Integrated Justice




I want to suggest the concept of Integrated Justice as a goal and as a tool to evaluate cultures and societies at each level of their development. Many in the Integral movement have lived a good part of their lives on the Postmodern level where the cultures in which they were born has determined their values and the way they see the world. When we acknowledging this about themselves and others, it results in there being no way to evaluate others’ views or even our own values. I believe this has happened because persons become embedded in Postmodern thinking without remembering that Postmodernism is a development out of former levels of development and that a healthy Postmodernism should be integrating the former levels into its thoughts and practices. We should be seeking a worldview that integrates all former levels and thus supports Integrated Justice.

Integrated Justice asks any culture at whatever level it is at whether it has found a healthy way to integrate the needs and values of the previous levels in the way it thinks about itself and the way it has organized itself. At the first Archaic level, the infant has it basic needs met for food, warmth, and concern for its wellbeing. When we move to the next level, the Tribal stage, it is the family and/or small community that become central and valued most. Whatever form that Tribal level takes, it should be evaluated not only by the health of the tribe but also by how it also takes care of the Archaic needs. When the third egocentric or individualistic level appears where the individual begins to focus on their self as independent of the tribe, again Integrated Justice wants to ask whether the culture and society created to support individualism but also whether it has integrated the needs and values of the former two levels. The same concern needs to be advanced when culture and society become Traditional with its rules and roles that allow individuals to believe they are supporting their neighbor and God by fulfilling a given role; then Modern with its objective focus on facts; and finally Postmodern where the influence of culture is recognized. Each new level, to be healthy, should integrate the needs and values of all the former levels – it should provide Integrated Justice.

So, at this Postmodern level where various people claim they have the truth and have a culture to support them in their claim, we should ask each one whether our cultures promote Integrated Justice, whether our different cultures have found a place for the needs and values of former levels. We should start by asking ourselves whether the culture in which we participate passes the test of Integrated Justice. Are there some levels that are given preference over others? Are there some levels that are ignored? We may find that we have some work to do in cleaning up our own culture. While we are seeking to change our culture with its social structures, we can be open about our weaknesses to those who see the world very differently as we ask them to evaluate their views with the tool of Integrated Justice. Perhaps we can help each other see the flaws in the other’s
own views. We should also be open to the probability that more than one culture with its social structures can meet the standard of Integrated Justice. When such happens, we can rejoice in the plenitude of the Spirit working among us.


I thought this article on Wokism as Religion was worth discussing, read your post, and think might point to your question about postmodernism needing to be introspect and inclusive. I think roughly 50% of the US population sees much of the postmodern movement as regressive, not progressive, and definitely not transformative. While a contentious with the Woke echo chamber, it might be more effective to focus on inclusion of the Unwoke. Leaving a slight majority or slight minority out of the discussions might be too much headwind for any meaningful change. And if Wokism is a new regressive religion as the article conjectures postmodernism would need to coarse correct.


I do not understand how this is a response to the article I submitted. I proposed a standard, Integrated Justice, by which we could all evaluate the cultures in which we participate. The implication is that no side is totally right. All sides, including Postmodernism, needs to be self-critical and admit its shortcomings.

I am told that my article is “Wokism as Religion”. I thought I was discussing our cultural ideas about social structures and their limitations using concepts I have learned from reading and meditating on the work of Ken Wilber. I did use the word “Spirit” once but not in relation to any religion.

Is there anyone who would like to give their response to Integrated Justice, as I have defined it, as a goal and standard?


Who will administer this justice? If we take individual cultures and remain true to their tribal decrees to administer integral justice which culture would that be? Would we have 7 world integral justice systems with different justice?

millerdr your article does seem to read as “Wokism Religion”. To provide some clarity may I ask that you define your ideas down a path of any hot topic issue, abortion, homosexuality, policing, prostitution, etc. Please explain your proposed standard of Integrated Justice, and how it would be administered and by whom?


@millerdr I’m not trying to throw you off your tack, do see connecting threads, but will leave you to your chosen discussion track. Cheers!


The basic concept is “Integrate.” When you move to a new level or stage of development, you should not reject all former levels but seek to integrate the human needs and values into the new level. You create a new whole that looks very different than the former level(s) and includes the needs and values of the former. I am not suggesting 7 different justice systems but one cultural understanding where that has integrated all that has gone before.

Who would administer such an Integrated Justice? In our current American society, public opinion has a significant role to play. If public opinion changes, then congress may act with new laws that are then enforced by our courts. In my lifetime, there have been some significant changes that have taken place in our culture. Of course, there are those who have fought those changes, but a significant majority have accepted them.

I would suggest three: first, when I was growing up, smoking tobacco was encouraged in ads and movies. If you were going to be a real man, you smoked. That cultural idea has changed through the years. A second one is divorce. In rural Ohio where I grew up, divorce was a scandal. Anyone who got a divorce should be shunned. A big change was made with no-fault divorce laws but now divorce is often seen as no big deal. A third change is our attitude toward homosexuality. It was not too long ago that homosexual persons had to live in the shadows for their own safety. But our culture has changed so that homosexual persons can come out of the closet and even get married. I am amazed at how quickly that change came about. Yes, there are those who are still fighting that change and want it reversed, but for now it remains in effect.

So, changes in our American culture have and are happening. I am asking if a review of the levels or stages of human development that each of us has gone through and that humanity has gone through since we existed as hunters and gatherers might provide a basis for a wholistic goal that might be promoted in our culture.

Finally, would you tell me why it is important to call my ideas “Wokism”? If you can tag my ideas as Woke, then what?


I re-read your original and subsequent posts and think you are using the term Integrated Justice, not as a next level of Social Justice as I originally thought, but in a much broader sense - say overall Modern to Post Modern, Green to Teal development.

Based on this, my initial thoughts are:

  • agree that changes are happening in the US
  • integration is the key - more integration yields healthier progression and reduces regressive moves
  • Isn’t our Democratic process already enabling (administering) this Integrated Justice development? Isn’t that the beauty and joy of the US system?
  • What’s the problem in letting the very messy Democratic “Integration” process play out - public opinion, voting, law changes/program implementations, public opinion, voting, etc…
  • Is “Integral” an ideology looking for a problem to solve that’s already being solved extremely quickly (relative to humankind development timescales) within what we might consider “outdated” systems?
  • Are these systems and structures as “outdated” as we like to think?


@millerdr Wokism to many people is a positive and advanced concept toward growing up. A new religion of sorts without the God connection. Other people may see this as a regressive idealism almost as a new cult.

Based on your suggested ideals referencing the topics of divorce and homosexuality, please clarify your integrated justice position by answering these simple questions.

  1. Would your suggested positions reflect the popular opinion of the majority of Americans?

  2. Would your suggested integrated ideas be adopted by most societies around the world?

  3. Would you suggest that we take the American system built on the individual as the ideal integrated system?

  4. How would you integrate those who disagree?


Integrated Justice would first of all require a transformation of Democracy. Under Democracy, 51% makes decisions for 100%, and against the will of the 49%.
The larger a Democratic Government gets, the larger the population that is Oppressed.
Republicanism is worse - where the 49% or less rules the Majority. Likewise, other systems of Government that existed before the Republic are even worse.
The Idea of a Nation also requires transformation. I might have more shared values with a community on another Continent, but it is illegal for people to chose their own communities.
Under the current conventional wisdom, we need governments to protect our borders against hordes of outsiders - or use violence and corruption together to disenfranchise the group already there and take their lands.
An Integral Justice would first and foremost require the Majority of military power to respect the rights of communities to live according to their own rules and allow in who they want according to those rules, and also the rights of people to leave if they want.
So a Native American Tribe, for example, would be given their land back, and everyone would respect their rights to live according to their own laws and customs and this would be backed by Orange laws, Amber Border Guards and Red Military that all share these values of true respect for other cultures. So what to do if people want to Return to cult offering human sacrifices? Well, everyone is free to leave. For minors and mentally disabled, there would need to be a universal declaration on the rights of minors and the mentally disabled. Strange we don’t have that already.
In other words, an Integral Justice would have to subsume and transform all levels, with the option to be governed by a local despot if that is how people want to live. Within this is only allowing those in who the community agrees to let in. But the despot is limited by over-arching laws backed by force if necessary. He has to allow people to leave and he cannot encroach upon his neighbors.
This would be interesting. Yes, it would allow an all-White Nation or State of wherever. But they would not be allowed to encroach upon a neighbor. My guess would be that such a state would be filled with cognitively limited and psychologically disturbed people - and without an external enemy to channel energy into fighting it would burn to the ground from within. There would be a brain drain and a talent drain because it would just be a very unpleasant place to live - an ideocracy. However, to move to a new place they would have to agree to the rules of that new place. My prediction is that Teal communities would be the most pleasant to live in, followed by Green communities, then Orange bureaucratic ones, then unpleasant or dangerous communities would just shrink more and more.


@raybennett The “Republicanism” is that in reference the Democratic Republic we have in America or something different?


Interestingly in the US we already have a very similar system today with its many tiers. Arent your altitudes already comprehended at the lower levels by city/county/state alignments? I.e. Blue state Red President, Red state Blue President, Red Gov Blue State Senate, etc?

United Nations
US National/Federal

  • single lead administrator
  • Senate (longer terms, perhaps less reactive)
  • Reps (short terms, perhaps a bit more responsive)
  • Supreme Court - more apolitical, non reactive


  • more granular, closer to the humans they represent
  • State Senators and Reps down to small regions


  • very granular, very responsive


  • extremely granular

Regarding the minors, don’t we already have very special laws specifically protecting minors and their treatment (much already based on developmental psychology)? What specifically are Western countries “missing” that needs to be added or changed?


The huge difference is that the USA is the Opposite of Integral. Yes, we have differing levels of government and different regions with differing views - but none of it is Integral in my opinion. It’s also very binary and “all-or-nothing”. I don’t think Integral means trying to force others to follow your perceived best way for everyone. (which is what both parties are trying to do with national legislation)

We have a Republic in the United States, and in the last 50 years, the Republican Party policy is to follow the Republic model more closely and the Democratic Party less so.
Republicanism refers to both the Historical meaning of the word republic, and also the policies of the Republican Party of the United States.


Might I guess you’ve never been involved in family court, lol?
There’s quite a lot wrong with current laws, in addition to the fact that we rely on Laws (Orange) as the highest authority.
Regardless, the situation is that both Republicans and Democrats are trying to force all children to be reared the way they see fit. For example, can schools teach about Jesus Christ? Can schools teach about birth control options? Multiply that by thousands of such issues and we see that laws (while necessary) are a crude and primitive means of solving problems.


The Democrats currently control the House, Senate, and Whitehouse. So let’s put on our Teal dancing shoes!


I’m not sure if you understand what I wrote or if you are unable to think beyond Republican and Democrat. My poi t is that nothing about US Federal State or Municipal Governments are even remotely ready for any kind if Integral justice.


You’ve written a lot that I thought to be a reaction to your own specific personal experiences and I didn’t want to react to your reactions. I’m sorry you went through family court and whatever else you’ve been through that didn’t work so well for you. I too am not ecstatic about every detail of the system that we have today and have also had several of my own disappointments in life. But overall I do think that by any measurable criteria we (in USA, in the Western have the most inclusive diverse economy and governmental system that humankind has ever put together in all of history (most Pre-Integral?). I think it’s really easy for each of us, and collectively, to see what we want to see: life sucks and it’s getting worse, never dreamt I would have the amazing vibrant life I have, weather the horrific disappointments and setbacks that I’ve survived…

My “political” comment is that if you’re aligned with Left/Progressive/Democrat agendas, YOU ARE IN COMPLETE CONTROL right now - House, Senate, Whitehouse, GAFAM/FAANG. You don’t even need to bother with being inclusive. Just get crackin’ and change things!


I want to share the following in response to the many responses.

  1. In my former post about significant changes in American culture, I did not mean that I always agree with changes in our culture. I only wanted to illustrate that our culture does change significantly over time. I believe that we all should be evaluating the culture in which we participate and seek to clean it up in terms of our values. It may seem as if culture controls us rather than our being able to influence it. We can stand up for ideas in conversations with friends, in letters to the editor, in posts to websites, and so forth. We should not be passive when it comes to the culture in which we participate. We should be active in promoting ideas and telling stories that promote our values.

  2. When I talk about the needs and values of each level of human development, I believe different groups work out the culture for that level in very different ways. Traditional cultures in the East are very different from cultures in the West and yet they both are traditional. One Traditional culture can do a much better job treating all its members justly than another one. One culture can change over time so starvation that was very limited becomes quite prevalent or vice versa.

  3. I would like to talk about how the needs of one level of human development can be integrated into later levels. Raybennet mentioned human sacrifice which was part of some tribal societies. That was the level before individuals saw themselves as independent of their tribe. Their identity was as part of a tribe. So, the perpetuation and well-being of the tribe was all important. It was a privilege to be sacrificed for the tribe’s future. We can see the way this idea was integrated in new levels of development in the Hebrew Scriptures. The early leaders of the tribes (Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob) were Individualists or egocentrists. We have the story of Abraham hearing God/Spirit tell him to sacrifice his son Issac. Just as he is about to do it, he is stopped and told to sacrifice a ram. At the Individualist level there was still a sacrifice being made to make the spirits happy, but it was now an animal sacrifice. By the time we get into the early traditional level, there is a whole sacrificial system with designated roles for those who will perform the sacrifice. The people are still making sacrifices to please the Spirits and to make themselves sense that they are at peace with God. If we skip forward to the Christian Tradition, animals are no longer sacrificed but Jesus Christ is seen as the sacrifice for human sin. When participants receive the Eucharist elements, symbols of the sacrifice, they feel they are cleansed and are at one with God. In modern level cultures, while many still practice the Eucharist, we lift up those who have died for our values. We erect statues and name highways and buildings after them. And we ourselves give extra time or money, sacrifice, to support causes or groups we believe are important for the well-being of the groups in which we participate. So, there is no longer any human sacrifice, but we still have a need to sacrifice in some way for the well-being of our tribe.

  4. For me, Wilber’s Integral Thought provides a map or operating system to understand the world we live in. I got into Wilber when I was baffled by Conservative Christians who insisted they had the correct answers and so refused to talk through issues and maybe find common ground. That was so foreign to the way I thought that I was baffled by it. The idea that there were different levels of human development and people at different levels thought in different ways and valued different things was revelatory for me. I had lived most of my life on the modern level and was slowly moving into postmodern. They were at the traditional level and, because of their battles with modernism, were crystallized in traditionalism. It did not help my dealing with them but at least I had a theory that explained it.

I am now in my mid-80s and am trying to move beyond Postmodernism into 2nd Tier. There are two things I am trying to do. First, I want to find an empathetic understanding of each of the former levels. Yes, we can be critical of Traditionalism from Modernist or Postmodernist point of view. And there have been a lot of Traditional Level Cultures that promoted bad things. But what is the positive core of Traditionalism so that many persons in Traditional cultures have found meaning and fulfillment living in them? Can I be empathetic with other levels of human development and discover their positive core values? The second thing I am trying to do is be self-analytical and ask what happened to me when I went through those levels and have I found a healthy way to integrate those core values in my current life. And then I want to analyze the culture I identify with and ask whether it has found a way to incorporate or integrate the core values of each level into a healthy whole. If I can identify the positive elements as well as the short comings of the culture in which I participate, perhaps I can understand the positive elements in someone else’s culture and not spend so much useless time focusing on their short comings. In the process, I might be humbled by what I have found in my own culture and, by understanding the positive elements of other cultures, not come across as so self-righteous in dealing with them.

  1. By talking about Integrated Justice, I am trying to find a point of view, a set of values, that will help us humans move toward a healthier society. I am, and I believe those reading this, are Americans. We have a form of government in which individuals are supposed to be heard. What are the values and processes that would be helpful as well as healthful for us to promote and encourage?

This is enough for one post.

  • Which is not a progressive way to do things.
  • I’m not sure if you are using “you” as a general addressing all progressives, or more specifically.
  • Progressives are nowhere near in complete control. That’s the point - because of the rules of the Senate, how Senate Seats are allocated to low population and high population areas equally, the constitution giving the Supreme Court authority to cancel legislation they deem unconstitutional, and a dozen other things - a minority can stop the wishes of the majority. That’s how Republics work and that’s how the constitution was written - to make sure Democracy was limited.

I’d really like to stress this and strongly agree. Cognitive bias is very noticeable in many of these discussions. It’s easier for many people to assign another person or group a simple role rather than face a complex issue. To bring up straw men again, lol … cognitive bias in a way can be unvoiced straw manning. The majority of people just assume in their heads that another person has a simple point of view, and easily presents a simple argument against it. This is endemic at both ends of the political spectrum, but I notice it’s in the nature of the Right to be more overtly aggressive with it and knock you over the head with it, while Left is usually more subtle and / or Passive Aggressive with it.
I had no idea what GAFAM/FAANG is before googling it.
But they seem to be dog whistles among a certain group of people that represent cognitive bias and project a simplistic argument that they can easily overcome and “win” against. This is a tendency I see amongst people who spend too much time drinking a certain flavor of cool aid.


I’ve been increasingly thinking that for myself my role personally won’t be all of humanity, but probably a closer knit small group. I think there are huge tracts of humanity who honestly don’t want a healthier society, but want to remain where they are in the spectrum.
Transmutation into the unknown is scary and without a support network available to them it can spin off in all kinds of directions. Some are able to let go and land on their feet while some need a structure to grasp. I don’t think there exists an Integral structure of this type yet. There are structures in waking up, cleaning up and growing up separately but it kind of feels like Integral is a “sink or swim” learning method right now. Like the movie where John Wayne teaches a kid to swim by throwing him into a lake.


Hi @millerdr as @raybennett knows I take a spiritual tact with all this Integral stuff. I wanted to address the idea of an Integral Society vs an Integral Life.

The transformation as I see it needs to start with us as individuals, within our own inner-being. Are we able to integrate the lower-levels of thinking within our own comprehension? Sometimes we are all a bit tone-deaf with adopting or integrating a point of view that contradicts our own?

I think when we are able to listen, understand and accept another point of view, especially when it contradicts our own we are being integral. When we can transform our own inner thoughts as individuals, sorting out all the contradictions perhaps we reach an inner integrated wholeness?

Will we see all these broken pieces of society as puzzle pieces that we’ve put together internally for ourselves as the complete the picture of reality?

Perhaps when we reach this perspective we will see all the pieces we thought could not be integrated as absolutely necessary to completing the journey of attaining the wholeness of an Integral life?.