I replied with questions
It felt more like you were begging the question Your conclusions were already packed into the questions themselves.
You said that I undermined you personally and acted in a hostile way toward you, but I do not see where I did so. Can you show me?
Meanwhile, here are some of your comment/questions:
“you sure come to life when the Trump card of politics shows up, Perhaps an integral deep dive on why?”
Begging the question. It’s like asking “when did you stop beating your wife?” By the way, I “come to life” when it comes to all sorts of issues. That’s how I make content!
Not to mention the fact that you tagged me in a comment about Trump, and when I responded to your comment, you accused me of being obsessed with the topic. Can you see why I’d say that feels like entrapment?
Here’s a few more:
Sure seems like politics rule this integral life space for you?
While technically a question, this is also preloaded with your conclusion. It’s not really a question, but an accusation. “Sure seems like you used to beat your wife.”
Why is your passion on right/left politics so intense?
Begging the question. I have all sorts of passions. I probably spend more time talking about art than I do politics, for example But I’ve already explained where some of this “passion” comes from — in this case, a total undermining of our political, media, academic, and governing institutions coming from the right side of the aisle. You see, sometimes a “trans-partisan view” is capable of saying “this party is fundamentally broken, and is capable of breaking our democracy.” As we came close to seeing on January 6th.
please lead the political reform
Am I not allowed to have political opinions and views unless I am leading a political movement?
But since you asked, I do have a plan to “fix the world”, but is clearly not something I can actually do myself, or have any real influence over, so I focus on sustaining a platform where more integral ideas can grow and spread and gather influence. And I’ve mentioned my plan in this very thread, even!
Here’s the plan:
Repeal the 1929 Reapportionment Act that places an artificial cap on the number of representatives in the House, and skews influence toward less populated states. This fixes the Electoral College problem without requiring a Constitutional Amendment.
Ranked choice in all 50 states. This eliminates the spoiler effect and allows more moderate candidates to be selected by voters, as well as space for more parties to emerge without being forced into a binary set of coalitions. This fixes the two party problem and brings us closer to a more parliamentary system that can “hold the center” much more adequately that a two party system possibly could.
Preserve and supplement the 2nd Amendment with a mandatory service in a peace corp/national guard like service that brings all young Americans together, regardless of class, races, sex, gender, etc. and puts them in service of a greater good, while training them to respect and wield firearms. This rekindles a healthy American nationalism, gets guns out of our collective shadow, and helps eliminate tribalism by putting people in contact with perspectives unlike their own.
So that’s my plan! Elect me in 2024 and we will make it happen. Yes we can!
What is your mission and purpose with integral life?
Honestly, thank you for this opportunity to reflect. It’s nice to touch base with purpose.
- to support the continued emergence of integral ideas,
- to support the constellation of integral souls,
- to continue my own development by surrounding myself with like-minded and like-hearted people,
- to help re-cohere a shared epistemology to bring us out of the aperspectival social media era of narcissism, nihilism, and conspiracy lunacy,
- to engage in heartfelt, intelligent discussions around any number of topics, including politics,
- when it comes to politics, to center the integral political framework itself, and demonstrate how far from an “integral center” our own political system has drifted. Rather than a weak “enlightened centrism” that tries to hover above the fray by saying things like “both parties are equally bad”, instead we can note that, yes, sometimes one political party is far worse than another when it comes to a given issue.
What steps can I take to support the endeavor?
Remain in dialogue. Take and give feedback. Do your own work to make sure you aren’t projecting your own shadows onto others. Find ways to apply these big and beautiful ideas in your own sphere of influence. Oh and keep listening to my shows! (Okay that last one was a bit self-serving.)
what do you recommend?
As a general recommendation – not to you specifically, but to anyone trying to think about politics in a more integral way, I’ll unpack my comments about “enlightened centrism” above. I do not think the integral path is one of “enlightened centrism” that is based on the idea that “both parties are equally bad, and do equally bad things” or that “we need to include 50% of one party and 50% of the other party”. That to me is a product of lazy thinking, above-it-all-ism, and totally lacking a sense of healthy proportionality. The funny/ironic thing is, this kind of lazy centrism actually has no center, because its center shifts as soon as the Overton window shifts. As soon as one party pushes to an extreme, it drags the perceived “center” along with it.
I am trying to pursue an integral centrism that uses the integral framework itself to identify whether a particular leader or political social holon are behaving like grownups. Which is why I generally agree with Jonathan Haidt that, while we are certainly seeing political extremism on both sides of the political aisle (an inevitable result of the social media age), the GOP has become far more compromised by this extremism than the DNC. And because I want to transcend and include healthy conservatism, I feel very strongly that the regressive MAGA-GOP movement needs to be negated in order to preserve a healthy system (while simultaneously understanding the conditions that resulted in the emergence of MAGA in the first place, and addressing those conditions).
Because to “transcend and include” is simultaneously to “negate and preserve”. We don’t include the cancer cells. Which means that sometimes we need some friction, some conflict, some confrontation in order to eliminate those cancer cells.
I sort of see it like a quadrant diagram (not Ken’s quadrants). You can be right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons. But you can also be wrong for the wrong reasons, or right for the right reasons.
We can automatically include green (not Ken’s colors). Meanwhile, we can learn from orange, and we can fix yellow — so both of those have true-but-partials that can be carefully transcluded. If one political party was more-often in the yellow, and the other more-often in the orange, I’d be more inclined to lean yellow at the polls, depending on the proportionality of the issues. But red can’t be included, it needs to be negated in order to preserve the other three.
I think some of the regular people who attended Jan 6 — but didn’t actually break into the capitol building — were in the yellow quadrant. I think the majority of them — particularly the ones who did break in the capitol — were in the red quadrant.
Trump, Eastman, Giuliani, and all the others who actually conspired to overthrow the election using a phony legal theory and a manufactured fog of war, who counted on being the victors who would write the history, were squarely in the red — and it’s one of the most egregious and malignant examples of red that we’ve seen in modern political history, which needs to be aggressively stamped out.
Now I’ll switch back to Ken’s colors
As Wilber says, we don’t deal with Nazis (or any other malignant red/amber group by surrounding them with loving-kindness meditations, but through superior firepower, period. Which is why my disdain for MAGA is coming as much from my own healthy amber, as it is from any higher altitude in my stack. This is not a partisan take, it is a post-partisan take that is not afraid to hold a particular individual or social holon accountable.
Which certainly does not mean we should go along calling everyone we disagree with a “Nazi”. But it does mean that genuinely regressive political movements exist, and whenever we see genuinely malignant red/amber gaining influence in our political system (as we did on January 6th), we push against it, and we push hard, without fear that someone might call us “partisan”. This is the trap of two-party politics — the Overton window swings wildly, and with it goes our perceived “center”, because that “center” is only defined relative to the current status of these parties.
There is nothing our nation needs more right now than a genuine worldcentric conservatism. And there is nothing preventing that “deep conservatism” from emerging more than the regressive MAGA movement itself. As an integralist, I care about that very much.
I hope that answers your questions! And I hope that you can see that I am indeed passionate about these topics — I love having them, I love learning from our disagreements, and I love finding new ways to use the model to discern more of reality and better differentiate right and wrong, action and intent. And I sincerely do regret if you think any of our interactions have been “hostile”, I certainly have no ill will toward you whatsoever, you seem like a very intelligent, authentic, and peace loving dude! Honestly I think much of it is because all this takes place on a text-only platform, making it easy to misread intent, without being able to catch misunderstandings in the moment. For example, I read your initial intent bringing up this thread again, and posting the dismissal of Trump’s subpoena, as trying to be deliberately – but playfully – provocative. Which is totally okay with me, and can be fun in political discussions! Friendly sparring is always allowed, and sometimes preferred! Maybe it’s because your phrasing was so short in your comment, as was mine in my response, that we interpreted each other as being more terse than we intended. That’s probably why I often overuse emojis.
And I certainly agree with you that when we are having those “right and wrong” conversations, we need to do our best to keep our emotions clean, since it’s so easy for our moral line to hijack the emotional line. And we always need to be as skillful in our actions as we can, with the shared intent to reduce suffering in others as much as ourselves.
Happy new year!