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

community

#1828

Amen Brother! Preparedness provides Calm. Last I checked, you aren’t prepared, but as long as you feel good about your situation then good on you.

You’ve been very vocal about “pulling your head out of the media disinformation”, yet here you are posting CNN articles as basis for your concoctulation for whatever life guiding confantabulation you’ve stewed up.

Key point here is that while you appear to argue from a Far Left perspective, you do on rare occasion critique the Left as well. But regardless, you are arguing straight up politics.

Can you share how YOU SEE YOURSELF as having TRANSCENDED politics? It’s not so obvious to most of us.


#1829

Thank you for acknowledge that you’re not the cool, rational and reasonable integral voice of sanity.


#1830

You’re doing it again. Your rationalizations go off on weird tangents. You know nothing about me. “The safety of my desk” lol


#1831

No, I am positive that I am not. :sweat_smile:


#1832

I thought we were going down rabbit holes?

You see - that’s the thing about crazy projections. It’s all fine and dandy when they are going outwards against other groups and other people. You are completely fine with when you just completely make up things about other people. Funny how you only see this when it is directed towards you but you are completely comfortable blindly doing it to others.


#1833

Respectfully, couldn’t we say the same about your comments here? Accusing folks who don’t think fake elector plots should be tolerated of having “TDS” while calling Biden’s speech “fear mongering”, linking to Shapiro propaganda (Biden very clearly said he was not talking about all or even most Republicans, but rather about a small but rapidly-ascending subset of the GOP that is remaking the party in its own image).

Isn’t this also fairly “saturated” political speech? I think it is, I think it’s allowed, and I think people are also allowed to criticize the ideas as presented.

Maybe it’s okay to be political. Maybe it’s not anti-integral, in fact maybe part of being integral is the art of being deliberately partial. Maybe we should simply be checking each other’s math to make sure our views are actually evidence-based, rather than feeling-based, belief-based, or narrative-based.


#1834

Hello @corey-devos I see you’re motivated to get a new political sparring partner, I am not that person.

This is the contemplative insight you have to share? Your one-sided commentary and limited thinking have lost my interest. ~ Peace :slight_smile:


#1835

I wasn’t trying to spar, it was a genuine question, and I asked it respectfully.


#1836

The answer is no … I am purposefully trying up the quality of this forum. If you see my comments as political I am certainly going to bow out, I want no part of the political sparring.


#1837

It’s a conundrum, right? Because I would describe my efforts the same way, and I think anyone who watches my programming regularly knows that I am coming in good faith. And yet you perceive my efforts as being partial/one-sided, and here I perceive your efforts in a similar way. Meanwhile, I don’t think either of us are trying to be assholes to each other, or to anyone else.

We just have somewhat different ideas about what “elevating discourse” looks like. For you, you seem to emphasize nonexclusion — let’s make sure everyone feels heard, and we can all put our perspectives on the table!

For me, it’s about enfoldment — let’s make sure that the truths we are then trying to fold together meet some very basic standards, such as being evidence-based instead of belief-based.

Both approaches are valid, both are important, but both are somewhat different from each other, which is perhaps why we feel like our wires are being crossed here. So I should open myself more fully to the approach you choose to take, and maybe you could do the same for mine, and we can recognize together that both of us are simply doing our best with what we have, partial or otherwise.


#1838

Ah, nice backup for @raybennett but Ray was claiming some level of “meta political” while @excecutive was attempting to bridge or scaffold to the meta political. You’re “got your back” for Biden is admirable, but also seemingly political in nature since you’re essentially looking to discount others viewpoints on “your guy” Biden.

@corey-devos You’re self assessment of “coming in good faith” or “balanced” is likely a righteous assessment given your personal community. You very well may be the most balanced person in your self selected community.

Outside of this self selected community, I would caution that it might not hold up outside of a very narrow group of Far Left. You’ve positioned Integral Theory such that the Venn Diagram overlaps in the 80-90 percentile with Far Left, Marxism, Woke, Radical Progressives. In your self selected community, that 10-20% non alignment might very well make you the most “Balanced” of your peers, but do you really think this translates outside of your peer community?

I’ll be a bystander moving forward in your commitment to “enfold” yourself in @excecutive 's viewpoints.


#1839

Thanks for your assessment and all, but you don’t have to worry about me, I tend to get along pretty well with people. Particularly those who are capable of criticizing both the political left and the political right. Which might be why I often seem to get along best with independents. But I enjoy the agreements I have with all sorts of people, and I also enjoy the disagreements.

Now, one thing you say that I think is partially right — my core politics would ultimately only “hold up” for (be selected by) people who have at least partially grown through the green stage of development – and at this current time in this country, most of those folks are either coming through the left, or have found ways to integrate the left as self-identified independents.

Which isn’t to say that these core political ideas can’t be translated and their benefits communicated to people across the political/developmental spectrum. And which also isn’t to say there aren’t green-altitude and above conservatives out there — there most certainly are, but they don’t have very much influence in their party. I think this counts as a “wicked problem”.

Also, I actually think this overemphasis of leftism at green causes a tremendous imbalance for the green altitude altogether as it is currently expressed in the world, just as Orange’s eventual rejection of spirituality in the West caused an imbalance at that altitude. And I agree with Ken that this imbalance also prevents green conservatism from fully emerging at this point of history, because conservatism as it is currently formulated has to be anti-left, which means they also need to be anti-green. And we have an equal-but-opposite problem on the other side — the left needs to be anti-right, which means they also need to be anti-amber, because the left has no vision of its own amber roots.

But I don’t get along very well with the far left, no. They tend not to be coming from a green altitude, but rather an unhealthy amber altitude (sometimes red!) with green catchphrases. In fact I’ve done multiple pieces of content that have been criticized from my right and my left at the same time, which tells me I gotta be doing something right :wink:


#1840

How many on the political Right are still here to critique anything?

We have even just gone through examples of “Right” living Green lives - multi cultural households, multi cultural religions, multi gender identity communities, living breathing pluralistic lives. Your response was “they may be actually living pluralism, but those could be just surface features so they might not actually be pluralistic, or Green, or Teal, living their lives pluralistically very well could be a surface acting job.”

Meanwhile the almost 100% white, 99% male, 99% Western Integral gurus might appear non-pluralistic by literally every measure, yet are actually transformatively pluralistic once you get past the “surface”.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

Could this cynicism you have for humanity not be a defense mechanism to maintain disassociation from the very humanity you are trying to help?


#1842

Wow thank you @Sidra and welcome. A fresh voice that may bring some sanity to the insanity?
FYI … Your shared link is broken.


#1843

I emphasize “non-exclusion”? Maybe inclusion because I support free speech. My emphasis is on respectfully understanding other points of view, including belief based views, they too belong to real people.

Logic and reason only touch 1/2 the human experience and they are dominated by Privileged Intellectuals. Some going insane; insert Sam Harris video here or your favorite comments from either side of this ugly propaganda string I regret having started.

The vast majority of people we interact with on a daily basis are busy with life and family. They don’t debate for endless hours identifying and measuring the nuances as we do here. They tribally respond to their red or blue side. They are called troglodytes and labeled as ignorant deplorables or thoughtless snowflakes.

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?

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? Maybe many new voices here will surface and help us as @Sidra has just done?


#1844

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 :slight_smile:

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 :slight_smile:

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!


#1845

How many on the political Right are still here to critique anything?

A great many, actually. Remember, this forum here is one of the smallest and least active integral communities on the web. We often see these discussions take place on other platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube.

Your response was “they may be actually living pluralism, but those could be just surface features so they might not actually be pluralistic, or Green, or Teal, living their lives pluralistically very well could be a surface acting job.”

You are either misinterpreting or deliberately misinterpreting my response, but that’s okay, we’ve been through this many times in the past. Living in a multicultural community does not mean you have developed into green stages of development. My 9 year old kid goes to a multicultural school, that doesn’t mean she herself is green. It means she exists within a system that green was able to create in order to be more inclusive, which in turn increases her likelihood of reaching the green stage earlier in her life.

Meanwhile the almost 100% white, 99% male, 99% Western Integral gurus might appear non-pluralistic by literally every measure, yet are actually transformatively pluralistic once you get past the “surface”.

Those aren’t anywhere close to our demographics :slight_smile: Over 50% of our regular IntegralLife.com visitors are women, for example. But yes, “developmental privilege” is a real thing, as I have discussed several times in the past.

Could this cynicism you have for humanity not be a defense mechanism to maintain disassociation from the very humanity you are trying to help?

I do not have cynicism for humanity, quite the opposite actually, but thanks for the reflection! “Development exists” is not a cynical take. In fact, it is tremendously optimistic, because it reminds us that we can (and should!) continue to grow up, wake up, and clean up throughout our lifetime, and that we never ever reach a place where we can say we are “fully developed”. I find the idea that people can change to be incredibly inspiring, actually.

Have a good day Agave!


#1847

America hoodwinked, or realizing the truth?
Regardless, Trump is now an Albatros around the neck of the Republican party:


#1848

Since this video has been made available for free you may expand your horizon on this lopsided coverage media story.


#1849

Lol. No.

I’ve seen far too many fakeumentaries.

I watched the events live. I don’t need someone to try and convince me I didn’t see anything.

Even moreso I don’t need someone to try and tell me that even TODAY a large part of tha MAGA movement isnt calling for a violent overthrow if democracy.