welcoming community to all points of view
I do not see this an an either/or. Again, to paraphrase Ken, we do not deal with malignant red/amber movements (i.e. an attempted overthrow of our Constitution) by surrounding them with loving-kindness meditations. I personally believe the integral vision represents one of both compassion and discernment, perhaps best represented by the bodhisattva Manjushri (who Ken has often been compared to). There are definitely fights that I don’t want to “keep going”, but they can only be ended via a swift cut of Manjushri’s flaming blade.
If you want the fight to keep going, the best thing you can do is ignore it. Which is tempting to the ego, because it allows it to feel superior, more compassionate, more wise, without ever needing to get its hands dirty, and without needing to actually do anything to end the fight.
Here’s a way to think about it. Integral thinking consists of three primary principles:
The first is “non-exclusion”. This I think is what you are likely looking for in this forum, which you express as “I would like see this forum upgraded to be a spiritually positive and an open-minded, welcoming community to all points of view” — everyone is invited, everyone can speak their truth, let’s get it all on the table. Which is an essential part of the integral synthesis. This is also the preferred principle of healthy green. “Everyone is right.” (Though even this has its boundaries — non-exclusion requires people to speak truth to their own zones of mastery, and not to impose those truths onto other zones it’s not capable of addressing.)
The next is “enfoldment”. This is where things get a bit more tricky. This is where we use both our heart and our intellect to pull everyone’s respective truth together into a coherent understanding of our shared reality. This is the synthesis stage. And it always comes with tension, friction, and even conflict, because some arguments are going to be more true, and others are going to be more partial. No one wants to be partially right, no one wants their view to be subsumed into someone else’s larger, possibly better view.
That color-coded chart I posted above was one attempt to frame this enfoldment process — we take a look at the arguments, and try to figure out both right/wrong actions, and right/wrong reasons behind those actions. Because that first step of “non-exclusion” breaks down completely when we are trying to included wrong actions for wrong reasons. This is where green gets stuck — in the “paradox of tolerance”. If you’ve read Boomeritis, you know that Ken predicted that as soon as green became the status quo of our discourse (as it has in the social media era), red and amber quickly win the game, because it plays that paradox of tolerance against green. And I think it’s important that we work together to help this community avoid that same trap.
And this principle of enfoldment should be done skillfully, of course, and respectfully. It should be done in service of reducing suffering for all of us. It requires a grounded spiritual warriorship.
The important thing here is, without enfoldment, non-exclusion becomes pathological. It becomes aperspectival madness — we invite all the perspectives, but without a way to integrate them, they all slide frictionless across each other. It becomes Twitter.
And the last principle is “enactment”. In other words, if you want to know this, do that. A reminder to constantly verify and falsify our views, as well as each other’s.
This is how integral knowledge, wisdom, and skillful compassion are generated, I believe. All of which are components of a more integral spirituality. At least from my perspective.