Nationalism for Integralists

In “Inhabit your Democracy”, Corey brought up the topic of Nationalism and how he had a turn-around on this topic after some discussion with his more conservative leaning integrally informed friends.
Well: I am hoping for some enlightenment on this myself (I think this is honest, and not just a way to pretend to want to be “enlightened”, when in reality I just want to prove that my opinion is the right one–at least I hope it is)

So, here is how it appears to me: I can absolutely see many positive, secondary qualities that can come out of nationalism, or qualities that can be honed through nationalism. These include: self-sacrifice for something larger than self (or family or narrow tribe), togetherness and love for others (again a larger group than may be natural to human nature), self-esteem (if it is otherwise lacking), the simple joy and beauty of joining in some common traditions or values, and there are probably a few others.

BUT: I cannot quite see how this is more than a transition-phase or a stepping stone, or how these qualities aren’t even more present and even stronger and have far fewer down-sides, when moving to a more world-centric view. So, I can see nationalism as a transition-phase (obviously, if you’re centered in Red, it is a great step up), but not how it is in itself such a valuable thing that needs to be preserved as we move beyond it. Why is nationalism required in a world-centric world? How is the very concept of “a nation” not completely arbitrary? (yes, historically it is what we have to deal with, but how is it a universally true concept that needs to be preserved, as we move on?

It bothers me to some extent that I cannot quite understand this, and I interpreted Corey’s comment at the end of the video to mean that he understood nationalism now as something universally true and good and necessary (and not just something that he tolerates in people as a kind of: “well that is great, that you have this as a stepping stone, but eventually you’ll grow out of it, as I have”…which, I am afraid to admit, is closer to how I see it, when I am truly honest.)

So: What is a good argument for the universal value of nationalism that can not be replaced or transcended by world-centrism or what would be lost, if we found ourselves in a world where nations (and therefore nationalism) simply weren’t a reality?

I might guess what’s bothering you is forgetting (as I do sometimes) that this isn’t merely “transcend” but “transcend AND INCLUDE.” Pick the things of nationalism (tribalism) that work and bring them along with you: proprietary science, fair taxation, military (admitting that other countries will be at a tribal wanna be conquering state for at least our lifetimes, optimizing competitive trade systems and production, etc. What bothers me about TRUMP’S “nationalism” is the underlying “we suck and give up competing, so let’s put up the drawbridge and pretend we don’t suck.” An example would be our reticence to copy other countries’ FAR more effective approaches to health care. Trump’s nationalism is based on gaslighting and used-to-bes. Integral nationalism should be honest.

Thanks for the reply, Scott. I think what I am looking for are some arguments that really hold up nationalism as an ideal in itself.
I can see bringing some of the qualities along (to me they are more things like self-sacrifice to something larger and other internal qualities like that) and I can also see arguments about why it may be necessary right now for a specific nation (which is what you are saying, I believe)–because other nations are at the same stage and we need to compete with or defend against them.
But none of this really holds up nationalism as an absolute good in and of itself.

In the “Reflections” category, I posted the topic “Nationality and Identity” a year ago or more, if you want to read that. There was no interest in the topic at the time, so I’m glad you’ve brought it up again. As I said in my post, the nitty-gritty for me in working with nationalism was interior work, around the pride and shame polarity, with national symbols, particularly the flag and eagle playing prominent roles in my personal work. I don’t think you can honestly embrace nationalism without studying and working both of those–what there is to be proud of about this (or any) country, and where some shame or conscience might come into play. Where I ended up, and still am, is that I don’t feel any particular pride about being a US of A-an, nor do I feel the kind of shame I felt at green stage. What I feel is simply gratitude, for the privileges and relative ease we have, compared to other parts of the world.

That said, I think when considering internationalism, nation relating to nation, there’s a case to be made for each nation being firmly grounded in their own identity, but again, that identity has to include both the “positive” and the “negative” of its history and present, and when both of those are accounted for honestly, I think the tendency for arrogance might be decreased, which would further working relationships. If countries lack a strong sense of identity, of what their values are, their history, their visions, etc. well, it would sort of be like a group of wishy-washy individuals trying to solve problems around values and actions and future and such, that affect the entire group.

So that’s it for me; it’s more about having a good sense of the identity of one’s nation, rather than being identified with one’s nation, that can be of use in world-centrism. As far as integralism’s transcend-and-include process, I take that to mean that we transcend and include perspectives; so my world-centrism doesn’t mean I am hanging on to the nationalist perspective I had when I was at a different/lower/earlier stage of development. Rather, it means I can take the perspective of others who are at a stage where nationalism figures prominently, either as a source of pride or shame, or both.

As I have been suggesting, I can see nationalism as a form of identitarianism…so identity politics figure into the whole nationalism conversation too. Some who are really into nationalism are as “woke” as those people who are woke around race, gender, etc.

1 Like

I think it depends on one’s version of “good.” Assuming that it means that one’s society survives when other tribal/nationalist nations want to eliminate it, nationalism can coalesce people around the common defense, then one might consider it “good.” True, but partial.

As always (or certainly most of the time) I love your reply.
Your last paragraph is interesting to me as I very much agree. I always felt that the most powerful and liberating possibility of spiritual growth was to let go of any kind of limited identity. It is still one of the most disillusioning and disappointing repeated experiences to me that almost any spiritual path (and more so any spiritual community)–while initially helping to break new participants out of their old identifications, always eventually ended up building up new limited identifications.
Given how deep our love for identifying with some limited concept goes, I am still having trouble why anyone would purposefully want to identify with something external, such as nationality, race, gender identities, etc. and hold that up as something essential and as the most important thing in the world. (I am not talking about actually transcending your gender identity or the many deeply seated unconscious ways how race and nationality may be embedded in us. I KNOW how hard it is to dig deep enough to even find these identifications, much less to free oneself from them)–BUT to consciously say that you WANT to identify with that, and that this identification is the MOST IMPORTANT thing for you and for how you see other people. That seems to go in the exact opposite direction of where freedom lies. So yes: The woke culture and the nationalist culture are very much similar in this respect.

Now the other thing you say about nations–to allow them their uniqueness and specialness: YES, I absolutely agree with that. The most beautiful rose garden will have dozens or hundreds of different kinds of roses–and I may even have my favorite.–But I would never want to cut down all the others, so that my favorite could take over and replace them all.


Scott, I think I see what you are saying–it’s more a practical view than a philosophical one.

I would say that it is not necessary to be a nationalist to want your (or really any) country to have the ability to defend itself.
For example, I have trouble with Nationalism, partially for personal reasons. I was born and grew up in one country (Austria). But I have now lived the larger part of my life in a different country (the US). Which country should I be a nationalist for??? I know that my deeper , subconscious identification is still as an Austrian–those ties are built early in life. But I live in the US now and owe her many things, and of course it is in my interest that she be strong and free.
I also have parents and siblings in Austria, a Wife in the US, who grew up in yet another country (in Asia), I have 1 cousin in Germany, 2 in France and one in Brazil. I have friends in Australia, South Africa, Mexico, Iceland, and many other places. Who am I going to be a nationalist for?
Nevertheless, I agree that each of these nations should be able to defend itself, if needed. I even agree that nations I have no relationship with, should be able to do so (let’s say Iran, for example)–so my question was: Is nationalism necessary, given that it can be replaced with a wider more encompassing view.

One more add-on to my comment: Yes, I am aware that it is easier to let go of an identification with something (let’s say race) if that identity is strong and healthy and proud to begin with–so I can see the privilege in my attitude on this issue–and I guess that is the point of some of the woke philosophy–but it seems to me they get stuck in a place that does not provide any freedom and satisfaction. If they approached it as: “First be proud of your (externally derived) identity, so that you can then move towards disentangling yourself from it”, then maybe it would offer some real chance for empowerment.

1 Like

Hey, thanks for your kind words,Mbohu, and also for providing the apt terminology–uniqueness–that I was flailing a bit in trying to pin down as regards nations having a firm sense of identity. That’s exactly what I was getting at, and your rose garden metaphor is beautiful.

I think a lot of the extreme woke-mentality, whether around race, gender, or nationality, is as much about membership as it is personal identity, sort of in the same way as people become gang-associated, for a sense of peer belongingness and group power. I can look back on the heyday of my own feminist activism, and see that that membership element was strongly at work, until it wasn’t. I had a strange wake-up call around it. I had been doing some public speaking and had just been the keynote speaker at a women’s march and rally thing. I sweated the preparation for that keynote, as I knew what people wanted and expected–a good dose of anger–and I had let go of most of that already, so I ditched the expectations and fashioned my speech as a spiritual message of sorts, about humanness and unity and such, and the possibility of those things being actualized in the world, while affirming women’s role in that work. I took some heat for it from a couple of women’s studies professors at the university, who thought I was misguided or selling out.

Shortly afterwards, I was in a bookstore, and I overheard two younger women I was vaguely familiar with from the women’s community speaking…“there’s LaWanna…” There was like this awe in their voices, an unusual admiration and idolatry actually… Right there on the spot, I had the realization of my power in that community, and that I could take that and run with it if I wanted to. And right there on the spot, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that that was not what I wanted to commit my life energy to. For me, it felt like a trap; it was almost as if Spirit was speaking to me through those women, asking ‘is this how you want to spend your life energy, in the confines of a temporal identity?’ Nope, definitely not.

Shortly after that, things came to a head in a women’s arts collective I was a part of. I was one of 8 judges for a juried art show, and we were auditioning performance artists, one of whom was a woman who was a songwriter and guitarist and singer. She seemed very talented to me, but everyone voted no on her because the lyrics to her song didn’t “fit” with the image of strong women, as if strong women never feel heartbreak over a broken love affair… So political correctness won out, I was out-voted, and we argued like cats! and there were a lot of hurt feelings, but eventually, over time, some of those jurors came around to seeing things my way. I was pretty persuasive :slightly_smiling_face: but that was the end of those kind of feminist endeavors and identity politics for me.

Which isn’t to say that I don’t think becoming cognitively astute around your race, gender, or national identity, and how that all fits within culture and the world culture, is unimportant. I think it is important. And I think it’s important and necessary that there be activists on behalf of some of these causes, because there are still many problems to be addressed, and most likely for as far as any of us can see, will be. But like you, I don’t think getting stuck or limiting oneself to those identifications is “where freedom lies.”

Wilber quotes from Metamorphosis by Schachtel (in The Atman Project book): “It is in those experiences which transcend the cultural schemata (the biosocial bands of membership-perceptional…) that every new insight and every true work of art has its origin, and that the hope of progress, of a widening of the scope of human endeavor and human life, is founded.” That’s close enough to how I see it. Your last sentence in your last post sums it up well.

Appreciated too your comments about your own multi-national existence. Wow, you have quite the international family and circle of friends!


I think nationalism in the extreme as an ideal means that we “include” the stuff that shouldn’t likely be included, like “we’re better than you.” That leads to a conundrum, as there is the innate Seer “desire” (for a lack of a better term) that we feel not only for removing limiting identifications but in removing external limitations like racism and limiting governments. Hence, the American IDEAL of a melting pot where all are welcome and have a voice resonates. But, like the fascism of Nazi Germany holding onto extreme tribalism, it can take root here, too, if allowed, like Trumpism.

What are your thoughts on the strong Integral community reverence for Marxism and Communism’s amazing history?

I’d ask for sources to be cited.

@Mbohu @LaWanna

I’ve been re-reading the original posting in this thread and find it extremely enlightening (I think, right? :slight_smile: ).

With this discussion is seems to be focused on Interior Quadrants. Looking at Nationalism, should we also take a hard look at Exterior Systems and how well they work, or not? Where I’m coming from is I see lots of “introspection” on Western Culture, with the predominate “introspection” being highly critical and rarely complimentary.

One reality check is that we do have Democratic Nations today, so all those pesky “citizens” might question the value in “throwing out the baby in the bath water” to integrate with cultures/nations that don’t work as well as what we already enjoy. If we don’t focus on “making it better” then there likely will be significant resistance to change.

Assuming not of the power elite or wealthy, I always ask “Where on this earth would I want my daughters to raise their daughters? Or perhaps a gay son?”

Hey, Fermented Agave (do you speak Nahuatl?). You got it right in that much of the discussion Mbohu and I were having was in regard to Interiors, UL quadrant. We were speaking of identifications, whether that identification be with one’s nationality, race, sex/gender, etc., and that through development/growth, one can transcend the tight grip of these identifications, while still including them in one’s identity. One can be more identified as a planetarian, say, than a globalist or more a globalist than a nationalist, but that doesn’t mean they do not recognize the essence and perspectives of nationalism, or that they do not recognize and appreciate the core positives of nationalism (or the core negatives).

We weren’t really talking about judging any particular or specific nation(s), but yes, the exteriors need to be looked at when it comes to evaluating nations. And yes, there are people who have been and are extremely critical of the U.S. and western culture in general; it’s kinda “cool” attitudinally in some quarters to bash the U.S. and western culture. Which doesn’t mean that there isn’t also reason to be critical…

There are all kinds of world indices that “rank” nations/countries according to various livability factors. For instance, there are “happiness” rankings (Nordic countries, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and also Iceland, and “up and coming”: United Arab Emirates). There are longevity or life expectancy rankings: Japan, Switzerland, Spain, Australia (the top four apparently). Countries with the best environmental standards: again the Nordic countries and Iceland and Slovenia. Countries with the most racial equality: The Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden…Austria. Best at having closed the gender gap: Iceland, Norway, Sweden and down south, Nicaragua and Rwanda. Most LGBT friendly: The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Uruguay. Least violent countries militaristically: New Zealand, Iceland, Japan, Austria, Norway.

If wealth is measured by GDP alone, the U.S. is first, followed by China, Japan, Germany, India, the UK. But if wealth is measured by per capita GDP plus growth rate, plus purchasing power parity, it’s a different story: Luxembourg, Singapore, Ireland and Qatar are the top four, with the U.S. at #7. The U.S. has been ranked #5 in terms of religious freedom, following The Netherlands, Canada, Norway, and Australia. Many countries have freedom of speech laws, but in terms of those laws being upheld, the U.S. is #1 and is also #1 for freedom of the press and Internet, with the Nordic countries, New Zealand, and Costa Rica also at the top.

The U.S. is ranked #1 in terms of both power and leadership; #2 in political influence (behind Russia) and #2 in economic influence (behind China).

The U.S. has the highest healthcare costs in the world, one of the highest (if not the highest) infant mortality rates, and ranks high in gun violence/deaths.

So the world, and the U.S., are a mixed bag, if you can believe these indices, which are from different sources over the past 1-5 years.

Hope this sheds some light on your queries!

Hi @LaWanna ,
No I don’t speak Nahuatl, that I am aware of but I enjoy the occasional cultural appropriation. :slight_smile:

Internal identification vs External “how well nations work” is just something I think worthy of consideration. I think also most relevant when we compare nations of similar scales, perhaps say over >100M in population to highlight how different systems get the job done at scale.

US shows as ranked 176’th in Infant mortality and bested only by Japan with populations > 100M. If abortions in the US were included, it would slightly more than double the infant mortality rate. The abortion rate is actually slightly higher than all other infant mortality causes combined.

  • US ranks 94th in homicide rate with Turkey, China and Japan having lower murder rates in the >100M population grouping. Firearms are the weapon of choice in the US.
  • Black on Black murders are almost at the level of White on White. Both include Hispanics.
    -Police killings relative to Homicides in the US would be just under 6%. Police killings of unarmed Black men and women would be just less than 1%. Black on Black homicides account for 95% of the total Black homicide victims.

So if we were to chose causes based on greatest impact, where would we focus our efforts? What part of our External system(s) would we dismantle and restructure? What are root causes that would have a lasting impact and likely improve overall quality of life?

  • Take a position to reduce exploitation in the US and also of citizens in other countries for profit, power and a decadent lifestyle?
  • Take a stand against cultural glorification of violence and Might is Right?
  • Increase education and availability of birth control other than abortion, including universal birth control availability for both adults and minors? Maybe even devote R&D dollars for a “Warp Speed” contraceptives program with reduced side effects?
  • Allow states, cities and local governments to restrict firearms as they deem most practical to their locality.
    Just a few off the top of my head.
  • Straight up Marxism
  • Shut down Hollywood? Constitutional Amendment revoking 1st of the Bill of Rights?
  • Fed, State, County and City already fund contraceptives
  • Constitutional Amendment revoking 2nd of Bill of Rights. States and Cities already have their discretion.

Everything is doable. Only takes 2/3rds of Congress, a copy of the Communist Manifesto, a pair of teal house slippers and you’re good to go.


1 Like

FermentedAgave, I think I’ll take a (long) tour around the Integral AQAL model to answer your question, starting with:

  1. State of Consciousness: Through individual and collective action, move society from an egoic culture (with ego defined here as the “separate-self sense” or the “I, me, and mine” focus) to a soul culture (with soul defined for purposes of this discussion as the “spiritual expression of the separate self”). For people interested in such things, there is an abundance of diverse practices, as well as audio-video technologies, and perhaps not far into the future, some legalized psychedelics that can help with finding a spiritual or higher awareness and expression within oneself. For people with no interest in religion or spirituality, virtues like respect, kindness, compassion and such can be more often or more consistently expressed through the separate self.

  2. Stages of development: I don’t see much movement of people/groups from 1st Tier stages to 2nd Tier Integral, but of course those things are hard to spot in real time, as is upward movement within the 1st Tier, which I also don’t see much of. What I do see is that the stages are “out of the closet” so to speak, are fully in the light, able to be seen by those familiar with them, both their “dignities and disasters.” And there are dignities with each stage; it’s just that the darkness or shadow sides are more on display, more spoken of, more commented about. That the stages are so recognizable, so intensely and fully themselves, I see as a positive thing, because it suggests to me a coming to fruition, a ripening of some kind that sets the stage for the next act. That next act could be an all-out civil (or world) war with boots and guns, or it could be that out of the chaos of countless unsolved wicked problems, civilization partially or totally makes an evolutionary leap of some kind. That next act could be some kind of unifying event, perhaps global in nature, you know, nuclear war or an asteroid hit or “close encounters of the third kind” or some nation or globe-shaking climate catastrophe–who knows? It doesn’t have to be a negative event, and I wouldn’t put my eggs in this one basket, for sure, but it could happen. Or it could just be a continuation of years of “collapseology” (to borrow a term from environmental/climate studies), where things end as they say “not with a bang but a whimper” (poet T S Eliot). How quickly and in what way some kind of major change or transformation comes about is the basic question.

  3. Lines of development: The cognitive line (“necessary but not sufficient”) and the moral line are in the spotlight. Wilber once defined morality as “the rules for how to play the game of we fairly.” Certainly for decades, but definitely since Obama’s first term I think, when Wall Street that essentially created the financial crisis and Great Recession saw not a single individual held legally accountable and was bailed out while Main Street took the brunt of the fall, it’s been clear the monetary game we’re all a part of us is not being played fairly.
    Along with these two lines, I would place emotional intelligence as an important line to focus on. Given all the emotional arousal and response in culture, I sometimes wonder that the reptilian part of the brain isn’t in charge for many people. The oldest brain part, which we share with territorial animals, is overreactive to fear and responds with threatening kinds of behavior (fight) or with flight or with trauma freeze responses. While territorial land disputes are still evident in the world and territoriality is evident in things like borders and walls, one’s ego, tribe, and ideology have also become “territories” to the extent that people are willing to hate, rage, fight and kill in trying to defend them. (That was a bit of a rant and a digression, but my point is that more emotional intelligence in the world might help turn down the heat.)

  4. Types: I’ll stick with the basic masculine-feminine types here, and say we need more balance. Feminine values such as relationship and communion and cooperation, along with the female-type moral principles (care and responsibility) need to be emphasized, in my opinion. Exercising one’s autonomy and agentic rights needs to be in the context of responsibility to others/relationships. That goes for individuals and nations too.

  5. Quadrants: I’ll start this section by saying I think we as a nation, and a world even, have what is needed to solve the problems, or at least we have the seeds of solutions, What seems to be lacking is the heart (e.g. courage, desire, caring) and the will to do so. So in UL Interior quadrant, I would place intentionality to stay connected to one’s heart and will. In the LL (culture) quadrant, I think the Biblical Golden Rule sums up what’s needed pretty nicely: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” In conversation, social psychology says that four particular traits are effective in conflictual or polarized discussion: detachment (e.g. open to outcomes, not attached), loyalty (to the relationship and process), care, and tactfulness.

In the UR quadrant, I think behavior via language/speech is important, so let me rant (again). Free speech has become something of a sacred cow, its teats milked as theoretical insurance against losing freedom, but in practice, those teats are sometimes both non-nutritional and malodorous as dung. Persistent lying does not make either an individual or a nation free. Nor does insulting others, or mocking them, or name-calling, or cursing at others or cursing excessively in general. We tend to focus on associating language with meaning, and want people to define their terms, which is fine, great; I support that. But I don’t think there’s a problem with understanding what ‘idiot’ or ‘loser’ or F U means; what I am talking about is the flavor or tonal quality of language which is becoming more and more crude, crass, aggressive, combative, and contributing I think to a social milieu that is more nasty and warlike than necessary–headlines are full of battle words. This isn’t just on social media, but in mainstream broadcast and cable media, and is also becoming more prevalent with political representatives and in business and advertising (an ad on my computer screen for a t-shirt, reading “this rooms smells like slut.”). As abused and mutilated as the practice of free speech is, we might as well butcher the cow and be done with it; it’s serving some pretty nefarious purposes. But no, no, no–I am not suggesting we do away with the free speech aspect of the First Amendment; I am suggesting we all can choose to make a difference through language, both defining our terms and practicing speaking in less crass and offensive ways, or at least less frequently in crass ways and in less quantity. Rant done.

As for the LR collective exteriors quadrant and where we might focus our efforts, I tend to look at what’s right in front of us, and also look at those livability factors (as cited in my previous posts) as sort of “lines of development” for nations. What’s right in front of us is the threat itself to democracy, which from the reading I’ve done, is generally attributed to the decades-long shift to the right by Congressional Republicans, many of whom at this point seem to lack integrity and to be motivated solely by self-interest and careerism, and the party as a whole by power. On the other side of that, supposedly only about 30% of the U.S. voting population supports MAGA, so what kind of threat Trumpism really is, I’m not sure. I do wish more Republicans would speak out, or some of them get on with forming a third party. I don’t doubt that it is easy enough for a nation to slide into authoritarianism bit by bit, and probably lots of things need to happen to prevent that–continued arrest/prosecution of the “insurrectionists” (and politicians that helped incite that ordeal need held accountable), election and campaign finance reforms of various kinds, overturning Citizens United which has allowed large corporate and superpac donors to “push” ideologies (studies have shown that large contributions by individual donors do not have the same effect in shaping a political party’s platform/ideology as anonymous corporate/superpac donations). Many things need done; it’s exhausting.

Some kind of combination capitalist-socialist economic system needs to be up for consideration, as it ain’t working this way. As some of the Integral Left people have repeatedly pointed out, policy proposals that were once thought “progressive” are now really more centrist, in terms of majorities of the U.S. population supporting them. Things like the $15/hr min. wage, universal healthcare, even some form of UBI. A huge problem is that the politicians/government are not responsive to the will of the majority of people; how do you fix that?

In terms of the livability factors, a few things seem obvious to me. One is in the area of housing. Among low-income renters (the bottom 20% of all renters), the median expenditure for rent is about 75% of its household income. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition recommends that the upper limit for rent should not exceed 30% of the household income, so we are far and away from that. The U.S. fares the worst in this area among 12 advanced countries, and its Section 8 HUD assistance programs are far underfunded and not meeting the needs. So as a “line of development,” the U.S. needs to give some oil to this squeaky wheel, in one form or another.

Another line of development might be racial equality, as according to those world indices, the U.S. ranks among the bottom ten in this area (and possibly the events/uprisings since George Floyd’s death last year have contributed to this ranking). I do think there needs to be some kind of public, government-sponsored “truth and reconciliation” process around slavery and the history of racism against Blacks. These processes have born some fruit in other parts of the world, so why wouldn’t we work towards that? I also think investment in Black (and Native American) communities would bode well, addressing food deserts, contaminated/polluted waters and soil and air (and lack of water on some of the reservations), and inadequate housing and such would be helpful.

And then there’s mental health, with the U.S. having one of the highest rankings among developed countries for mental health impairments. Another squeaky wheel…

Polarization: the U.S. in world indices is said to be increasing in polarization. According to what I have read, polarization is common throughout history in that the public always has differences, but is said to be most intense when there is unemployment/financial problems for people and when inequality is high and when it is the ‘political elites’ themselves clashing over cultural issues.

Finally, there is addressing climate change, which according to Pew Research as of Feb. 2020 is the number one partisan issue in the U.S, with only 21% of Republicans and about 78% of Democrats considering it a top priority. (The other top four partisan issues are protecting the environment, reforming gun policy, and bolstering military strength.) While Biden is being lauded by many Democrats for addressing climate policy across the board and as a part of all policy-making, he is also being criticized by those same people for not including climate migration in climate change planning and policy. Climate migration is a bigger problem than most people probably think; tens of millions of people in the world have already been displaced due to climate change effects, and there will be more. Which adds a different slant to border and immigration issues. I think climate migration should definitely be planned for, and that we should recognize it as already happening and affecting the U.S. (e.g. parts of Central America migrating due partially to climate change effects) and also as happening within our own borders, not on as large a scale as elsewhere, but people are leaving areas in the U.S. prone to wildfires and flooding.

This is such an inadequate response to the question; wonder how long my post would be if I tried to make it adequate? Anyway, there you have it.

1 Like

THANK YOU for the deep and broad response and understanding.
I’ll need a couple of days to digest, gestate, or - as @excecutive would want - to internalize and allow to percolate inwardly.

I’ll dance with 1. and 2. for now. This will also help me absorb as well.

  1. State of Consciousness: My personal lens on Ego is that whatever Transformation you are experiencing, manifesting, peaking, or up leveling into is fleeting without sustained practice, external support networks, etc. Is the ego any different today than it was when Eve tempted Adam and they take the bit out of that pesky apple? The Ego will never ever ever go away (think Adam and Eve, separate self observer, that which keeps us from living completely in-the-moment) and at best is only one step behind (when not completely in charge and running amok). That “peak experience” (reading another Integral book, meditation, prayer, fasting, drumming, psilocybin, mdma, lsd, skydiving, crack, orgasm, military attack, home invasion, 150 mph run on expressway,…) always fades but we are left changed. It’s basic human physiology. And our egos also become oh so much smarter along the way.

  2. Stages of Development: I don’t know how we can see movement in other people, groups or communities without actually “joining with” people, other groups, and other communities. External observations or perhaps assess through other peoples external observations (media as an example) in my mind provides a very limited understanding into someone else’s understandings, experiences, or believes. My journey here on Integral Life is me trying to do just that - join, integrate into, see if things have changed, does it fit, am I triggered/confronted, do waves of nirvana flow over me, what’s the experience of Integral. Integral Theory very much “makes sense” to me, but then so do many other viewpoints. The old adage “never judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes.” might not be bad advice for all of us.
    Since it’s impossible to try on everyone’s shoes, we like to think that journalists can help us with this, and I’m certain they aren’t doing a good job for us. It’s not currently working out with our media. We have two major echo chambers that are perform amygdala hijacking with literally every shred of information they share (or reshare or …). They orchestrate an outrage on one hand, then bury that which doesn’t follow their plan. And of course each side thinks the other “is the problem”. If when I read/watch the news, I always try to listen for in-real-world data, assessments based on real-world-data, projections on motivations, assessments/projections based on nothing new. Where I come from is I feel we each should have the opportunity to assess for ourselves the actual data, not follow one media outlets assessment or wild speculation on motivations. But it’s hard to find. So for myself I typically go to the research centers like Pew, Cato, Hoover, Brookings, et al. They each have their biases, but the fun is sorting through it.

  • On the globalization / war topic, I think we are heading into a “realignment” on what “globalization” means. The Covid pandemic has the world collaborating on containing China as an existential threat, but otherwise military war is a very remote possibility. As we see almost daily, Cyberwarfare to disable our ability to operate (energy, manufacturing, food production,…) will be the norm moving forward, until it is dealt with. What could escalate into a military war would be another viral pandemic “leak” or cyber attacks on life critical infrastructure.
  • We’ve had amazing amounts of “globalization” occur through freer trade which has lifted 100M’s of people out of poverty (China, SE Asian, India,…). Poverty itself has even been redefined to start including things much higher up Maslow’s Hierarchy. But have also seen negative effects at the national levels in various of our communities - manufacturing, farming, software, technology. I would hypothesize that the benefits are in fact due to the average level “growing up”, just as the negatives are part of “unhealthy” up leveling. So not only do we have globalization, but we also have nation level progressions as well. Not surprisingly the nations leading growth globally also have the highest global standards of living and human development index rankings.
  • I’m leading in to my point that over time the impact on today of “luck”, “privilege”, “past oppressions”, “past imperial efforts” eventually fade and what you are left with are the results (good and bad) of the systems by which the peoples live, operate, worship, educate, and govern themselves.
  • Here I would say that there is a lot more “Integral” going on than Integralists like to see. My speculation is that most of the active Integralists have disengaged from the mainstream (i.e. most wide spread) systems in Western culture and are using Integral as you have pointed out as a new identification. Stepped outside, now observe if you will, the very culture that they enabled them to grow up and from which they still enjoy the benefits. We might want to really consider that Integral Theory was conceptualized and built somewhere, and it happened to be here. Were similar innovations/re-articulations going on else where in the world? I wouldn’t rule out an Islamic scholar in the jungles of Indonesia, Priest in a Swiss Monastery, or an Atheist in Moscow working on similar conceptualizations. I am not subscribing to the “butterfly flaps it’s wings…” idea per se, but the world is significantly more connected with ideas flowing much more freely than it ever has.

@LaWanna I’ll have to come back around to your other points :slight_smile: