Developmental levels are, essential forms of style that give birth to forms of content.
The “way” of thinking at Orange, for example, may produce a great technological weapon that can then be used by people at any level of development.
Or the “style” of Green interpersonal sensitivity can be taken over by people who call themselves postmodernists but exhibit little or none of the intelligence that produces pluralistic, ecological metacontextuality.
Once content is produced by any level it becomes fair game – becomes a “tool” – that can be used by any level. And if this happens a lot then then it may become identified with another level completely. How many religions are, in general, viewed according to the general level of the followers and not according to the developmental degree of the foundational mystics? How many popular social grievances are based in treating the rival conformist groups as if they were adequate examples of the virtues that they verbally espouse? Do we not pretend that Republicans are examples of conservative values? Do we not pretend that “anti-racist” totalitarians are examples of the postmodern Left? A negro pimp on a 1970s street corner is surely not an expression of Martin Luther King, jr – even if he quotes the man.
Forgive me! I’m rambling to make a distinction. I want to know what you are watching, reading or listening to that has 2nd tier style rather than 2nd tier content.
Of course it is easy to point to media that contains the intellectual content we associate with vision-logic. Anyone can say they love Star Trek or Sense-8 or a Deepak Chopra novel about a yogic saint – but do they mean that the content reminds them of integral vision? Or do they mean that the STYLE of the ART is at post-relativistic stage?
I always say that my half-assed sketch of Jesus is LESS SPIRITUAL than Van Gogh’s painting of a dirty peasant field. The “integral altitude” of the “aesthetics line” is not based on whether or not the content reminds of us higher topics. Topics, by their very nature, are cognitive rather than aesthetic. They deal with WHAT rather than HOW.
I don’t know if people can respond to this. We are indoctrinated deeply to thing in terms of categories of content. People are trained to show their children “content appropriate to children” rather than to try to show their children “high quality rather than low quality”.
But perhaps you are different?
Perhaps you have recently watched a brutal murder scene that was so deftly and multidimensional deep in its filming that its altitude exceeds any bland documentary about the evolution of the spirit?
Perhaps you have read a book whose author works with such voice and style that s/he clearly has incorporate and transcended pluralism in quality – despite your abhorrence towards the protagonist’s values and worldview?
Perhaps your are listening to outrageous barbaric music whose tones and production value are so elevated that it seems, to you, to outshine albums with overt integral lyrics?
Have you encountered any such things?