Yes, “inclusion” is a subset of “non-exclusion”, which is one of the core principles of integral thinking that Ken unpacks in his Volume II excerpts (non-exclusion, enfoldment, enactment). The primary difference being, “inclusion” wants to put everything on the table, while “non-exclusion” wants to to make sure that everything on that table is in its right place. We can “include” belief-based views, so long as we can clearly differentiate belief-based from evidence-based views. This is the standard approach to integral truth-telling — actually positioning and situating the different kinds of truth that we are putting on the table 
By the way, I also support “free speech”. Criticizing or challenging speech is also a fundamental part of free speech, of course.
As I have suggested in my comments above both sides are preparing for civil war. I hope you can see this happening here? If you’re sincere and willing to be a little bit humble maybe you can see beyond politics in my posts?
I personally prefer civil disagreement to civil war. But I also don’t shy away from conflict — there are many conflicts that need to take place, which is as healthy in the social sphere as it is in a romantic relationship. It’s knowing how to manage and navigate these conflicts that I think we are all trying to figure out together.
If you’re sincere and willing to be a little bit humble maybe you can see beyond politics in my posts?
The reason why I asked you, was because I think I saw you doing something similar to what I was doing, albeit in a somewhat different fashion — using partial political perspectives in order to create leverage that can hopefully elevate the discourse to a more wholeness-based discussion.
What does “elevating discourse” look like? This is your platform … maybe start a new Non-political thread to build positive consensus on how you propose doing that?
Just to be clear, I start several non-political discussion threads per week, basically whenever I produce and release new content. But people keep gravitating to this thread — most likely because of the conflict and the sort of juice those conflicts can produce.
To me, “elevating discourse” looks something like the comment I referred you to last week:
I try to make it a practice not to let political views dominate my relationships with people. I often reflect on how politics are an area of our lives we have the absolute least control over, individually, yet where we often place the majority of our focus, frustration, passions, and projections — and when we start enacting each other through those filters, it creates more resentment, more ill will, and more fragmentation. There are billions of moving data points to account for, and we are all going to see different patterns and constellations when we look at it, according to our conditions, informational terrains, and Kosmic address. So I try to hold my own opinions seriously, but lightly at the same time. It’s all too easy to get swept away, put each other in a box, and write each other off, after all
So I try to approach these conversations like a sand mandala. I will try to construct the most reasonable and deliberate and hopefully artful arguments as I can, in order to best reflect my own personal views and sense-making — and then I have to be ready to wipe it away as soon as it becomes necessary, and focus on other things in order to create new shared realities.
So, aside from our political disagreements above, how are you? What is turning you on these days? Any shows or music you are really feeling recently?
All of which is to say, it’s perfectly fine to strongly advocate your own views, political or otherwise. But we should do so with some degree of self-transparency, so we can recognize that a) our political identity does not need to be our primary identity we enact each other through, b) often the shadow we see in other people is actually our own, c) there are many other ways for us to find agreement with each other, even when we disagree.
And there is another piece too, which has to do with looking at and better understanding the quality of disagreement that we encounter in spaces such as these (which is an effort to practice non-exclusion and enfoldment simultaneously). This is from a thread I started a few months back, which was intended to do as you say — starting a non-political thread to build positive consensus on how I propose to do that:
When I was interviewing Stefan Schultz for our Journalism in the Disinformation Age discussion, he included some different strategies that each stage uses for what he calls their “conference culture”. I think we can see all of these strategies playing out in community spaces such as this, and I think it may be helpful to make some of these nested subjects into objects.
Amber stage — this is pure talking-point material, a top-down communication style. Perspectives are handed down through a perceived media or institutional “authority”, and then repeated uncritically by adherents to a particular ideology.
Early orange (expert) stage — this is “debate culture”, where the goal is always to compare the most idealized version of your own perspective (which is often established via Amber top-down communication), to the most negative straw-man depiction of the other’s perspective. Believes “critical thinking” primarily means to be critical of all perspectives that are not your own. The goal is to feel like the smartest person in the room.
Late orange (achiever) stage — this is more like “dialogue culture”, where the point is not necessarily to “win” a conversation (though that can take place as well), but rather to learn more about each other’s views and values. These dialogues can certainly take the form of debate, of course, but not the “bad faith” debate of early orange, which likes to make caricatures and straw-men out of opposing views. Instead there is more emphasis on “steel-manning” each other’s point of view, rather than straw-manning them, since “critical thinking” means we need to be even more critical of our own ideas than we are of other people’s ideas.
Green stage — this looks something like “discourse culture”, where the dialogue is opened up to far more perspectives, which can produce a far more robust conversation with a pluralism of informative perspectives across a wide spectrum of thought. At this stage, “alternative” perspectives are often actively prioritized over “mainstream” or “orthodox” or “dominant” perspectives. Often lacks a way to navigate these accumulated perspectives, or to recognize which perspectives may be more relevant/germane/legitimate (that is, a lack of a real “enfoldment mechanism”). This is the stage that many/most of our social media platforms currently run on.
Teal stage — I like to call this “enfoldment culture”, where participants have done the inner work to dislodge their identity from their political or ideological views, allowing them to have more robust conversations, to rethink or enhance their own positions, and to distinguish partial-truths from less-partial-truths, whether in themselves or from others. Can still be passionately invested in a discussion or a set of ideas, but there is much less “grasping” since that passion is yet another subject to be made into object. Has much more capacity to fold together seemingly irreconcilable truths, often by using methods such as polarity management, integral truth claims, and stage-specific interpretations of truth.
To me, this can a fairly useful way to gauge at least some aspect another person’s development as you are talking to them. It’s rarely a good idea to try to make an object out of someone else’s subject, unless you have direct and intimate access to their interiors — not only is that assessment often incorrect, it also tends to be rude. However, these different styles of engagement described above are often products of a person’s interpersonal line — and since “interpersonal” also means “intersubjective”, and requires more than one person/subject to participate, it gives the person/subject on the other end of the interaction more access to the first subject’s interiors, inferred from their overall preferred conversation style (so long as we remember there is often a gap between one’s interpersonal growth, and one’s intrapersonal growth, especially when emotions begin to flare up). Those at higher stages are capable of inhabiting the lower stages if/when needed or appropriate, but those at lower stages are incapable of inhabiting the higher.
Hopefully another useful heuristic to help us navigate discussions in this space, and to engage with each other with as much good-faith authenticity as possible!
Thanks as always for sharing your perspective @excecutive!
