept of holons the micro is always the macro.
I wonder what is the core pillar to solve this wicked problem in politics. I heard nothing of Biden in my news feed here in Germany from the main channels at least. So, I don’t know as a “Germerican” what the Biden adminestration does for instance globally. Without making this an international mess…
I was presented some extremely solid stuff where I can see the issue with the left and Hillary Clintons satanic cocking experiences. Including Angela Merkel and this Epstein story. As well as sort of the perennial of the people who create the legislature of a country are the first ones to benefit from the legislature. I really like this from the book the dao of systems thinking. Still, I take all of this with a grain of salt and going into details I would derail the entire post.
Proper systems thinking is also not taught at university as well as this field is not very well known and can be intuitively be introduced by certain modules/classes/books/information material w/e.
The point is I can see the bias to be specific and technical so easily from my point of view, because my bias is to deconstruct based on my culture. I also find that healthy culture also seems to go amiss, when scientific materalism of LR, technocracy prevails and people seek refuge in safe spaces.
Can there be a practical way to just apply the theory of integral itself too ? Sort integral discussion starting with integral terminology as well as possible. Also, I wonder sometimes if this stuff is practical for my life or I am just wasting my time reading all of this politics for nothing.
I talked to some people about the votes in Germany there even seems to be some yellow/teal altitude movements/parties. When I see U.S politics I just shake my head and move on most of the time nowadays. It feels like a man hunt most of the time. Almost every newspaper besides the washington post which is most likely the ultra-liberal one.
Can there not be an integral global view to take the specific can make it global without ethnocentric bias ? Expose the far left as well as expose the far right equally.
I am not very-well versed in metamoderna etc, yet I prefer integral terms and some synthesis this mostly feels like pure analysis besides and then include it. When I read it and skimmed it it felt like a somewho revamped version of cook-greuters paper.
I mean I feel it’s very easy if everyone here has his living reality taken care of, yet what is more important and I see from another forum sort of being the issue. Is proper sense-making through rationality as well as being construct-aware of how these concepts are made and the inevitability of loss of meaning. Without making this a technocratic meriotocracy which only cares about ressources and consciouness is completely out of the picture. As well as not integrated and practice from multiple spiritual traditions. Without making it dogmatic mess.
For instance I would not find any space to currently epxress my views if it would not be for integral.
As well as proper understanding of global history. I never really had that education, I’ve read a bit and lived in a couple of different countries. Yet, I find that we will be stuck in green for a very long time as the most advanced “ideology” as long as the U.S acts that crazy as a perceived dominante influence on global culture. Although apparently there seem to be some shifts in the E.U.
I really wanted to have an impact, yet I notice that most of the political parties that exist sort of wrestle with this identity/ego-encapsulated, emotionally unintegrated self as much as I do, unfortunately even more on a collective level and many are quiet dogmatic. I like the healthy green we have here. Yet, seeing american politics it never makes sense it’s mostly show and then blame and some rationality from stage orange. At least it’s not scandal after scandal as with Donald Trump.
The point is I just sort of resort to Sadghuru, Shinzen Young, Eckhart Tolle, Ken Wilber, Rupert Sheldrake, Jiddu Krishnamurti etc. For deep “thinking” because all of this is mostly conceptual horseshit without proper holostic understanding which includes me. At an intellecutal standpoint I could not tell what stands above a pluralistic system. Besides the U.N with intellectual experts etc. As well as I develop a lot a lot of hubirs when I start developing conceptual understanding for this stuff and integral sort of held that at bay in an odd way, because there is more understanding of difference in opinon.
I watched a movie about this guy. Which was really good and sort of shows me why I hate and still hate some of my Professors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
I just constantly feel there is consciouness and proper understanding of spiral dynamics or cook-greuters paper of ego development missing in most people. Which includes me. A few good sources of where to draw information about politics from would be cool to know, as I usually just read this forum nowadays.
1 Like
A lot of what I see in US society is very similar to what we see in any other addiction. Americans are addicted and invent all kinds of distractions as ways to completely avoid accepting much less dealing with this one reality. Europeans are as well, but to a lesser degree.
The solution on an individual level is simply to recognize one’s own addictions, and the lifestyle that has been built to distract one’s attention away from those addictions.
A lot of this mess going on in media and politics is nothing more complex than addicts fighting over their crack pipe and inventing all kinds of drama in the process.
https://www.systems-thinking.org/theWay/ssb/sb.htm
Effective Strategies
- When dealing with a problem ask yourself if you are treating the symptoms or addressing the real cause of the problem. Often, out of expediency, the symptomatic solution is essential. The most effective strategy for dealing with a Shifting the Burden structure is an employment of the symptomatic solution AND development of the fundamental solution . Thus one resolves the immediate problem and works to ensure that it doesn’t return.
Areas of Concern
- It is often the case that the side effect promotes some sort of dependency or addiction which further inhibits the fundamental solution. For insights into this situation see Addiction.
1 Like
Interestingly, the solution to any problem resides in knowing and negotiating a “desired state”, and this is where it goes off the rails.
I think probably the most significant question to ask is:
1 - “What is the future you want to have on an individual, community and national level.”
2 - “Is what you are currently doing leading to those states?”
3 - “If not, what behaviors do you need to change?”
The problem comes in when people ignore 2 & 3 and instead think then act on “What can I force others to change to get my desired state?”
2 Likes
Thank you for the link and insight ! I did not yet think that a symptomatic solution AND the fundamental solution work in such a cycle. As well as that the side effect can cause an addiction. From a sheer systemic perspective. I love this !
What I notice sort of is the trend of having decentralized spaces that create their own level of values. The fundamental issue seems to be that there is not an overlap of interests. The desired state. As well most peoples crack pipe nowadays is entertainment of some form. Which causes the issue of misinformation / information pollution. A symptomatic fix of shifting the burden incase that makes sense with “value warfare” / value pollution. With the constant deconstruction of meaning as well as religion having been the main source of amber let’s have a call to purpose as a means to create meaning. With a very strong sheep herd mentality. Causing an echo chamber of misinformation.
People are loosing trust in sort of resort to hiding in their save spaces. As well as there seems to be a demand for them.
This is awesome as a perspective gives me more inspiration to work on myself to embody more of the integral stuff, since this seems to be the solution.
Also, again I repeat I feel that the main issue is that the emotional line and proper value understanding is missing. Just showing up could fix this, as well as doing work in growing through the stages.
This is very obvious, I still want to type it.
1 Like
You have an amazing spirit that drives you to attain something greater. A desire that bubbles up from within you. This desire to know is very powerful and you feed it with every next step you take in life.
When we deeply analyze anything, where do we do that from? Most commenters here do that in their intellectual capacity. Everyone of these brilliant intellects have climbed high on their natural gift of complex thinking. They feel powerful and confident with their understanding and feel pretty confident that they see where every one else is deficient in understanding.
I would bet you too @once3800 have an amazing understanding far beyond your life peers. It’s because of this desire in you. It drives you to climb … perhaps hoping to top of the intellectual pyramid at some point when you will finally “Get it”. I will tell you that you already have it entirely in your wisdom grasp, because of your humility to explore you will always gain and grow.
I illustrate it with language … it is the complex attainment we inherit from our ancestors who learned to create letters and words to allow us to connect with others on something that we can agree to in understanding. The problem is we are all unique and we all understand uniquely and all the words we could ever string together will never make us one in understanding.
We think we want to reach that place of understanding that will unite us with everything and everybody in perfect agreement as our ideal destination. Here is my shared take on this. Although from a lowly Janitor with no intellectual education to flaunt … only a lived life as another conscious mind desiring to connect with others and know my world.
My conclusions as of today … there is nothing outside of your own perception that you control. All the changes in understanding and all the discernments you discover in life become your world. You attain this perception when you allow for everything to exist and be as it is, because it does.
This integral place of wisdom, I call it “The Spiritual Quest”, is when you connect your intellectual plateaus with your inner spiritual sensations to see everything clearly. There is nothing optimal or pain-free it’s only clarity and stability that holds your entire perception matrix together; in that place where you exist as just a tiny part of the whole. You navigate your own world from this place.
When we’re in that space there is no certainty; there is only completeness. This is the integral life which I suggest is an experience not an understanding. You, more than most commenting here, echo in that place to me. You’re knocking on the door that few here even know exists. You are already in attainment of it all … you know all of this and simply need the faith to believe that you already know it.
Trust you with you … that’s the most integral place to be. ~ Peace
1 Like
I completely agree! I would magnify this point with the following advice for us all. Mirror that back to ourselves and let that become the path to our ideal world within … which is in fact the only reality we occupy and control.
We make our own world and live in it as we choose. We could ask ourselves the following: How am I doing? What can I do differently? How can I see things differently? How can I challenge my own perceptions to grow to a higher complexity of understanding? How can I change the energy in the room I occupy in my own head and heart? Can I dare to not believe my own truth? Do I trust challenging my own logical conclusions as incomplete to see more?
I suggest that the truth we should all seek is denying our own limited knowing because it is factually miniscule compared to the place of living in faith, which by it’s definition defies everything we know.
https://the-spiritual-quest.com/2012/11/07/faith-and-beliefs-are-they-the-same-thing/