Roe, Roe, Roe Your Leaky Boat

Reflections
31

I think you have very accurately described Wokeism. I think a more accurate characterization is emergent Red/Amber. The religious aspects perhaps being Amber with the violence being basic Red. We should consider if Wokeism isn’t more Red based upon the IL definitions (below).

I think you’re recommending the Integralists focus on enfolding this emergent Red/AmberWokeism into our current Orange/Green/emergent Teal society. Is this correct interpretation?

Do you know of any organizations that are trying to up level Wokeism from it’s Red/Amber foundations into Orange, Green, Teal?

# Red Altitude (Ego-to-Ethnocentric, Power)

The red altitude began about 10,000 years ago, and is the marker of egocentric drives based on power, where “might makes right,” where aggression rules, and where there is a limited capacity to take the role of an “other.” Red impulses are classically seen in grade school and early high school, where bullying, teasing, and the like are the norm. Red motivations can be seen culturally in Ultimate Fighting contests, which have no fixed rules (fixed rules come into being at the next Altitude, Amber), teenage rebellion and the movies that cater to it (The Fast and the Furious), gang dynamics (where the stronger rule the weaker), and the like.

# Amber Altitude (Ethnocentric, Mythic)

The amber altitude began about 5,000 years ago, and indicates a worldview that is traditionalist and mythic in nature—and mythic worldviews are almost always held as absolute (this stage of development is often called absolutistic). Instead of “might makes right,” amber ethics are more oriented to the group, but one that extends only to “my” group. Grade school and high school kids usually exhibit amber motivations to “fit in.” Amber ethics help to control the impulsiveness and narcissism of red. Culturally, amber worldviews can be seen in fundamentalism (my God is right no matter what); extreme patriotism (my country is right no matter what); and ethnocentrism (my people are right no matter what).

32

Here is the real trick, no they will not evolve into OUR Orange/Green/emergent Teal society, they will evolve those levels as well, it will be THEIR Orange/Green/emergent Teal society. Another way to see this is waves within the spiral. A new consciousness emerges and then there are waves that flow from childhood to adult hood, reshaping each stage, generation after generation. It’s like who is more evolved, you or your child? It’s your child because they went through each stage being informed by a higher stage. They still need your guidance as they grow up, just like the woke need to continue to grow up, but through their turn around the spiral, not ours. The more we recognize this, the less we want to hold our children back inside our stage construct, the healthier the flow of the spiral becomes.

Tha’s not to say that holding the spiral at one level is wrong either. There are many cultures and societies that today look very similar to 100’s or 1000’s of years ago. There is something quite magical about that. This is what, IMO, for some, conservative Christianity will become, like other traditional religions you may find throughout the world. But for those cultures more centered around evolution we need to see the waves within the spiral.

33

I enjoy your ongoing reminders that these universal deep structures can have multiple surface structure expressions, and in fact those surface structures are constantly evolving as our conditions evolve. There is no single path through any of these developmental sequences, though there are common qualities shared among multiple paths within any given stage — in many ways, Amber today has the same deep structures it had 2000 years ago, but in many other ways, it is a completely different beast. Especially when we are comparing a stage that acts as a dominant force within a given society, versus a stage that has been enfolded by later stages. That is, amber-dominant societies are very different than societies where we see amber enfolded by orange constraints.

34

Violence is not limited to Red. In fact, Amber is capable of inflicting violence on a far greater scale than Red ever was, because the “us vs. them” mindset offers a wider social justification for violence than the Red “me versus the world” mindset. I think history has taught us some very painful lessons around just how violent Amber can be.

That said, yes, almost all social movements have a Red underbelly somewhere, as opportunists flock to the chaos like a moth to a flame. The same was true of the civil rights era, but I don’t think we have come to regard that as a red-driven (or even amber-driven) social transformation.

35

How would you characterize the current Woke movement or if decoupled Woke/Antifa/BLM/etc movements?

36

Much of wokism, as I see it, is green content being enacted through an amber structure. It’s what happens when a) social media reinforces the “soft absolutism” of all first-tier stages, and b) green views are wielded by individuals who are themselves not capable of “doing the math” that generates those views in the first place.

However, there is also some healthy green in there, some very important perspectives emerging from the green stage that very much need to be salvaged and included in a more integral embrace. Which relates to your question:

“Do you know of any organizations that are trying to up level Wokeism from it’s Red/Amber foundations into Orange, Green, Teal?”

At least on a conceptual level, yes, we are right here at Integral Life. Which is why I try to have discussions like this one:

…as well as things like my 8 Zones of Racism talk with Ken, which I hope to publish this week.

37

Abortion is a difficult topic to discuss. But I am going to press a little more around the issue of killing, terminating life. You are right that the LA. bill was struck down, but the lawmakers there who introduced the bill do believe this, that abortion is murder, and frankly, isn’t that the belief of anti-abortionists as a group within particular religious communities? Why else would there be opposition? And this again is why I say the general topic of taking life, any life, is pertinent to one’s thinking and discussions around abortion.

Nor can I support such behavior, although I’m not sure who you’re saying has given “tacit approval” for firebombing prolifers. Violent and harassing behavior on either side is not constructive. Don’t forget, health clinics and physicians who provide abortion have been subject to such behavior for decades, including the killing of doctors. While it may have happened, I am not aware of any instance in which a pro choicer has killed anyone because they were against abortion, are you?

Sanctity of life, along with the taking of another’s life, is also one of those BIG topics that is pertinent to the discussion. What has to be taken into account is who defines it and how sanctity of life is defined. Some Protestant denominations, Catholicism, and Evangelical Christianity (since the mid-to-late 70s) “set apart” humans from the rest of life as more sacred and holy, based upon the belief of humans having been created in ‘God’s image.’ This sounds like your belief, no? That’s fine; I can appreciate this is your and others’ belief.

However, again, we should keep in mind that not everybody believes in anthropocentrism, or dominionism. In many Eastern philosophies/schools of thought, animal life is sacred. Ascetics/avatars of India, practitioners of Ahimsa (non-violence, of which Gandhi was a practitioner), the religion of Jainism in particular hold this belief; there are many stories of people from these traditions sweeping the path in front of them so as not to step on an insect. While that may sound extreme to the Western mind, if we really want to think comprehensively and inclusively and deeply and integrally about these matters, it seems we should consider other views of what defines sanctity of life.

Perhaps if our view included more than humans, we would not be facing major animal extinctions and loss of biodiversity and other degradations to life forms, both human and other-than-human, on Planet Earth. It is one thing to hold that humans are the most complex and conscious life forms as far as we know; it’s another entirely to say humans are more inviolable, for without water, air, the biosphere, animals, etc–humans couldn’t even exist.

Well, you can be Teal and respect that, but the other stages, per Integral Theory, are First Tier, and largely respect and find ‘correct’ only their own view. This question too of “majority of humanity is Amber”–what does that mean to you? Are you suggesting because Amber is the majority, that the preferences of Amber should predominate?

You know you can. Silly question.

I have not responded to your ideas about legislation; still thinking on it.

38

Administrative Orange can also commit violence. Well, if a concentration camp is deemed as violence. I think it is worse. Cambodia, China, Ukraine & Russia - all these regions experienced millions killed through administrative decisions. Yes, also guns, but it’s important to remember that beaurocracy can be kill without using any guns.

39

Either we’re playing a critical theory / Straw Manning / Nihilism game on the anti-abortion crowd or I’m completely missing where you’re going. Are you saying that if I’m not a conscientious objector then I have to be pro abortion?
I tried to lay it out above. I do delineate between human life and the weeds I just pulled in the flower beds. I do delineate between actor with agency vs a baby with no agency. I do see the formation of a unique never seen in the history of the universe a human being when an egg (incomplete in and of itself) and a sperm (also incomplete in and of itself) join to create a that new distinct holon.
Am I willing to compromise and say - have at it in the 1st trimester? Sure.
I guess the 1st trimester is the “red line”. LOL

I’m haven’t logged everything I’ve seen in the past, so can’t really say.

Corey ran me through the “if you could only save one” play. Yes, if I could only save either my wife or child, I “think” I would save my child since that’s what both my wife and i would choose if we talked it through. If I could only save my child or my dog, I’m fairly certain I would grab my child. If it were my dog your the asshole 3 doors down, I very well might grab my dog.

If fleas are infesting my dog, I kill all the fleas with flea shampoo and spray the yard. I don’t hate fleas. I don’t wish them harm. And it’s not ok to have them on my dog nor in my home.

I just came in from spraying for scorpions. If I don’t, we have scorpions in the house and that’s no bueno. And I don’t like doing it, because I likely also indirectly kill the lizards that crawl the walls, that the mockingbirds feed on, which are in turn struck down by the Kestrels and Peregrines.
Since I can’t have chickens or other fowl where I live, I’m somewhat limited in my purely natural scorpion control.
While I delay pesticide use as long as I can and try to minimize, we’ve decide we cannot live with scorpions in the house. No, I pray to the Red Moon (which was pretty cool last night) for forgiveness that I killed the momma and baby scorpions. And yet, meanwhile I think they’re really cool and amazing creatures.

And I guess you could say I do or would do all these things with no or only minimal “moral dilemma” machinations. In general, I do have a ranking of the animals and plants of the world roughly aligning with complexity. Humans then cooperative mammals (dogs) then … then scorpions.

Is this what you think others think? Who do you actually thinks the way you’ve just described?
And at what price would be too high to save a baby? A puppy? A falcon? A beetle?
Do you consider humans as part of nature? Are human societies part of nature? If not, how could humans or human society not be part of nature?

I’ll post the the Ken interview if I can find it. You do realize that even if you live say a 20% Teal life yourself, that there is the other 80%. Or once you get a smidgen of Teal, Rapture beams you up, Enlightenment engulfs the world and you don’t have to pay your electric bill anymore?

Amber is just being Amber, right? So of course they will express their preferences.

I think the question for Integralism is how are you up leveling Red, Amber, Orange? I would think that moving Amber to Orange, and Orange to Green would mitigate the attitudinal struggles against 2nd tier Teal (The Rapture?).

40

I really don’t know how to respond to this. You failed to answer some of my questions directly; for instance, I asked for your personal opinion/view: do you think that because Amber is the majority, their preferences should predominate. You dodged that, simply saying “of course they will express their preferences.” You dodged others, but no matter; I’ve made the points I wanted to make, and if they were meaningless to you, that’s okay.

But you know, it’s not up to Integralism to see that Red, Amber, Orange, and Green or any other stage “up levels” or evolves. Individuals at those stages have to want to develop, to evolve, and be willing to do a little work on their own. Integral can try to help, as it does, but in the end, it’s largely an organic process, I think, that has a lot to do with individual interiors, individual desire. You either wanna, or you don’t.

41

My personal view is that if you can’t convince the majority of Americans (or Arizonans or Flagstaffians or…), over multiple election cycles, then no you have no right to set the rules no matter how awesome your’s or my ideologies might be. Why do you think I keep coming back to asking about how Integral will up-level Red to Amber, Amber or Orange, Orange to Green, then finally Green to Teal? Or perhaps it just takes 12% total at Teal (assuming it’s a healthy Teal) and Rapture ignites. That’s a bit of a long shot, but maybe it would flip the switch.
Even if you could pull off a coup, a revolucion and seize power, the Amber folks will behead you eventually. You HAVE to bring them along. And at least for me, it’s the right thing to do - to bring them along of their own free will.

“not my job” is pretty cynical when you’re talking about development of humanity. And frankly I know you do look to spark that interior flame with likely everyone you meet.

Can Integral be more effective? Are their areas outside of mental health, social engineering, philosophy that would help ignite the 2nd Tier flames?
Just spit balling here, I’ve recommended “infiltrating” the major religions, instead of fighting with them. Just the Big 3 are 4 BILLION people. Even a little progress and that’s what would you say maybe a few 100M’s of people? There’s your tipping point number. Bam!

42

Agree, to an extent, which is one reason why the regression we are seeing around abortion laws is so concerning, considering ~70% of Americans support Roe according to Pew. And why it’s also so concerning that we have a Supreme Court that skews 6-3 toward Republicans, a party that has only won a single popular vote a single time since 1988, which means we have a Court that does not reflect the majority of American citizens’ views and values, but instead a set of less-popular ideologies that are setting the rules for everyone else.

All the more reason why I want to repeal the 1929 Reapportionment Act, as the power the House gives to the GOP is disproportionate to where the majority of the country is actually at. Which also in turn fixes the electoral college, and makes it a more direct representation of the electorate (as the House was designed to be).

Just spit balling here, I’ve recommended “infiltrating” the major religions, instead of fighting with them.

It’s odd to me that you accuse us of this multiple times, despite the fact that a sizable percentage of our 20-year archive is wrapped around integral forms of Christianity, Buddhism, etc. I suppose you’d need to be a supporting member in order to really know that, but you can thumb through our archives any time you want to :wink:

And for the record, integral is not interested in “upleveling” individuals. As LaWanna says, people can only develop at their own pace, and have that right to station themselves at whatever stage works the best for their conditions. There is nothing wrong with being amber, we just want you to be a HEALTHY version of amber.

However, Integral DOES want to support healthy systems up and down the spiral that best promote development — political systems, economic systems, educational systems, etc — and that can create a natural updraft toward later stages of complexity. We want to create better conditions that are more conducive to growth, development, and awakening for the greatest number of people. The Constitution itself is an example of this — a document that was created when only 10% or so of the world’s population was at an Orange center of gravity, but imposed upon all pre-Orange stages nonetheless. Civil Rights is another example, as newly-emerging Green values got encoded into law and imposed upon all pre-green stages. This has historically been the best way to create a sort of “pacer” for the rest of society, by laying down new laws that regulate or restrict unhealthy behaviors from previous stages, and promote growth to the highest stages commonly available.

43

But what about the situation in which most Americans, a majority, are in favor of a certain ‘something,’ but certain factions of the Congress with ‘veto’ power, and perhaps the High Court, are opposed to that something? Because that is the situation with abortion right now: 60%-70% thereabouts in favor of retaining Roe v Wade, and yet, there is threat (which may not come to fruition) that it will be overturned despite the will of the majority of people. In our current state of affairs, the opinion/will of even the majority of Americans is sometimes ignored.

It took MANY election cycles and 100 years of activism before women got the right to vote in the U.S. Here’s a little rundown:
1820s and 1830s–most states have allowed all white men to vote, those with and without property.
Women at this time began pushing back against what was known as the Cult of True Womanhood, the “true” woman defined as pious, a submissive wife, a mother concerned with home and family.
1848–the Seneca Falls Convention, in which abolitionist activists decreed that women are autonomous beings deserving of their own identities.
This political activism continued throughout the 1850s, lost some steam during the Civil War.
1868–The 14th Amendment is passed, extending Constitutional protection to all “citizens,” with “citizen” defined as “male.”
1869–Women begin fighting and petitioning for a universal suffrage amendment
1870–The 15th Amendment is passed, giving Black men the right to vote, but not women
1890–Women and their male supporters changed approach: instead of arguing, petitioning for equal rights and responsibilities on the basis of being “created equal,” they began to petition on the basis because they were “different from men.” (like Blacks are different from Whites)
End of the 19th century–Women won the right to vote in Idaho and Utah
By 1910, more Western states were giving women the right to vote, Eastern states not.
1916–Saw women becoming more militant, with hunger strikes, White House pickets, and some violence, with women carrying firearms, setting fires, etc.
World War 1, with women working on behalf of the war effort, gave the opportunity for women to channel the message of their being “patriotic, deserving of citizenship.”
1920–The 19th Amendment finally gave women the right to vote.

Notable here is the amber ethnocentrism, a white male “us” vs. both black and female “thems.”
Notable also is the evolution of the activism: from peaceful marches, petitioning, speaking to members of Congress, redefining the “true” woman, to arguing on behalf of being “created equal,” to arguing on behalf of being “different from men,” to militancy/some violence, to messaging their patriotism.
Notable also is that oppressed people at some point, women included, usually resort to militancy if other tactics have not borne fruit.

You may be right about “the Amber folks will behead you eventually.” Through de-choice-ing you.

44

You’ve left out that SCOTUS nominees are approved by the Senate, not appointed by a Monarch or Popular vote Parliament.

Imposed upon makes it sound like the people did not agree. I do agree that the founding fathers were much more learned than the average colonial, but what they drafted was approved by the people. To imply that it was “imposed upon” might be taken as an attempt to invalidate?
Or to pave the way for perhaps a new “imposed upon” by the DNC? Sadly that modus operandi is extremely difficult to pull off now. BY DESIGN the intent is structural changes require approval through multiple election cycles, not a flash in the pan one shot snap transformation.
The structure is definitely there but does require typically 2 to 6 years to accomplish . But good news is that great ideas are not flash mobs but clearly sustained progress.

Agreed. This is how it works. Gain majority approval, which might not be on my or your desired timeline, promulgate the legislative updates and viola progress has now become old hat, established law. And we are on to the next big thing.

45

And they are first nominated by the President, whose EC votes are predominantly determined by the number of reps in the House. Currently we have what is effectively an affirmative action program for conservatives in the House, the EC, and the executive, which allows less-popular ideologies to gain disproportional power and set the rules for everyone else.

And this has negative effects for both parties, and more importantly, to our society as a whole. It makes it so that the left needs to overcome nearly insurmountable odds to rise above the structural rigging that the right has created in order to get anything at all accomplished (which often results in extremism), and it also prevents the right from evolving their ideas in order to make them more palatable to the majority and more competitive in the marketplace of ideas (which often results in extremism).

46

Approved by white male property-owning people. I point this out not to apply today’s standards to 1788, but because Justice Alito’s draft opinion re: Mississippi and Roe speaks to there being no Constitutional argument for abortion. We should keep in mind that women were not a part of that Constitutional process, or governance in general, so of course there’s nothing there that might speak to or about women, or any woman’s concerns.

1 Like
47

But this is my point — it doesn’t always happen this way. For Civil Rights, only 10% of the population held these Green values, and it certainly did not reflect the country’s majority opinions about race and equality at the time. However, our political leaders at the time rightfully noticed that these new sets of values were on the ascendency, and were wise to encode them into law (largely because of the deeply upsetting conditions that were suddenly being projected into everyone’s living room via network television, which provided a window of opportunity to draft a new set of laws.) [And of course, they were also able to convince enough modern Orange that this is a natural extension of their own humanitarian value code.] But I think we can agree that this was a very positive emergence, as it allowed society to step forward into a greater, more inclusive set of values.

As for abortion, only ~30% of people want to deviate from the Roe status quo, and that number has been declining over the years. And yet conservatives feel perfectly justified in overriding this 50-year precedent (after explicitly stating they wouldn’t in their confirmation hearings). Which, according to your own words, you should not agree with, because these conservatives were not able to “convince the majority of Americans over multiple election cycles” and therefore “have no right to set the rules, no matter how awesome your ideologies might be.”

48

Correct. Women’s suffrage, which other than very spotty occurances throught the world was championed by Western nations in primarily 20th century.
While I’ve never been a slave owner, I don’t think I’m disqualified from taking a moral stance today on slavery. Now that I identify as a woman and birthing person Sundays thru Wednesdays surely my concerns are valid on abortion, right?
Too bad Obama and the DNC majority government didn’t pass legislation when they were in a dominant position. Our system is very straight forward to support such legislation. Leftist could easily draft very straight forward bills similar to Colorado or Oklahoma or Texas and gitter done before midterms.

49

You’re cherry picking your polls and positions. Radical Leftists want the “right” to suck a babies brains out while she’s crying.

I thought civil rights passed with a majority in House, Senate and was then signed by LBJ?
And then the Democrats turned around and systemically destroyed the African American family.

Any specific thoughts here? Kind of looking for your Red Line.

50

You’re cherry picking your polls and positions. Radical Leftists want the “right” to suck a babies brains out while she’s crying.

You are arguing against an exaggerated straw man. I understand it helps to characterize your political opposition as blatantly evil, though. The Radical Right wants to control women’s bodies, turn them into a breeding class, and punish them for having sex outside of marriage!

Any specific thoughts here? Kind of looking for your Red Line.

I think your #3 is a poison pill. Tell you what — since this frame makes bodily autonomy for females conditional, while men’s bodily autonomy remains absolute, the “sperm donor” can suck it up. A fair exchange of men’s economic autonomy for women’s bodily autonomy.

Let’s replace #3 with “robust sex education for adolescents and adults, and easy access to contraception, in all 50 states — the only methods proven to make abortions more rare” and we can continue our negotiation.