Trickle Down Integralism & Modern Monetary Theory - It's working


As we watch inflation break 40 year highs, month after month, this might actually be a good thing overall for Integral Development. We’ve discussed many times the Transcend and Include, perhaps Include then Transcend, Integral Development Conveyor Belt and how we get to a 2nd Tier or Teal tipping point.
Overall consensus might be that waiting on Amber to develop into Orange, Orange to develop into Green is likely is/are not the best paths forward. Or at least the most expeditious.

I propose that we refer to the focus on pulling forward the current leading edge of late stage Orange and healthy Green as Trickle Down Integralism. i.e. We focus on the already most advanced leading edge people, even if a very small portion of the population, who will then in turn embody Integral 2nd tier-ness. Given that these Integral elite are most likely already in high level positions of power and influence, they can not only through their living Integral Beingness expand 2nd tier adoption they can also push downward 2nd tier Beingness with or without buy-in by the lower developmental tiers - and actually mandate 2nd tier principles.

Setting aside dated concepts such as compassion for the less fortunate, crushing these Amber and early stage Orange through application of Modern Monetary Theory in order to force society to adopt 2nd tier globalcentric Climate and Equity Policies (transition to EV’s, Solar, Wind, Intersectionality) might be the most expeditious developmental conveyor belt possible. While the economic impact on the lowest economic groups is devastating and arithmetically accelerating, God willing most of us will awaken from the hard times in a brighter world.

So while the costs of Modern Monetary Policy application might be devastating to the lowest and middle economic strata (Amber, early stage Orange), the Trickle Down Integralism should enable the unfolding and enfolding of a new 2nd tier noosphere.


Thanks for mentioning MMT. To me, this is with regard to the lower right quadrant/macroeconomics very much leading edge. But it is not so much about “application”, it is more about understanding: “Rather, I wanted people to see MMT as a lens which allows us to see the true (intrinsic) workings of the fiat monetary system. It helps us better understand the choices available to a currency-issuing government. It allows us to understand that most choices that are couched in terms of ‘budgets’ and ‘financial constraints’ are, in fact, just political choices. There are no financial constraints on a currency-issuing government, only real resource and political constraints. MMT at this stage is about understanding.” (Bill Mitchell)


Excellent links on MMT.

This statement sums up very well. Economic policy, taxation, regulation are only limited by real resources, real productions and political constraints.
Where political constraints, in a democracy, are limited only by ability to stay in power.

Using the example of taxation and regulation, we might see individual decision making and property rights on one end to governmental/NGO/Corp expertocracy tops down decision making and centralized property ownership on other end of the spectrum.
Given that a small population of experts would have a much more concentrated cognitive ability, elite education, and simplified decision process, after the growing pains are experienced in transition, we should see the benefits of trickle down governance and trickle down Integralism. This would clearly be the most expeditious path to 2nd Tier.

Creativity might suffer long term, but management and overall simplification would be delivered as promised.

The counter argument to MMT or a “new system” is the reduced creativity and subsequent productivity reduction.
Is human nature itself holding back humanity’s development?

If we take say a below average IQ lawn care person. Will she be more productive with more autonomy, control, and retention or profits - or essentially having the government retain the bulk of incomes and highly constraint her business?

Will it be necessary to tightly constrain by the expertocracy this strive and drive in order for a 2nd Tier.

I think MMT regardless of whether an analysis “lens” or a theory of optimal societal performance might be part of the solution. And agreed that it’s only political will that constrains these adoptions.


I like your “trickle down integral” idea (via the lower right Quadrant), and it fits with what Ken Wilber says about the importance of the lower right quadrant: “the LR quadrant in general, and the material modes of production in particular, exert a profound influence on the other quadrants in the tetra-enaction and tetra-evolving of being-in-the-world. Because these material artifacts and modes outlive individuals, they are a significant part of the fabric of social cohesion and social reproduction (along with cultural habitus), forming part of the sociocultural background that enmeshes individual consciousness and behavior.)” (excerpt D).
As a first step, I hope for a “trickle down orange”, because the prevailing macroeconomics is still full of myths (consequently, Stephanie Keltons book on MMT is titled “The deficit myth”.)


It’s interesting to consider the iterative influence of Culture (Lower Right, Interior - Collective) and Interior-Individual. Is Interior-Collective a reflection of Interior-Individual, or Interior-Individual a reflection of Interior-Collective? Answer is Yes and Yes.

By ratcheting up application of MMT through political discussions, elections, subsequent policy changes (both legislative and by dept/agency decree) we can continue to shift power from an Interior-Individual (1 Citizen, 1 Vote) to the Expertocracy guiding/mandating re-engineering of our Interior-Collectives.

I’ve read some of Mitchell’s posts and reviews of Kelton’s work (don’t have the The Deficit Myth). There are some excellent discussions Mitchell’s blogspot posts. The MMT as analysis (aka “lens”) and MMT as theory seems to be an ongoing debate.

My take is MMT is required to break this paradigm of “individualism” that’s take root so strongly in the West. Essentially we should be able to spend our way out of the Western paradigm through a combination of social re-engineering programs as designed by the Expertocracy and reducing Individualism through taxation/regulation (move wealth out of Individuals’ control into collective control (shift decision making from Individual to Expertocracy). With the Expertocracy having more control than it does today, it will be quite straight forward to mandate equity, climate impact, diet, actions, communications all the way down to behaviours and thoughts. Today on the mandating of behaviors we are seeing a shift from prohibited actions (theft, assault, arson, rape, murder) to more proscription of permitted behaviors with regards to language, communication, trade, hiring.
I see this shift from in our legal and bueracractic systems from a “shall not” to “shall” paradigm as an excellent shift towards Trickle Down Integralism by shifting almost unlimited power to the Expertocracy.

I’m not sure I see why we would look for Trickle Down Orange, when leading edge is Teal or at the very least Green. Are you recommending Orange Trickle Down vs Green or Teal due to current populations of each?

Should we look at next level effects if we mitigate Individual creativity, drive, and strive? What would be the impacts and instabilities for each?

Another Bill Mitchell on MMT.


I like the idea of “social re-engineering programs”. One of the main ingrediants of integral politics for me is to “balance the perspektives”. The upper quadrants emphasize individual freedom (interior: thoughts, feelings …) and exterior (action, behavior), the lower left quadrant emphasizes social justice and the lower right quadrant emphasizes system-sustainability (natural and cultural systems). All three of them are equally important and need to be balanced in every social-cultural-political area. Looking at the world, we find imo too much individual freedom with regard to environmental issues (climate, species extinction) (and too little social responsibility and system-sustainability), and the same applies to me with regard to our financial systems. There we need a social re-engineering. On the other hand - we may find areas, where we have gone too far limiting individual freedom through political correctness … We need to look carefully.
“Trickle Down Orange” to me is a first step. It would be a huge progress, if we are able to move from an amber myth like “taxes fund government spending” to an orange fact like “a currency-issuing government does not need taxes in order to spend.” But yes, if we can do it from amber to teal in one step, that would be fine. :slight_smile:


Resistivity in to development is often expressed in classic economic terms like Debt to GDP or Debt to Per Capita Incomes, which seems to keep the population locked into their resistive mindset. We can break down this mindset by literally breaking down the economic capability of the Amber and lower Orange tiers through economic policies, which seemingly is well underway. Lower economic tiers will be unable to withstand food, transportation, and energy rising costs. Dis-empowering these tiers will then enable the adoption of climate initiatives better suited for a global-centric society devoid of past baggage.

Several actions that are accelerating social re-engineering and are addressing resistance across multiple Quadrants include:

  • influencing early education - we can shape UL installing LL values better suited to 2nd tier dev
    • excellent collaborative work between teachers unions and Dept of Justice
    • reducing support of baby formula availability is a brilliant way force Amber/Early Orange into the fold
  • influencing higher education - influence and direct control of LR with focus on shaping UL, LL development
    • free liberal education to teach Integral-like concepts
    • mandate anti-Racist, anti-LGBTQA training into all higher education
  • influencing through bureaucratic fiat - influence and direct control of both LR and UR
    • we see excellent work here by our current Fed Reserve and Dept of Treasury
    • bringing humanitarian concerns to border control

My pressing concern is how we can eliminate high volume, low cognition populism from derailing our development efforts. It’s imperative we maintain position at top of the hierarchy in order to solidify Trickle Down Integralism. Continuing to promote a great simplification does seem to keep lower tiers from manifesting their their cognitively and developmentally low resolution fear-based desires through our current representative democratic structures. Are their better ways?


“I conclude with a sober appraisal: we are nowhere near the Millenium. In fact, at this point in history, the most radical, pervasive, and earthshaking transformation would occur simply if everybody truly evolved to a mature, rational and responsible ego, capable of freely participating in the open exchange of mutual self-esteem.” (Ken Wilber, Up from Eden)


How would we differentiate promoting a Trickle Down Orange from say a Jordan Peterson “get your own life in order (Orange) before claiming to tackle the world’s problems (Green)” approach? Or do we care if there is any differentiation?

I also interpret this as very pragmatic, with no mention of spirituality.


Here is the “spiritual” part a few pages later in the same book (Up from Eden): “Every person intuits that he is God, but corrupts the intuition by applying it to his self, and he will then do whatever is necessary to confirm that distorted intuition in his own case”. (Please read he/she and his/her)
When Ramana Maharshi was asked about his opinion on social reform, he recommended personal reform first. I would say both can go together, but I understand his point. My interpretation of a “get your life in order” is: embrace your red but please stop being egocentric, embrace your amber but please stop being imperialistic, embrace your orange but please stop being “flatland”, embrace your green but please stop your boomeritis, embrace your integral but please stop being ??? I believe this bottom up approach is what we can do in order to support any top (trickle) down and any social reform.


Curbing/loving/embracing each our ego seems to be time immemorial spiritual quest. Just as we graduate to the next level, shadow/ego envelops from behind.
You’ve lost me with "embrace your integral but please stop being ???"


I am not sure what you mean, but I did not mean embracing the “ego”, but rather the “include” part of the developmental “transcend and include” dynamic of every developmental level: self-esteem, being-social, objectivity, pluralism … If we transcend-only, we dissociate from the qualities these levels have to offer.

With regard to possible downsides of the higher structure-levels (the ???): in “The Religion of Tomorrow”, there is a chapter titled “Dysfunctions of the 2nd-Tier Structure-Views”. “A very common pathology at 2nd tier—perhaps even the most common—is a green allergy. With a green allergy, the 2nd-tier individual, sick and tired of the extreme green culture that he or she had to fight so hard in order to emerge into Integral, simply dissociates and dis-owns any and all of its remaining green impulses and qualities, and projects them onto the world at large, and then the “mean green meme” seems to be absolutely everywhere.”


Wow, I might be 2nd Tier already :slight_smile:

This seems to be a common and very long standing critique of Integralism. It does seem common to evaluate and assess from a very high level. In my estimation it may be creating a very low-resolution view/map/assessment of “those people”.

As an example, if we utilize standard English claiming that 60% of the population is pre-rational across the entirety of their lives seems a low-resolution view and perhaps dismissive.

As an example, my landscaper likely has not been exposed to higher level thinking, training, development opportunities (likely in the 60% Amber?) but to think of him as pre-rational seems both inaccurate and dismissive. He’s actually quite “rational” and adept at what he does.
Perhaps it’s a simple issue of Integralists using traditional English language yet has redefined these terms.


“Wow, I might be 2nd Tier already”

me too :blush:

“As an example, my landscaper likely has not been exposed to higher level thinking, training, development opportunities (likely in the 60% Amber?) but to think of him as pre-rational seems both inaccurate and dismissive.”

This is an absolutely important point, and I think it has to do with overestimating what developmental psychology can do. Cognition (the understanding part of perception/awareness) can be measured fairly well, but the experiencing part (feeling in the broadest sence), the being-in-contact with yourself, other beings and life, is very difficult to measure, a monological sentence completion test will not do. It is something that can only be felt, to the extent that a person is in contact with her/himself.

In addition, avoidance, alienation and estrangement is unavoidable, since the little child can not endure the existential dimensions of life, and therefore MUST alienate itself from existential emotions.

In his early works, Ken Wilber has written extensively about the “death terror” and “death seizure” we all have avoided and still are avoiding. In his latest book “The Religion of Tomorrow” he writes:

“That single, simple, primary turning away, looking away, moving away—that Primordial Avoidance—sets in motion the events that are, at this level, the dominant cause of the world of maya, illusion, ignorance, and deception. And every level, top to bottom, is infected with this delusion.”

“Every level, top to bottom, is infected with this delusion”, and this is happening bottom to top, beginning in our early childhood on our way “Up from Eden”. The extent that we have overcome this primary delusion tells us, where we really are on our developmental journey, structures and states.

An “objective” developmental psychology can not tell us much about this, but if a person is very much in contact with him/herself, other beings and (the existential dimensions/experiences of) life, he/she can feel — dialogical-emphatic — the extent of alienation of another person.

In response to the question “how do I notice my developments progress?” Ken sometimes answers something like “the fear diminishes”, and I believe he refers to the existential fears, the “death terror” — wherever there is other, there is fear (Upanishad) — and this also means, that alienation and “self-contraction” diminish.


@Charles_Marxer posted a link to Stoicism practices which has opened up classics of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius to me. I see Stoicism as the “just do it now” that enables acknowledging the “fear uncertainty doubt” or “death terror” of identity and doing what you know to do in face of the Amygdala hijacking. And face whatever terror is in front of you when it presents. Agency in facing these daily terrors might be the single most freeing habit we can form.
If we’re not cognizant, our intellectual egoic response can hijack life itself through layers of self marination.

How do we best peel away, face, overcome each new layer of death terror if not through facing the dragon and seeing ourselves alive and healthy on the otherside of death?


… seeing ourselves alive and healthy on the otherside of death?

Everything we are identified with (“me,” “mine”) will die. The question is, will we let it die before we die? Only that which has never been born and has never entered the stream of time remains.

How do we get from the time-wise now to the timeless NOW?


We give up our property (the “mine”) with submit to the expertocracy (the “me”). The pathway is clear and we need simply join the collective.