Integral Tipping Point


#1

Another random idea- While the Integral Tipping Point hasn’t happened yet, my guess is that those involved on this site will have a major role in carrying its message.
While it is none of my business how Ken chooses to deliver this theory forward, I have always thought he could do more to promote it. I thought Kosmic Consciousnes was extraordinary but still hope for something similar to Power of Myth with Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers on PBS.
Also, why does Ken not respond back on Twitter (lol)!?
I think this site setup is awesome.
I really do hope this theory is brought up in mainstream media/politics. It would help so many make sense of why there is so much conflict.


#2

I agree that I think there needs to be some kind of “evangelical” Integral effort to better socialize these principles and to make them accessible to the uninitiated. I think the Integral community has the potential to become an insular heterarchy without some efforts to better get the word out. Specifically, I would love to see more of a social media presence, but I also think it would be great if there was an Integral lobbying effort that dealt directly with government given that’s where a lot of the changes Integralism proposes will be most effective.


#3

Pushing it in my work as a lawyer and mediator. The main thing I’ve learnt is that any push on any part of the spiral increases overall evolution. Occasionally I get to work at the cutting edge but mostly it’s amongst the amber and orange. Still, nudge them, they nudge someone. Media has its place but there is a danger of preaching to the converted and annoying everyone else.


#4

Maybe the integral movements needs a cohesive sustainability model. A Union :slight_smile:
Only if we unite the power of all quadrants we can promote a new mode of consciousness, in the same way all previous levels emerged out of being one across all quadrants.


#5

I am at the point where I kind of want to annoy people. I think we are due.


#6

Hmm, lots to think about there. I like to think that there is no distinct Integral movement. You take an integral perspective which provides a context for action. But the action taken as a consequence of that integral perspective is not “integral action” - any integral action that has happened, happened in the taking of the integral perspective- the action taken it is whatever it is.
For example you consider the Alabama abortion bill from an integral perspective. Taking the view from your particular level you see that a woman’s right to make decisions about her body has been removed. You choose to attend a march in support of women’s rights and opposing the law. So far so integral. Your actual attending the march however is not integral behaviour, it is a consequence of your integral behaviour.
Equally, from another integral perspective but one less sophisticated, you may take the view that the sanctity of a fertilised egg outweighs all other considerations, including the welfare of its host. Here the abortion bill, from that integral perspective, is appropriate.
The difficulty with the latter approach is not that it is not integral, because it is integral. Its problem is that it is not sufficiently sophisticated to deal with the issues it raises.


#7

Perhaps we need a Sophistication Movement :wink:


#8

Not sure I completely understand. I am not sure of the distinction of integral behavior and a consequence of my integral behavior. Or why a distinction needs to be made.
Taking the abortion bills, as far as I take it (as Wilber said in his Trump Post Truth book) that the Republicans are basically anti-green. There is nothing integral about that bill. It is clearly hopping on the Regress Express.


#9

Hi Ixvythrs
I guess my understanding of integral is a little different. I believe there is a perspective that says existence is integral: i.e. existence exists in an integral manner. Looking at the Abortion Bill it has an upper left existence in the awareness of people. Take way that awareness and it no longer exists. It has an upper right existence. If there were no paper, screens, neurons etc it wouldn’t exist. Lower right. If there was no senate etc then the bill wouldn’t exist and finally, lower left, it arises within our culture; no culture, no bill.
So Mother Teresa is integral, Hitler is Integral and so on and so forth.
That is a fairly unsophisticated take on life but is necessary to provide a foundation to where we go next which is to have an integral perspective on life. Again we all have an integral perspective on life, just as we all exist integrally. What Ken’s work does is to bring that into our awareness so we can do something with it. For example, when I have a drink of beer I usually do it without any conscious integral perspective. But, thanks to Ken’s work I can do it with an integral perspective. I am aware of the beer on my tongue (upper right) am aware of the taste (upper left), am aware of the social conditioning which takes me into my group of friends to drink beer (lower right) and I’m aware of the whole beer drinking culture thing (lower left). But of itself drinking the beer is integral behaviour only at the lower end of the system i.e. something can only ever exist on an integral basis. Given the lack of differentiation at this level, it doesn’t actually do anything useful to call it integral. Its like calling someone over and saying look at that grass, its made of grass.
So my description of drinking beer is an activity or behaviour that is a consequence of my integral perspective, because what is interesting here in this context is the integral perspective that gave rise to the drinking of beer, not the drinking of beer itself.
Similarly the bill. The bill is a consequence of the perspectives of those people. Now, we can look at the bill as an integral thing, but actually, that’s not what we’re really interested in here. What we are really interested in is the perspectives of the people sponsoring the bill, those opposing the bill, the likely consequences of the bill on other aspects of the society within which it has its place and so on and so forth.
So we can look, for example, at the Governor who signed off the bill (Not sure on terminology here as I’m an English lawyer, not American). If we take apart her behaviour in signing off the bill, it is integral. And there is our interest. Who is she as a person (really interesting), how did she physically sign the bill (hmm, perhaps not so interesting), what is the social aspect of her being (really interesting), what is the cultural aspect of her being (really interesting).
My concern about some aspects of integral analysis is thus: if the analysis comes from the standpoint that if the behaviour exhibited/ choices made, do not come from what we perceive to be the right point on the various levels on lines of development, it is described as non-integral. It is integral, by definition of what integral is. It’s just not what we see as sufficiently right/moral/sophisticated etc. Or we can take an integral perspective of it and clearly state (whilst acknowledging it to be integral) that we find it as clearly hopping on the Regress Express - which, for what it’s worth, is very much my opinion.
I hope that clarifies things a little further.
(Ken and others set this out with a degree of clarity that I find hard to muster when they talk about taking second, third, fourth person perspectives.)