I get the analysis and I’d like to give you a “yes, and…” response. It would be my assertion that the red’s and green’s, blue’s and orange’s are a scaffold or a map to put the conceptualization of IT forth to those that can understand it. This said, its just another finger that points toward the moon (granted a very beautiful finger). All of the talk of integral (yellows, teals, corals) implicitly have to transcend duality to a very large extent. This means there is no other. There is no red as opposed to green or anything else for that matter. The main teaching that Ken puts forth has nothing to do with the scaffold. Its just the way he gets you there.
Not an expert here but it seems that you are taking Growing Up and Waking Up terms and mixing them.
What do you mean
That seems to be making a case for flatland.
Also, not sure what you consider to be Ken’s main teaching.
‘Turtles all the way up and all the way down.’
I am also not an expert. Flatland would be to state (from the perspective of Green) that there are no universal truths while living the performative contradiction that that assertion is in fact a universal truth. From a first tier perspective, Green is much more advanced and righteous than Red, but only based on certain perspectival norms that we have come to accept as reality. For example, if “little rocket man” fires a nuke into LA tomorrow and follows it up with a land invasion of Oregon, Red becomes a very beneficial and contributing aspect of the integral makeup of each and every one of our individual and mutual human natures (at least in the response that would naturally develop). That’s first tier. From a second tier perspective, Kim Jong can do whatever he wants. People will die, it will be ugly, he might even win, but it’s all just part of the unfolding of what is.
Ken might still assert that evolution is progress and will happen for the benefit of experience and consciousness in a positive way, but I doubt that he asserts to know what that will look like as it relates to individual humans or on a planetary or even cosmic scale. It’s just that he has tasted the witnessing nature of consciousness and he knows that there isn’t anything to truly worry about.
This said, the first tier “yes and…'s” are a great deal of fun and distraction.
I just can’t get behind that. It reminds me of Arjuna’s decision on the battlefield. Having an integral perspective doesn’t mean that you always choose non-action. Sometimes it is knowing when to fight.
I agree Red has some benefits.
I disagree that Integral means Red can do whatever they want.
Yes, and… second tier transcends but includes first tier. You are correct that first tier green, orange, and blue (sorry for the SD references) need to keep Red in check. At yellow though (I like to use SD colours for first tier) one starts to realize the value of Red and to more importantly recognize the Red in themselves. This is an important step to integral thinking as one cannot continue to see themselves as other even from the most adverse representations. In my very limited experiences of non-duality, this is the gateless gate or at least the gargoyles that guard it.
People don’t know who Alex Jones WAS. Watch the movie “waking life” he has a cameo in there, that’s how I initially found out who he was. He is a poet of sorts. A type of voice that looks out for sinister control mechanisms, (which DO exist at some level) his faults are in accurately pointing out the ones that are REAL, as well as pointing out too many that are FALSE. But this type of mechanism, the finger that points to the emperor with no clothes, IS a good thing for society at large to the degree of the emperor’s nakedness and the accuracy of the finger’s aim, pointing at the emperor is dangerous. Alex Jones has unfortunately run into, what I interpret as, mental health issues. I think it’s a bit difficult to imagine what it FEELS like to live in the spotlight as he does, especially when your subject matter is a very powerful force, who can destroy those that are deemed real threats to it. It’s pretty obvious now that he is a bit unstable.
I seem to believe though that the law is the proper mechanism for inhibiting individuals to social platforms, and that, if he has not broken laws in this regard, then speech should be free. Though these companies are private, and can by law govern themselves, they have a monopoly over the populous’ attention, and so they should not have the same rights as an average private company. One just hopes that the individuals that direct the algorithms of the leading companies are of a high well-balanced stage, with strong moral intelligence, because if they aren’t, it is THESE individuals that have the capability to manipulate and control and disintegrate and destroy that which they touch with the power of super-intelligence. It will be harder and harder to provide checks and balances upon this new wing of society.
In my mind Alex Jones is an easy person to hate, but he has not broken the law, and this case shows the hand of those that pull the levers of the AI machine we call google.
There is a famous court case that discusses censorship. I’ll paraphrase terribly here but: independent journalists made a report for Fox news about the poor conditions and maltreatment of dairy cows. Fox buried the story. Journalists I think sued over free speech. The result was that Fox was under no obligation to broadcast material they owned.
I see nothing wrong if those with journalistic integrity fight this fight.
@lxvythrs The question is not whether private companies have freedom of speech, which they do, it is whether google twitter and facebook have a monopoly over a certain type of domain. If say company X had 99.9% of political discourse happening on their platform, and company X decided to ban farmers, does freedom of speech still maintain its precedence, or should the freedom of speech of those using it be invoked? Company X has a limit on its rights to the extent that it ruins the election process. I would argue that google facebook and twitter are monopolies, and therefore have unique responsibilities to maintain an open and clean domain for free speech.