Information Warfare Education, Propaganda, and How to Tell the Difference

Town Square
944

Just to be clear, and I know I have said this before, but I actually do enjoy engaging with you. At least most of the time. I like having my views and assumptions challenged, and I usually walk away from our sparring matches feeling more informed, and more clear about what my positions actually are. It’s good to disagree, assuming we can still maintain some degree of mutual understanding and shared reality between us while disagreeing.

However, I think you often do a disservice to your own standing, which then places an air of suspicion around your comments. You have proven yourself capable of having robust discussions about a number of topics in the past, and of course you are allowed to hold your own views and perspectives. But here are a few patterns I often see you falling into:

  • Resorting to juvenile name-calling and common troll theatrics (“Sleepy Joe”, “Let’s go Brandon”, etc.) These are not mature ways to have political discussions, they are low resolution memes intended only to inflame and instigate on an emotional level. This is the stuff of 4chan, not worthy of Integral Life.
  • Making sweeping generalizations about Integral as a whole, its staff, and its audience — often very purposely exaggerated and generalizations (“Maoist”, “collectivist”, “socialist”, etc.)
  • Twisting the words of other commenters, myself included, and hyperbolizing them as a series of straw men to argue against.
  • Trying to frame many/most discussions in narrow partisan “anti-left” terms, preventing genuine post-ideological discussions from emerging.

I think many of the arguments you make have an important core of truth to them, but that core gets easily lost in the fog produced by these sorts of patterns. I myself find it frustrating whenever I am actively trying to find some way to agree with your point of view, and recognize the partial-but-important truths that you present, but rarely feel like you are making the same effort to recognize the partial-but-important truths that I and others are trying to present to you. (I will say, I think you’ve done better at this in recent weeks, though it seems to toggle on and off depending on the day’s discussion.)

Which is one of the reasons you often see me trying to retranslate our conversations into the language of polarity, as that framework helps remind us that there are always two poles we need to manage and attend to (e.g. agency and communion, or individual and collective, or interior and exterior, etc.), that all the stages leading up to integral (and the ideologies produced by those stages) tend have a strong preference for only one out of these two poles, and that if our society moves too far in the direction of any given pole at the exclusion of the other, we create all sorts of new shadows and pathologies. It’s a framework that offers us the greatest possible clarity, invites the greatest number of perspectives to the table, creates the maximum amount of possible buy-in, and generates the greatest amount of good faith interactions between those perspectives. At least as far as I can tell. So let’s leverage that framework whenever possible.

The other advantage of using the polarities framework, of course, is that it also helps show us when our arguments are based on comparing the negative qualities of one pole, to the positive qualities of another pole, which is how the vast majority of political discourse is being handled these days. We can do better, I think.

Now, I also understand that political conversations are tough, because while we think we are speaking purely in 3rd-person terms, we are actually smuggling in many of our own 1st-person identities that we’ve wrapped around these political ideas (e.g. “I am a Republican” or “I am a Democrat” or even “I am post-ideological”). So the invitation here, as always, is to try to make an object out of those subjective identities, so that we can set the identity piece aside (and all the defenses that come with it) while we try to better enfold with each other’s point of view. This to me feels more aligned with the integral spirit of nonexclusion — where we can take the very best perspectives available us, and pull them together into a more coherent and comprehensive understanding of the exceptionally complex reality we find ourselves in, while also remembering that none of us individually can have a full grasp on that staggering complexity.

All of which is to say, let’s do better together.

945

One of the things I am interested in is what is going on with this type of discourse. What is really underneath this? I have not heard an explanation that satisfies me or helps me more deeply understand it. I think it’s more than online/stranger bad behavior or the side effect of cultural bubbles. It is everywhere and I, for the first time in my life, cannot engage with it. I appreciate your skill, Corey, I do not have it! For myself, it has now affected my relationships.

There is an intensity to it, that is not political or held by “one side”, as if there are actually sides anymore. It’s the nature of the intensity that is new. I have engaged in political conversation with people with differing POV for decades. That is not what is happening here. This is manic. It’s the same with my family.

The difference is one is actually a conversation where the point is to understand something, if not to have your POV changed, to at least better understand how to relate to the person you are talking to. Today, there is no relational goal, whether the exchange is with a friend or with a stranger, I am not finding significant difference. The goal is more a release of stored energy. It’s like a punching bag. Maybe it’s a part of the “transformation age”. Maybe there is just a somatic need to release energy as the rational mind keeps confronting the discomfort of its limitation…I don’t know, but I would love to hear others thought on what is really going on with all of this.

1 Like
946

Thank you Michelle for participating here :slight_smile: I was hoping this IL community would be different. I have tried to contribute on occasion and share my thoughts, sadly it always seems to turn toxic.

Why don’t we make understanding the main component of discussions? I totally agree with you on that @Michelle and I have shared accordingly. Both sides argue the same insanity but cannot seem to understand it from both sides. There are always many points of view and the nexus, where these views intersect and overlap, is where understanding emerges. Those who make understanding their aim can see the disconnects.

The opposition players posting here I sense are in solo echo-chambers or feed-back loops there is no progress as I see it. I do read but I have chosen to drop out of the mental and emotional insanity.

947

Hi @corey-devos

Many thanks for the very thoughtful reply. And yes I too am challenged and learn from our discourse even if not necessarily “happy” with it. You give me much to consider about myself, my thoughts, down to my foundational core thinking.

What attracted me to Integral Life is that seemingly you and Robb hold the Ken Wilber “franchise” if you will with Ken’s closests disciples, including you are your most frequent guests. While Integral Theory and Ken Wilber’s writing are far from new to me the incredible alignment between “Far Left” politics and the Integral Community does make it challenging to find the Meta/Trans-Political nuggets of wisdom that might be applicable.

I also think listening/reading your writings also gives me a much deeper understanding of how self proclaimed and recognized avante gard Progressives think, sees the world, sees religion, sees those with opposing views, sees humanity, sees most everything. Thank you for this.

In your note you’ve gone into “God Mode” or 3rd Person Omniscient writing perspective from which to very personally critique me. While I do see some validity in your God Mode perspective critique, of our multiple discussions across all Quadrants and Zones, across multiple topic domains, I would posit personal assessments from God Mode are not conducive to effective discourse or “coming together” if you will. But it is I think highly effective at enforcing orthodoxy. If I were to do this, I think you would claim it “sweeping generalizations”, “juvenile”, “straw manning” or “narrow framing”.

Looking at posts from others asking questions about Right Quadrant “real stuff” going on (Ukraine, Economy, etc), both your and Robb’s responses are seemingly to quickly deflect or even rebuff the posters. Or perhaps your interpretation of Integral Theory AND tactics is to enforce “purity” within the community. I do find it interesting that when major issues confronting Americans today brought up, these are not really considered “Integral” discussions topics - economy, inflation, monetary policy, energy availability, foreign policy, global stability, etc…

You might consider perhaps applying with the same verve and vigor “Integral” analyses of your favored positions, political parties, organizations, economic policies that you apply to positions you deem as “Lower Altitude” - but that’s completely up to you.

And here we are - still muddling through, as ugly as it gets, in the Propaganda/Education/Info Warfare thread. Have we made in progress on the Original Topic?

948

For what it’s worth @Michelle and @excecutive , I think the foundation for this angst or mania has been built up due to a few fundamental forces:

  • COVID lockdowns - there is a negative impact on people to be isolated from each other. At least in the US, this is not something I have seen in my lifetime.
  • Political Ideologies. - Democrats, Republicans, Independents all used to - for the most part - agree on most things and debated a minority of issues or how to address issues. As Corey has discussed, there is some merit to “the internet has destroyed us”. It’s created significant tribalization or as we might call regression to lower altitudes of Red or Amber.
  • Ideological Polarization - The current majority party wants to fundamentally restructure how the US works and how the government interacts with Citizens. Meanwhile the Conservatives, as progressive as they might actually be, want to double down on the governmental structures that have gotten us to where we are. Here’s a not so short description by Thomas Sowell on Constrained vs Unconstrained views that might be interesting.

Let’s get this figured out together, or separately, or perhaps not at all :slight_smile:

1 Like
949

I think these all play into it for sure. I feel like there is something more that produces what I call the mania, the aggression, the reducing people ideas to the most idiotic form. It’s like the smartest people in the world have totally lost their minds. For what’s it worth, I find myself doing this too.

Is it that we cannot handle the emerging reality that we will never find consensus? Does this produce a panic; a fear that we will either have to force our will on someone or have their will forced on us? Does this conflict so deeply with our deeper desire for peace that we cannot manage the internal conflict?

Does is trigger our fear and insecurity to have our thoughts so challenged? Is it just massive shadow emerging?

Are we destabilized by the polarization which really points to either we are not grounded in reality, or our neighbors are not? Are we destabilized by the emerging realization that all reality is just an interpreted subjectivity?

I really don’t know, but I do think there is such a clear problem that further “debate” of issues is pointless in my view. We need to go deeper, and this seems like a good place to do that.

1 Like
950

Give Thomas Sowell an hour if you can. My horrible paraphrasing is: Constrained vision roughly equates to man has dark and light sides. Through our structures - families, communities, laws, governance, religious practices - are we kept, all of us kept from becoming a tyrants .
Unconstrained is the philosophy of why can’t we live in an idyllic nirvana and it’s an oppressive exploitive structure to blame since we aren’t.

It’s really a very recent phenomenon that we all have to agree and it’s broken if we don’t, that life should be fair, that everyone is equal (I wanted to play pro baseball), that no one should have anxiety or stress (what can motivate us), or that it’s my way or you’re psychologically flawed (gaslighting to dominate).

At least in the US these widespread thoughts are very recent.

951

I think this is a large part of it. KW and Integral as a whole emphasize “diversity in unity,” whether that diversity refers to race, political ideology, religion, etc. At its core, most of the conversation happening here is lop-sided, focused on not only diverse points of view, but diverse “facts,” with little remembrance of the unity part: as humans, as integralists. It seems that respect and friendliness and “compassionate conversation” and god forbid, anything resembling a form of love, are somehow too “soft” or unimportant or airy-fairy or “green” or maybe just too “girly.” I’ve been involved with integral for many years, and would be rich if I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard it stated that what the world really needs is a little more focus on what have been traditionally called “feminine values”–and yet, I see the masculine values still ruling the day, here as in the world.

Yes, to continue to engage with and to argue with someone whose points of view and “facts” are quite different from one’s own is indeed indicative of relationality–I am not trying to make the world or this site conflict-free–but I think everyone here knows what I’m talking about. There is little effort towards “communion.” There is not much of a true sense of “community” without it.

And what does communion and community require? Trust. Trust that one can be agentic and autonomous in stating a point of view or yes, a feeling, without being attacked or name-called or otherwise dismissed with malignant mean-spirited destructive babble. Not everyone here does that, but it does seem to have a monopoly at this site at this time.

I think it would be a good idea if the “Community Guidelines” were re-visited. Are they still relevant?

I think the communication style that some people use is real problematic, and @FermentedAgave, I’m going to call you out on this again. I for one and most others here have tried to befriend you, have engaged you, have acknowledged the positives you bring to this site–I did that early on with you, if you remember. I personally took your advice to check into some of the conservative voices you recommended. I posted some favorable statements to you about having done this, particularly in the area of climate change. I’ve commended some of your posts. I’ve tried by and large to keep it relational, and remind both of us our commonalities. And yet, in all honesty, I do not trust that I can respond to you with my own points of view or questions without being ignored and dismissed (deflection, repeatedly refusing to answer uncomfortable questions) or somehow verbally demeaned or attacked. I can take it, and you’ve probably been “gentler” to me than you have to your male conversationalists, but it’s really unbecoming to you who I would venture to guess does not speak that way to his family or church members or friends. Why bring it here? Why see us as enemies? What’s the pay-off, the reward to you?

And I wonder if there are others who have chosen to do that too.

952

Thank you @Michelle for deflecting the conversation off the manias. I suggest accepting and allowing all things to exist as they are … acknowledge everything and then find the best combination within our own psyche to balance everything inside ourselves first.

We used to rely on the group/tribe to define these things for us, like we were children. Now humanity is growing up and we are trying to find this consensus externally in our world … I no longer think that’s viable.

Russian’s, Ukrainian’s, American’s, the Chinese and every other human culture and idea all want what’s best for them.

The answers we seek externally I suggest that they need to be discovered internally within ourselves first. Before we can collaborate for the betterment of all we must reveal that place of balance within ourselves.

I Will Love Me! … So I Can Love You Too!

953

So I am curious, when you are expressing you POV, are you hoping for agreement? If you are not looking for agreement, what are you hoping for? It does come across like you want agreement and the awareness of the person you are speaking to, to see they are psychologically flawed, that we are not equal because you are better and my anxiety doesn’t matter…I ask, because I can see myself wanting all of this too. I want to be told I’m right, I’m better and be thanked for the stress I induced since it helped to reveal their flaws:)

If we accept we will never agree, we are no longer debating towards a truth then what are we doing?

OR, is this just what seeking truth looks like now, we are just dropping all pretext of civility, not more “your obedient servant, A dot Burr”. If this is the case what happens when it is so brutal that many of us are dropping out of the process all together?

954

@LaWanna

Yes you did look into some of the conservative intellectuals that I shared. Just as I looked into the not so well recognized conservative intellectuals that you recommended. In my estimation they were fringe thinkers with minimal influence both today and in the past. I have to admit that the responses on “who are your go to philosopher/thinker references” was overall disappointing.

I do want to credit you with being perhaps the only clear response to my question of how Integral Theory “transformed” from a map of “what’s so” to future prediction and architecture for “what should be”. Thanks for the reply on this.

While I respect your posts, in general I don’t normally engage since I have little to add to many of the domains that you care most about. And yes we have quite a lot in common - drumming, native culture, like to geek out, care for humanity…

Regarding our “male conversationalists” versus feminine, this is interesting. I do think, but could be wrong, that there is a useful “tip of the spear” that likes to use profanity, become verbally abusive, and in general “play rough”. While I don’t prefer this, it’s also in and of itself a big deal to me. I have noticed, again perhaps incorrectly, that several particularly Corey, seldom you like to watch “elbows being thrown” then rush in for commentary on what is being discussed. Or on how it’s being discussed.

Paradoxically my very first post on IL was in defense of communications styles - some folks are ok throwing elbows, most are not. Simply metering communication styles would be a great first step. Likewise simply metering ourselves from shifting discourse between Quadrants or more subtly between Zones might enable us to get further down the path to understanding even if agreement is not reached.

955

Like the direct questions :slight_smile:

Of course my ego would rejoice if I were validated with complete agreement. But as a “Constrained viewpoint” chap, I have no illusions nor would I want this type of agreement unless it was made with the utmost awareness. :slight_smile:

You have a different viewpoint, different perspective on the world that I don’t have, perhaps cannot have. There just might be “nuggets of wisdom” or the “answer to meaning of life” somewhere in there.

What if there is not a final “truth”, but pursuit of is what there is for us to do? If you take Sowell’s discussion for a spin, you might see that finding “the answer” may never happen. It’s the pursuit of “truth” that is all we have.

One concern I have is that when I found Integral Life, the community was shockingly low in participation for a platform that effectively has one of the strongest Ken Wilber “franchises” on the planet. Responses to posting were very seldom or non-existent. And Ken Wilber’s writings changed my life. I would hate to see his work slip into obscurity.

If you’ve followed some of my other posting, I’m actually highly concerned that coupling Integral Theory, in my estimation, with “Far Left Progressivism” or even perhaps radical activism does not serve Integral Theory itself.

Question for you - Would you mind pointing on where I have been uncivil with you? Or perhaps by questioning directly, my directness?

956

You are not uncivil to me:) Interesting that you see this collective as progressive, I do not. I have been involved here for 25+ years, although not much lately. I see this collective as inhabiting many perspectives to render it outside most traditional right/left categories.

I would have to search through your post, (which I won’t do, I’m lazy) to find examples of where I felt you would reduce “progressive” ideas to the dumbest interpretation you could. What is so offensive to you about the progressive left?

957

I have just a moment before I need to get on to other affairs of daily life, but I did want to respond to a couple of things in your post.

Bear with me, but this to me is an example of how you sometimes take things beyond where they need to go, that is, if you’re concerned about relationship at all, and not just your own autonomy. If you had just left it with your first two sentences, then we would have had a starting point of just mutual agreement, a grounds for more of an “equal” relationship–we both looked into the conservative intellectuals the other suggested. With this sentence I’ve quoted, it seems to me you took the conversation into the arena of sort of a “one-upmanship,” and implanted your views/ideology/opinion where they were not required.

So instances like this make me question if you really want relationship, or if that is a lesser priority than making sure I understand that you found my suggestions to be “fringe thinkers.” Yes, you said “in your estimation,” but still, you took things where it wasn’t required they go–IF, you have interest in positive relationality. I hope you can follow this, and I’m not trying to be critical–this particular incident is no big deal in the grand scheme of things-- I’m actually just trying to let you know how others see some of your communication, which can appear as you trying to present yourself as #1, superior to others. I’m not sure if you intend to do this, but I will say, it’s not necessary to be or present oneself as superior in order to be seen as either smart or likeable.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Clarify?

Later!

958

Just to be 100% clear here, I play multiple roles in this community, both as a participant and as a moderator. The “God Mode” voice you speak of is my Mod voice – but even that wasn’t left purely to 3rd-person language, as I added plenty of “I think” and “I see” statements in order to own my own perspective. These are my perspectives, as moderator of this community. For example, I didn’t say “these are your patterns, own them.” I said “These are the patterns I see you falling into.” Could my perspective be off? Sure. But I am also managing this space, which does give my perspective more weight, for better or worse (“God Mode”, as you say) — which is why I do my best to be careful, skillful, considerate, but also strong whenever I am wearing that hat. (As a conservative, I’m sure you can appreciate the need to project strength when protecting your house :slight_smile: )

the incredible alignment between “Far Left” politics and the Integral Community

See, this is kind of what I am talking about. I have spent many, many hours trying to help you achieve a better understanding of the integral approach, and have even offered you a free course to help you ramp up. I’ve talked endlessly how integral seeks to include perspectives from both the right and the left as a typology that goes up and down the spiral of development, and expressed differently from different stages of cognitive/moral/values development. I’ve talked at length about how integral rejects both the extreme left and the extreme right (in fact, I am pretty sure we have more material on this site criticizing “wokeness” and and things like CRT, than we do criticizing MAGA/Q on the right, but we certainly do both.) I’ve repeated over and over again how integral seeks to include all stages of development, but govern from the highest stage available.

The problem as I see it (notice the 1st-person!) is that a) you seem to believe that including anything that is not strictly limited to your own conservative ideology should therefore be rejected by integral, and b) you seem to think anything to the left of Stephen Miller represents the “far left”. Support social programs? Far left. Think it’s a good idea for billionaires to pay more taxes? Far left. Think it’s possible for “individualism” to become pathological? Far left. Support renewable energies? Far left. I think this is why you continue to make what I see as caricatures and straw men out of what we actually believe, and the kinds of individual and social transformation we would like to see.

Again, these are all polarities, and it is our desire as integralists to make those polarities as healthy as we possibly can. As I’ve said many times in the past, I personally think we’ve swung too far left in the cultural sphere, and too far right in the economic sphere, and I believe we need to push the pendulum in the opposite direction in each of those domains.

“You might consider perhaps applying with the same verve and vigor “Integral” analyses of your favored positions, political parties, organizations, economic policies that you apply to positions you deem as “Lower Altitude” - but that’s completely up to you.”

We do that, very often. And of course, it’s also plugged into a larger historical context. I am rethinking my own preferred positions, parties, policies, etc. ALL THE TIME, and criticize them frequently. I talk all the time about those aspects of the left that drive me up the wall, and that may be exerting a toxic influence on our society. Yet you keep making statements like “you guys think Biden is so integral”, which as far as I can tell, is a claim none of us have ever made. This is where my perception of bad faith comes from.

Here are the challenges I think you might face. In its purest form, integral seeks to include both the left and the right. And we all are figuring out how to mesh with that framework from our own unique perspectives, political allegiances, and kosmic addresses. You need to find a way to be comfortable with that in your own way, without calling us “Maoists” every time we want to include a social program or two.

Integral also seeks to include the green altitude, while also placing guard rails around it so we can be protected from its worst excesses. Just as green seeks to put guard rails around orange, and orange around amber. However, much/most of conservative media is hostile to the green altitude altogether – largely because the left got there first, and staked it out. But as I keep saying, we need to see more green conservatism now more than ever. I think it would be a beautiful thing, a genuinely conservative approach to something like environmentalism that can accept the actual existential threats here, is willing to constrain the worst excesses of orange, and can carry it’s own Christian compassion, rooted in amber, to a genuinely world centric stage. Real “steward of the earth” type stuff.

We can have integral conservatives. But not if they don’t grow through green first. Because there is no skipping stages — there is no path to integral from amber/orange that skips green.

To the right, all they have is a hammer so everything is a nail. To the left, all they have is a screwdriver so everything is a screw. To an integralist, we just want as many tools in our belt as we can find, and to use the right tool for the right job.

And as members of this community, we all need to break out of the black and white tribal politics and find new ways to enfold multiple perspectives across multiple political typologies and spectrums.

Because when that doesn’t happen, it creates tension and then conflict and then lapses into sanctimonious insults and name-calling. And that drives people away. I think @LaWanna makes an exceptionally important point here — I’ve heard from multiple people who have said they prefer not to post in this space, because they do not have energy to deal with the dismissive or even hostile responses they think they will likely receive. The come and visit the community, and see all the accusations of people being “Maoist collectivist Stalin lovers”, and they are immediately exhausted and go somewhere else. Which is why I keep trying to remind you to be mindful of both the quantity and quality of your posts.

To put it crudely, this is a house that I built and manage, and you are my loudest and most active tenant. And I very much want to transcend and include your voice, in order to keep you in the house. But if it’s actively driving people away from the house, then I need to find ways to negate your voice in order to preserve the community. I’d much rather do so through conversation than through censorship, which is why we are having this discussion right now. I hope you take it all with the good will and good faith that I am actively extending to you.

1 Like
959

It’s funny, because when I look at both Robb’s response and my own, there was no “rebuffing” of perspectives. Robb invited criticism, and I basically tried to find an elegant way of saying “maybe try disagreeing without being a dick.” We put a ton of time, energy, and care into our contributions, and its frustrating when folks want to discard all of that effort because they don’t immediately agree with some of our conclusions. And, you know, we are big boys and girls, we can take it — we’ve been here long enough to know very well how much easier it is to tear someone else’s work down than it is to build your own work up — but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t get exhausting when our hard work is immediately waved away with a “LOL” or “pathetic”.

Will we defend our positions when they are criticized? Yes, especially if we think the criticism is coming from a faulty understanding of our position. But Integral people are tremendously comfortable with criticism, and use it as an opportunity to rethink those positions again and again. Because there is a gap between an integralist’s sense of personal identity, and the products of thought that they witness in their own minds. We can be very passionate while making our arguments, while also allowing those arguments permeable to criticism, in hopes that we can continue to up-level our views as we go.

960

Likewise was this necessary. Yes, you did review some of the references and also shared some before unbeknownst to me conservative philosophers. Since I’m not completely unread in the space, I was surprised with your “conservative” recommendation choices. I’ll have to review, but don’t remember the “not conservative” recommendations in the thread.

Honestly LaWanna, you’re trying to tell me how to communicate - seemingly I’m too direct, too male, too whatever - and you seemingly take this as indicators of “superior to others”. If you think I’m being “haughty” or “superior” or “mansplaining” why not just “let it flow on by into oblivion”?

Likewise when you head off on many topics and discussions that interest you, predominately I simply “let it flow right on by”. And I’m actually happy you’re having the discussions you want to have. Have at it!

It “seems to me” that both you and Corey love to have “rough around the edges” Ray act as your “point of spear”, then pile on when I “throw and elbow”. My very first post on IL was someone trying to get Ray banned for abusive language. Not trying to make this about someone else, but how about we each simply engage respectfully on topics we are each interested in?

Is this what you were looking for?

961

Again, I would invite you to take a look at your own role in this dynamic. Which isn’t to say that you are responsible for the lack of activity in this space — that has more to do with the fact that most people are having these conversations in places like Facebook and Discord. And even though it is much quieter here, I very much prefer this space to those platforms :slight_smile:

Yes, exactly what I am asking for. Which is why I tried to identify the patterns that I believe I see you engaging in that is preventing this respectful engagement from occurring.

962

Also, one of the things that is occurring to me right now — I notice that conversations about interior realities generate much more mutual agreement, while conversations about exterior realities generate much more argument. I think that is largely due to the sorts of muscles that Ken helped the rest of us develop, and the sorts of role models we have for either side of this discussion. We’ve all used the integral framework while doing the inner work, and have largely all had similar experiences while doing so, which makes it much easier for us to find shared reality together. We all access the same stages, the same states, the same shadows, etc. We can see that we are all occupying the same inner territories, at least in terms of the deep structures, while the surface structures may vary from individual to individual.

And while Ken and others have also given us plenty of frameworks to help us make better sense of our exterior realities, we are not nearly as practiced in applying those frameworks to the real world, and have largely been left to our own devices when it comes to navigating the top-down corporate propaganda, ideological propaganda, and state propaganda, not to mention the bottom-up lunacy that comes with social media. Those are muscles that we are still developing, and learning how to develop together, so that we can find more shared reality together. And I can genuinely say that all of my interactions with you in this space, as well as with others, have been in service to that slowly-emerging mutual understanding.

We have tons of courses and training programs to help people develop their inner lives. Maybe we need to develop some sort of “How To Git Gud At Integral Politics” training as well, so we can begin to scaffold this a bit more robustly, beyond these back and forth conversations.

2 Likes
963

All types of exterior realties, not just politics, could benefit from this type of training. It’s easier to accept the subjectivity of the interior. I think this is a great idea!

1 Like