Good question @raybennett - First paragraph sums up where I was coming from.
From an integral Quadrants perspective, I wonder what motivated the gay couple to not simply go to another of many cake bakers in Denver? What level, altitude, quadrant was the couple coming from?
My question was hopeful of identifying areas of agreement on the authoritarian topics or tactics, for or against?
The Constitution clearly states that there are several categories that cannot be discriminated against. So of course businesses have to follow the constitution. The reason this was placed in the constitution is that it was deemed necessary by the majority of the population at the time. At some point in the future society might progress to the point and make these laws unnecessary.
THE GAY WEDDING CAKE
Here are the facts of the matter:
A business refused to make a Gay Wedding Cake
The customers complained to the county commission, who took action against the business
The Supreme Court ruled that the county commission had no right to do what it did in the way it did it
So the Gay Wedding Cake is a great big straw man. The law of the land now is that if you want to challenge a businesses right to deny service, you better have a damn good case, cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s and do your homework. And that’s how it should be. That’s my personal opinion. If another case comes up then the standards are set high and we’ll be able to better refine the law on a more worthy case. Just being offended is not a case the Supreme Court is even willing to look at.
I don’t even think this is relevant to my point of view. I would say they obviously have some kind of childhood trauma that affects them, but that doesn’t mean anything to me in deciding if they should or should not have been refused service. Maybe you can tell us what you think about their quadrants and levels but honestly I think making those judgments about other people isn’t what Integral is about.
Wonderful question
Answer - it 100% starts with you @excecutive. (and me, but let’s talk about you, lol) If an issue is emotionally charged for you, then you have to recognize that and understand that your judgement is already skewed going in. It’s not the emotionally charged topic that is the “problem” - the problem is that you have an emotional charge about it. Inevitably emotions will influence people’s decisions. The bridge of all these emotionally charged issues is you. You have the emotional charge. @excecutive I judge that you are ready to take this deep dive.
After we recognize our own emotional charges - then we can address a topic at whatever tier we think is most practical or effective.
Authoritarianism is an issue and it’s a very dangerous one. The problem I see is when people go into the topic ruled by their emotions they easily see the “other side’s” authoritarianism clearly, or even make it up - but fail to see their own authoritarianism coming out.
This is what we see clearly in the whole desire to control social media. A completely tyrannical idea and also a terrible idea. Because then what will they do when the government is Liberal and also controls what is on social media? Answer: complain, be butt hurt and express outrage. Completely stupid IMO. Give the government control of what social media can and cannot publish? Are people out of their fucking minds 
But they are ruled by their emotional charges and only see the short term us-vs them and come up with really bad decisions in this frame of mind.
“Oh, but someone sued someone for not making a gay wedding cake” - Yeah, and they LOST, lol. What’s the point?
@steljarkos says he is losing his patience with the whole woke agenda - yeah, I see that … and also has an emotional charge that prevents him from presenting well structured ideas.
GEORGE FLOYD
A policeman violates a man’s human rights and kills him. There is also a dubious prior history between the two.
The African American community rallies around this and turns Floyd into a martyr
The police don’t know how to react so they “retreat”
Logically, the problem is that police needs to be reformed. Other democracies don’t have this problem, so it’s clearly not the only way to do police work. The “police vs community” paradigm has got to go.
But somehow this gets turned around into somehow being a problem with “wokism” because people have an emotional charge and want to blame “them”. Again, rather than looking at the problem, or their own emotional reaction to the problem and misdirecting it against their perceived enemy, their emotional charge is first directed at their enemy and then afterwards they make a convoluted argument that makes zero logical sense to support it.
I agree that this is one of the primary life conditions that we are facing as a still-emerging global society. And my hope is that it is one of the life conditions that helps integral emerge in a more full-throated way. I just think it requires a somewhat different language to make proper sense of, and comparisons to “public commons” don’t work for the reasons I mentioned in my last comment. I think there is likely a deliberate effort by malicious actors to repeat the “public commons” frame as often as possible, in order to hasten the privatization of public resources, which I personally think we should all resist.
But yes, we are suspended between dystopian nightmares – misinformation and aperspectival madness on one side, and authoritarian censorship on the other. Sometimes it feels like a binary choice – we can have 100% of one, or 100% of the other. What are we to do?
Really, I think the problem is with the platforms and algorithms themselves, all of which are built upon flat postmodern assumptions about how people communicate and congregate together. There really is an unavoidable “flatness” to these platforms, where all views and values sort of slide across each other with no built-in mechanism of enfoldment to help people discern “more true” from “less true”, and where a small number of people can dominate the discourse simply by yelling the loudest. It used to be that the cacophony of public views and values had some degree of meritocratic curation and moderation, at least in terms of how they are represented by “the media”. This more centralized approach certainly had its downsides, but at the very least it helped create a more cohesive “shared reality” between and among people.
But information moves very differently in Zone 7 these days, which has in turn dramatically reshaped our culture, our behaviors, and even our immediate consciousness. Sometimes in noticeable ways, and other times it feels like that old “boiling a frog” metaphor. We have almost totally shifted from a centralized orange “mainstream media” model where all information was filtered through a handful of minimally-orange perspectives (think: Walter Cronkite) to a decentralized green “social media” model where people began to curate their own informational terrain. And a whole new slew of issues, challenges, and life conditions have emerged from that. Fortunately, some new possibilities too, I think.
The good news is, something new will most likely come down the line at some point in the future, new platforms that are better equipped at handling these problems. And they will, almost by necessity, be at least somewhat integally-informed – not because a small crowd of integral busybodies demand it, but because it simply does a better job of prioritizing “good information” over “bad information”, better incentivizes “generative enfoldment” rather than constant division, has some perspectival algorithms beneath it that can recognize higher/deeper/wider points of view, and allows people to simply feel better in their own UL for using it.
My hope is that these problems become so painful that we naturally begin selecting for better platforms – not because they are more or less “integral”, but simply because of the immediate pain relief that they would offer.
I keep hoping the leadership team over at Google has a series of spontaneous satoris that leads them to an awakened appreciation of the complexity here, and prompts them to start building their own “integral semiotic algorithms” and AIs that can actually transform the web into the sort of ‘giga-glossary’ that Ken Wilber has fantasized about for decades 
No hope necessary Google, Facebook, and Twitter all have these in place and are actively massaging what you can even see. All in the name of transforming our society and culture (and just so happen to make a lot of money and insure future monies).
Did you think that seeing Arabic would somehow throw me into fear mode, lol? I don’t know Arabic so I haven’t the foggiest idea if they are exchanging baking recopies or coordinating terrorist activities.
Can you show me where this is listed as a terrorist Organization by Homeland security?
If it isn’t officially listed by homeland security - yeah - you have to translate and show me they are coordinating terrorist attacks through their twitter feed.
If they are not listed as a terrorist organization by homeland security - maybe YOU ask homeland security why not? Maybe you can blame it on Biden now, lol even though the prior administration had 4 years to figure out how the list works.
I see no evidence of an integral semiotic engine operating in the background, which I think would be essential for this sort of genuine transformation. It’s no longer “social engineering”, but a new kind of social cartography
And there are also precautions you can take to not participate.
But rather than do hard work yourself and sacrifice the conveniences they offer - you just use their free services without precautions and complain about it.
A perfect lowkey saint-victim-persecutor triangle.
“Oh, I’m a victim because I have no choice but to use free services that I don’t even need.”
puke
Apologies Corey. You are absolutely correct. The semiotic engines are actively running the background performing “social engineering”. They’re just not Integral
I don’t see Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan listed.
Can you provide a more direct link?
Hell, most browsers give you ways to opt out of much of the social engineering these days — just use incognito mode, and/or a VPN.
But seriously – imagine a YouTube algorithm for its “Suggested Videos” section that, rather than sending people down multiple rabbit holes of misinformation (“Plandemic!” “90% of vaccinated people will be dead in 9 months!” “The MyPillow guy says Trump won the election!”), instead it was able to accurately gauge the semiotics of a given video, and then create a new list of suggested videos that is populated with content that is developmentally one or two half-steps up the ladder, bringing people back UP the rabbit hole, rather than further down it.
Currently, Google/YouTube is very much responsible for the further radicalization of both the right and the left, because all a privately owned mega-corporation can do is pursue its own profit motive. And there is much profit to be made in a rabbit hole, because it keeps people’s eyes on the screen, which allows you to serve them more ads.
All the more reason why I refuse to hand the keys to the “public commons” over to these guys. Let’s address and hopefully solve these problems, yes, but without embracing the neoliberal wet dream of privatizing everything under the sun.
Yes - so banning the new Government of Afghanistan because the same members were in the Taliban would be analogous to banning the whole Republican party and all of Trumps family, not just Trump for their continued support of the attempted overthrow of the legal government of the United States…
So is this what you are going for? Banning every person and entity with links to both foreign (IEA) and domestic terrorism (Trump Organization & Family & Republican party
Did I read you incorrectly? I thought I read one of your posts as Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al are NOT the public commons so therefore can “do what they want” with their Terms of Service.
If Facebook, Twitter, Google/Youtube are NOT the public commons today, what would you consider as the public commons today?
I mean, can you google?
That’s a bit of an extreme example. I would start first with the “violent criminals that have committed acts of mass murder” but then stop somewhere short of “everyone that doesn’t agree with me”. LOL
I LOVE the idea of Digital Commons. Sadly it’s really a noosphere’ish concept compared to FB, Goog/Youtube, Twitter.
I’ve already answered this, I think the internet itself should be considered “public commons”, with all the net neutrality protections that involves.
Platforms are privately owned. Public commons are, well, publicly owned. Same reason we don’t sell the Rocky Mountain National Park to Mobile-Exxon
Alex Jones is not entitled to use, say, the Integral Life platform in order to amplify his voice. But he does have a right to host his own website, create his own social media platform, etc. (unless he breaks the law and is banned by his ISP, of course.)
Really? So you want twitter to investigate people’s lives and determine if they have a criminal record (then later add in if they have had an abortion (which is murder under Christian Law), or if they have ejaculated outside a vagina (which is also against Christian Law).
You want twitter to investigate people and organizations outside of what they actually say on twitter?
lol Trump would have ben banned in 2015 if they did that, lol.
