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.
We havent seen too much critique of the Biden/Harris administration outside of the Righty outlets.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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?”
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.
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
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.
Yes definitely possible. This thread is a discussion on Info Warfare/Education/Propaganda but pulling out “positive stuff” likely requires us to be directive. And sadly most people when having their beliefs, positions, or ideologies in open discussion aren’t likely to be particularly “positive” about it .
I enjoy your fresh perspectives @once3800 and wide open sharing on thoughts, feelings, perceptions, desires.
One thing that I think separates the Left and the Right, at least in the US is what quadrants each thinks needs most focus. Left seems to focus on all problems emanate from Exterior-Collective (social) creating injustices in Interior-Individual and Interior-Collective. Right seems to focus on limiting Exterior-Collective infringement on Interior-Individual, Interior-Collective spaces. Schachtenberg approaches from the Exterior-Collective systems view while Peterson I think definitely approaches from an Interior-Individual (e.g. you clean up your own room before worrying about her room) boundary concerns at Exterior-Individual.
I would speculate that each - Right, Left, Schmactenberg, Peterson, Harris, you, me - would perhaps not us the Integral Quadrants as is, but redraw as nested/overlapping circles of influence or importance.
At least in the US, Newspapers/Media are looking to grab your attention in order to sell advertisting primarily. Secondarily is to “report what is happening”.
I would say that for many - likely Conservatives - practicing virtue enables spirituality, spirituality enables virtue. How spiritual really is a non-virtuous guru, priest or adherent? Again if we look at type of lens, I think Left looks first and foremost for all causes/fixes in the external quadrants while Right looks first for internal causes/fixes.
LOL. Likely a question we are all asking ourselves For myself Integral is an excellent intellectual mapping - one of many by the way - that fits very well with my thought processes. But I also don’t view Integral as being able to replace any of the other “structures” in my life - family, friends, neighborhood, community, religion, political affiliations, etc…
Maybe we listen to Integral for a new way to assess levels of development and understand how sociology, anthropology, history, politics, nationalism, globalism, collectivism, etc interact through an Integral Theory lens. But I think crucial we consider that IT is just that - 1 lens of many, 1 mapping of many that when viewed in relationship to all of the many other lens and maps is excellent in many domains, wholly insufficient in others, and flat out in error in some domains.
I think this is, very simply the issue.
Honestly deep down most people want the same things.
Joy, safety, belongingness - things like that.
When these universal desires are corrupted by the people themselves or others to desire cheap substitutes is when things start to diverge and we get unhealthy manifestations and results.
It would be humorous if it wasn’t so sad that most people can’t even recognize their own basic needs anymore. Their need for belongingness corrupts into a need to attack those who are different and we get the reactionary postliberalsim. People’s need for safety gets corrupted into giving up power to tyrants. People’s need for joy gets corrupted into buying 1,000 toys at Christmas that only get a few days of use, and destroy our greater joy of a planet we can enjoy. And so on and so forth.
I actually think Integral Theory is used by some as a distraction. The need for assurance and awareness gets corrupted by a few into over-analyzing and infinitely trying to force a grand Theory to fit into their lives - rather than using the Theories as a tool just changing their outlook to create a life that makes sense.
The smoking Gun:
Post-neoconservative media for half a decade has mostly been a hoax, and now one of the men in on the gag is coming clean.
Great article. And brings us back to some fundamental questions – how do we navigate between the two extremes of total disinformation warfare on the one hand, and totalitarian censorship on the other?
Are both of these legitimate concerns? I think we see clear evidence for the former (dystopian disinformation). But while I think the latter is certainly a danger, I also note that there is more total “speech” today than ever before in history, from all possible political leanings and ideologies, despite our concerns with censorship and cancel culture. (I also know that a central strategy for any disinformation campaign would be to create a public perception that both they and their audience are victims of top-down “deep state” censorship.)
Is it okay to censor blatant disinformation?
If so, is it also okay to censor opinions that are based on and/or repeating this disinformation?
What do we do when our postmodern platforms have successfully deconstructed ALL information – whether factual, false, or manufactured – as “opinion”?
The big questions of our time.
I think the knee-jerk reaction I was about to type would be “No, of course not.”
But then if I instead use “control the flow of information” instead of “censorship” it’s no longer a yes / no question. It’s inevitable and necessary for there to be some controls on the flow of information we receive. The question is in which quadrants we allow it. When I was a kid, 5 major publishing companies controlled the flow of information. They used specific systems, traditions, regulations and profit models to decide what was published and distributed and what was left on the cutting room floor.
Today it seems we are all individually responsible for controlling and processing a massive flood of information. In the best scenarios this is just too much for people to keep up on or make sense of, so they get overwhelmed. In more nefarious cases we have deliberate misinformation or use of “black hat” technology and psychology to deliberately manipulate masses of people to believe what the content creators know to be false.
I think what we need trusted aggregators who do filter out content according to rules they define. So rather than dictating to facebook that they have to publish everyone’s views equally, we need more variety in social media who can be protected from the predations and takeovers of the big names.
Market forces may be moving in that direction. Most people I know don’t like facebook, but remain essentially because of the lack of alternatives. There was a period of time when there were more community level social media, but they were taken over by behemoths and disappeared. But I wonder if it’s time for their resurgence? Do people have more desire now to congregate around more socially restricted social media?
Education or Proaganda?
Hemingway has a very good journalistic reputation in conservative sphere, as does The Federalist.
It is worth noting The Federalist’s ranking on mediabiasfactcheck.com:
Not much room left for whackos but just enough for your fav to have a spot.
And would be interested to find a single non-fact in anything PragerU publishes.
CNN’s Chief Medical Guru Sanjay Gupta on Joe Rogan’s show
Two points to highlight (out of I’m sure are many) before the fundamental “framing” issue. For the “Right” it is about individual rights, hence the Anti Mandate stance. For the Left it’s about “Greater Good” to the point of Authoritarianism.
Which amendment in the constitution gives the right to put public health and safety at risk? Is it in the back somewhere?
If you see this as a left vs right issue to politicize as a reason to dislike the left, you are 100% part of the problem.