Hawaiian Ryan, to follow up on some of your post–
Re: your question “…if we were running for president and wanted to include interiors, how would these be presented or framed in a way that doesn’t come across as new age fluff (at the expense of real policy substance).”
Great question. In my opinion, one of the most effective ways might be under the umbrella of the Beauty, Goodness, Truth trio. These terms are broad enough to encompass all religions/traditions, races, genders, political persuasions; they can be applied in both personal and transpersonal ways; they speak to values and morals/ethics; and they have manifestations in the exteriors. Taken in whole, they cover all quadrants. While they have roots in some spiritual texts, they’re more elaborated in philosophy (which lessens the “woo-woo” or fluff factor), and of course, through the Integral lens. I imagine you’re quite aware of them, given your study of philosophy and integral, but if you want to refresh your knowledge and stoke your imagination, here’s an Integral Life resource: https://integrallife.com/good-true-beautiful.
Marianne Williamson seems to be addressing interiors through use of the Great Chain of Being (matter, body, mind, soul, spirit), and also drawing on her work with the Course in Miracles, and differentiating some of the teachings of the C in M from mainstream Christian religion. She has a healing/therapeutic orientation as part of her politics, so she emphasizes love and forgiveness, particularly as antidotes to fear, per C in M teachings. She is identifying the spiritual principles as well as the values behind her policies, one example being reparations for African- and Native Americans whom she (and NY Times columnist David Brooks (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/case-for-reparations.html) see as having suffered moral injury.
And yet, having said all that, I did notice in her conversation with Yang that she herself was noting that “establishment” politicians also use ‘love-language,’ and it seemed she was/is still searching for how to best express her views and vantage points in ways that have depth and uniqueness, in order to differentiate herself from that love-language pack.
I have no problem with Marianne Williamson’s language or approach, but I imagine plenty of others might gyrate hearing God and soul talk. I think the beauty-goodness-truth approach might speak to a wider swath of the population. It’s pertinent to people at any stage of development. It doesn’t favor any particular religion/spiritual tradition, and yet, can be applied to them all, including one’s own
And when is the last time in the dirty world of politics you heard use of the word ‘beauty’ when speaking of values, morals and such? I think in the right hands, it would be a powerful frame, while forwarding the integral message.