All I can say is Fuck your binary all or nothing “everyone who disagrees with me is SJW” perspective. Are all your perspectives just unoriginal caricatures of reality?
Really. You are arguing against positions you have invented in your head because that is easier to see a discussion as only point A or Point B.
If you had come out with a reasonable point like some things are better today (and some are worse) then we could have a discussion. As it is, you’re just an extremist blind to any reasonable discussion.
Bill Maher? Really? That’s who makes sense to you now? You know he does political commentary now, but he originally wanted to be a comedian but just wasn’t funny. Which unfunny NeoLiberal comedian are you going to mine for your anti-SJW think tank next week - Amy Sheumer?
Good luck with all your Green shadows. Don’t let them completely choke out any potential progress you can make beyond hating everything prostmodern.
Are we having a discussion about the duality of aperspectival madness of postmodern progressivism and impact on the Teal Noosphere? You’re the yin to my yang, the salt to my pepper, the zero to my one, the enlightenment to my shadow, the Wokeness to my Naptime.
Do you actually understand the words you are using?
Duality means one or the other (exactly 2 perspectives)
aperspectival means no perspective or lacking perspective (0)
Noosphere is a rational (Orange) concept and when applied to Green is nothing more than a projection of “Orange Faction” of Integral onto “Green Faction” of Integral. Noosphere is the literal Geosphere and the literal biosphere and is a dead center rational concept (both the geosphere and biosphere can be measured and observed with the 5 senses).
I’ve noticed Corey tends to do this quite a bit - his text description of a session is apparently designed to tease an Anti-Green audience. Unfortunately people who don’t look deeper or listen critically to the actual session or take the time to look up what words actually mean - they just take on the Anti-Green teaser ideas and believe that is Integral.
If you want to talk about postmodern progressivism’s impact on Teal, a more appropriate term would be “Gaiasphere”, which minimizes the rational aspects of noosphere and prioritizes ideas such as planetary consciousness.
Perhaps not so much. Thanks for the clarifications.
On Noosphere, I was going off of:
a postulated sphere or stage of evolutionary development dominated by consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships (frequently with reference to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin). “creatures evolve: a new biosphere emerges, and with it a new noosphere”,
which in my perhaps narrow lens, seems to fit some of the discussions here. Where there almost seems to be a view that Integral / 2nd Tier is being held back or slowed by much of the world. But if we take the view that Integral Theory is a “map of” not “the correct vision of” the world (my current puzzlement), then the idea of “anti-anything” (back to @excecutive duality usage, if I understand) simply doesn’t make sense in the post-modern integral worlds. i.e. Honor that Integral Theory is a map, that likely needs refinement or perhaps significant alterations.
I think I’m hearing that the use of Noosphere is either inappropriate or perhaps outdated. Haven’t found a Gaiasphere definition, but will dig around a bit.
Gaiasphere is my own made up word. I’d have to find out which meaning for “consciousness” is being used in the definition for noosphere. In my (extreme) view, the Green meaning for consciousness would include dirt, for example. “Mother Earth” as a transrational Goddess (not a literal flesh and blood goddess woman). If the meaning of Noosphere includes the concept of Earth as a consciousness in this way, then I stand corrected.
I’m not sure what the official Integral “canon” is, but here is my personal take on it. I think each level has aspects that are constructive and each level also has aspects that are destructive. I might call these destructive aspects the “shadow”. I think it’s necessary to accept and understand all these various aspects of a given level - but it’s not necessary to implement all aspects. Let’s take Patriotism and National Identity. Yes, in my opinion it’s important to have some degree of pride in National Identity (Amber), but not at the expense of the rules of International Laws and agreements (Orange), or basic Humanity (Green). At a Green perspective, American Exceptionalism (Amber) doesn’t give us the right to exploit humans around the globe or worse, rationalize that committing atrocities against people in other nations or even in our own country is acceptable under Capitalism to maintain a decadent unhealthy addictive lifestyle.
In a way, it’s much like the development of a child. At some age, the child learns that it is an individual. Then at a later age the child learns to socialize. The two are not incompatible, and a healthy adult has both a strong self identity and is also able to socialize. The 2 year old’s Ego is transformed and subsumed by its socializing skills.
Duality is used in a lot of different ways depending on the topic. I’m not sure how he used it.
In religion and spirituality “Duality” often used in contrast to “Nonduality” as an either - or debate, usually without pausing to think it can also be both and also at the same time neither.
I think Noosphere might be used in both the “concept of” and the collective consciousness + physical world.
My understanding differs a bit. Each level has it’s own characteristics which would include the growth/developmental and psychosis/shadows. The psychosis that every level exhibits is the resistance to other levels - all that Pre stuff sucks, we’re here to fix it, and that Post stuff is all BS. Then you layer on the actual unhealthy bits, like a Red tyrant wrapping themselves in Green blah blah and it gets really ugly.
One thing I’m pondering is, who thinks they actually “know” what that next level looks like? Are we each architect of our own noosphere?
And what’s the big hurry? Wouldn’t we want to “bring along”/subsume/include as many people as possible, as opposed to alienating/excluding/dominating all of “those people”.
Maybe we aren’t ready for Green, have more work to do on Orange? Or perhaps other lines of development might be further along, using non Integralism non-Progressive vocabularies than the Integralists would like to admit.
I think we actually agree on this. And I agree that it has to be “fixed” or you take “unhealthy bs” to the next level. Yes, we see it in the “Green tyrant” and we also see it in identity politics, Cancel Culture, Critical Race Theory and Intelligent Design.
I don’t think these are the only choices. This choice is framed in top-down perspective. People who are able to subsume and include Orange are able to operate within Orange. I make my money in an Orange system by finding the gaps in that system - and people who make 10x what I make find bigger gaps. That’s not liberal or conservative - it’s just making money. Some people do it ethically and some people exploitatively.
Even at the Green level - what I’ve seen is that people exclude themselves more than anything. They get triggered by something and decide they can’t be a part of the group. For example, last year I was developing a friendship when the person decided to exclude himself because he got triggered by BLM and the majority of this particular community supporting it. Nobody ever questioned his right to have an opinion against BLM - but he couldn’t stand others supporting it so he alienated himself.
I’ve run into similar circumstances the opposite way, such as being invited to a Church’s social events. I’m not excluded except by my choice.
I think this needs to specify who “we” are. I can see what Teal looks like for a small group of people. Let’s say up to about 10,000 people either in one location like a physical community or separated like a kind of Church community model. But Beyond that numbers I see increasing problems as external react to increasing numbers and their own irrational reactions to a “strange” group.
Bringing a State, Large City or Nation to Teal is beyond what I can envision in the next 100 years though.
There’s more than one reason to do this.
Integral Theory just isn’t approachable by the masses
Integral theory terms are copyrighted
Integral Theory is more of a “meta” than it is an actual implementation / execution. It’s more like talking about doing things than actually doing things.
I shiver thinking of Jonestown which resisted by taking themselves out or Branch Davidians fried by Feds.
Yes on lacking implementation and execution. I think this effect causes integral to be less attractive/sufficient rather than unapproachable .
I still see a significant, in my opinion, blindness by integralists to see integral development in mainstream society, politics, religion, and culture. To assume integral came from nothing or inspite of is very young/teenagerish. Just as its extremely unlikely that every development line has either stalled or regressed.
Why do you think about these as examples of Integral Communities when they were obviously not? Green has been working on intentional communities for 50 years now and have become very good at it. There are tens of thousands of communities of all over the place with anywhere up to a thousand to several thousand people living an “alternative” lifestyle. I would say they had to be integral to be successful (but they probably don’t know who Ken Wilbur is).
An alternative intentional community has to deal with Orange, Amber and Red issue or it just won’t work. (transform and subsume) Which was the problem with Jonestown and the Branch Dravidians. Their main mission was an unhealthy Red - a Literal Mythic of one man chosen by God and literally everything he said was from God.
When we look at abusive communities, the Literal Mythic usually plays a leading role in the abuse. If you want people to commit atrocities like terrorism, ethnic cleansing, pedophilia or mass suicide, the Literal Mythic is the most direct route.
Like it or not, Postmodern communities are kind of the only option for the next 50 years as far as actually living with people who are also close to integral. It doesn’t matter what we call it - whether we call it pre-teal or Healthy Postmodern or Late Green or whatever. Like I said, Postmodern communities are getting good at it. The only other communities alternative to the mainstream that I know of are religious ones with a very strong Literal Red like Mormonism.
The only other two options are bringing your existing neighbors and existing family up to Teal (good luck, lol), or waiting for Integral to take charge of the Government and pass clever Integral laws to integrally reform society from the top down (never gonna happen in this century).
You’re misreading my “shiver”. I don’t think these examples are “Green” or “Teal”. But then I’m skeptical in alternate communities that “have it figured out, if only we didn’t have all those people to deal with”. Anytime I here of a requirement to separate from, isolate from, these usually don’t have a great track record of either working out themselves (Jonestown) or being allowed to play out (Branch Davidians). And I fully acknowledge that I probably don’t know about these alternate communities that are doing very well.
Would you consider gated country clubs as alternate communities? How about just purchasing a home in a nice safe neighborhood with excellent schools? Perhaps the Portofino, Luxembourg, Lichetenstein, Monoco would considered alternate communities. How is an “Integral Country Club” that much different?
As a strategy, I don’t see alternate communities in quasi-isolation as having worked out so well in the past. Even in say India with all the “Enlightened Ones”, perhaps Millions of Hindu/Buddhists on the planet at a very “enlightened” level. Yet there are also 100M’s without clean drinking water or sanitary sewage treatment - the Untouchables, the Deplorables, the Left Behinds. While an overall positive trajectory India simply is not exploding through developmental stages even with all the “Enlighted Ones” in Ashrams or Compounds or Alternate Communities.
Are we ready for a Teal Dream? With +6B people on the planet, maybe the timescale isn’t moving fast enough for us to live in this new transformed Teal Dreamscape.
In reference to Mormon’s being Literal Red, I pulled the definition below. At least based on this definition and my personal experiences, this does not describe a single Mormon that I know - not a one. You can probably find a Netflix movie with Mormon’s doing some Literal Red stuff in a hidden valley in Utah, but those would be considered “Alternate Communities”.
What is the essence of the Red value system?
Egocentric, exploitative, impulsive.
Power: “I determine”
The world is a jungle. Survival of the fittest.
Life Motto: “I am taking charge without taking others into account.”
Immediate gratification of impulses and senses and fight for my own interest.
I only trust myself and what I want, I want now.
Why would they live with someone who was openly hostile to them and who wants to make it illegal for them to exist? That’s the part you are not getting - this isn’t a customer service kind of thing where anyone can bring in their bad attitude and “the customer is always right”. There are always gates to keep the unwanted away. And no, Teal doesn’t mean having to deal with jerks on the jerk’s terms, lol.
Why would this be a requirement? You might have inferred by now that they interact with me, and I interact with you. It isn’t that they are forced to not interact with you, but they just might not want to. They even tend to invite large groups strangers into their communities for postmodern events.
Again, these people are not stupid or born under a rock - they / we know about cults just as much as you do (perhaps more?) and are able to build those concerns into the model. It’s kind of just your imagination that they are so stupid they could not figure out what is bad about cults and implement a plan to avoid that. No offense, but you are just stabbing in the dark at people and groups who you just assume are stupid because it stokes your self image and bias if they are stupid.
No, these are clearly not alternative communities - they are elite mainstream. It would be possible for a country club to be integral - but in general country clubs are exclusive based on Modern Rational criteria (money) and sometimes ethnocentrism. Not “just” racism, but chauvinism that excludes everyone but people with money and their blood relations. Even in-laws might not be accepted into exclusive country clubs and often they require $50,000 and up just for the application fee and a rigorous interview and background check that would make Military Intelligence security checks envious.
Egocentric - Yes, they believe they are the only true church
Exploitative - Yes, 10% of your income. No excuses.
Power “I Determine” - Yes, the father is the Patriarch of the family solely because he is male and his word is law. Just as the Prophet’s word is law
The world is a Jungle. Survival of the fittest - The most devout, yes will be saved by Christ. All others will perish in the Last Days and there will be “a weeping and a wailing and a gnashing of teeth”
Life Motto: I am taking charge without taking others into account. - Yes, they are not really concerned about differing points of view. They are right and they know their beliefs are true and if they had the capacity they would impose them on everyone
Life Theme - OK, one they don’t do
Life Philosophy - I only Trust Myself and what I want, I want now - Partially. Mormons only trust their own church doctrine for the ultimate truth. No amount of discussion or evidence will ever convince them of anything that is not approved by the church doctrine, which is strictly established. If they do not follow this doctrine strictly and agree to it 100% even more than their selves - frankly at that point they are not considered in good standing.
I would bet dollars to donuts that I’ve known more Mormons than you, because I was a model child prodigy for 18 years. I don’t have a charge about their beliefs, but I do recognize how the organization works and what their reaction is when you disagree with their core beliefs.
Again - remember that it’s not that I / we who now have more postmodern relationships were born under a rock in a 1970’s commune and all our childhood friends were named Moonbeam, Sunshine and Peace - or that we don’t currently have careers where we have to interact with a Modern world 24/7/365. That’s a common theme I see among people who are strongly against postmodernism. Their arguments generally rely on imagining Green to be caricature snowflake New Age Hippies or soft, sheltered Millennials.
I acknowledge that I haven’t lived as, been raised by, nor left the fold of the Mormons. And frankly it sounds like the Mormons I know are likely not very good Mormons at that. Some are divorced, some meet for happy hours, but none seem to cuss much.
Is there any chance that human development can happen in what we might consider “mainstream” communities like churches, temples, mosques, country clubs, gated communities, universities, coffee shops, art galleries, truck stops, or cruise ships?
It does sound like you have a beautiful alternate community that you live/interact with. I’ll ponder the idea of alternate communities that are “getting it right this time”. I’m not a government agent or spy for the Vatican so if you can point me to some examples I’d love to be a voyeur. And likewise I still like and respect the people in my neighborhood, city, metro, state, nation, and global communities. I think they are fascinating, amazing, and frankly a lot of fun to work, play and learn with, even the ones that grate on me.
Sure, lots of development has happened and can still happen. For example, some Churches are transforming more quickly while others still “stuck” in very literal interpretations of their scripture as absolutely 100% literally true. I think transformation requires quite a bit of clearing out the old and re-working it, so it all comes down to how much an organization can adapt, or if it has permanent structures in place that resist transformation. Gated communities are just their members who made rules, so yeah, an Integral community could form a gated community somewhere. Or a club or whatever organization. The more it is set up to attract Integral members, the more it will attract, but it it’s set up to appeal to any of the other levels, then that’s the level it will attract. A fight club will attract people who want to fight, of course.
I think when “shopping” for micro-communities, remember it doesn’t have to be “all or nothing”. I’m not really a “member” of any - but I might go to their events (or not). They are doing their “thing” and I might not be into it 100%, so I’m not living with them or anything. I just meet them and attend their events. For example, here’s one that I was never invited to actually join, but I attended their groups from time to time lafayettemorehouse.com . I don’t even know if they are accepting new members. I don’t think they are. Are they Integral? Maybe not exactly. But they have a very interesting methods of working out conflicts within their community. Is it possible to be partially Integral? They definitely aren’t trying to be a “good fit” for everyone. If someone is triggered by what they do or teach, they are quite happy those people stay away. But they have a community that has “worked” for almost 60 years. They do what they do.
There at least a half dozen other similar communities I know (but with different areas of interest). There’s a “Vibe Tribe”, a “House of Healing”, etc. and so on in addition to all the various spiritual organizations. I’m sure there are others around where you live.
My experience is that the Ibtegral community views from a “hurry up and get transformed” perspective. Not bad, but not inclusive of each, person, group, or communities appetite for change-transformation. And honestly sometimes taking a measured pace is a very good thing (oops, like trigger Conservative alarms). Much like speeding down the highway at 100 mph, it much easier to take the wrong fork in the road. When a nice 65 mph would not have resulted in ending up in Boston instead of Pittsburg.
I’m one of those “churchy types” and if you were a fly on the wall taking notes you would be appalled at the scriptures, literal red, mythic, mysticism and just plain stupid stuff that goes on. But rest assured every single person on each different day experiences something different. So really hard to claim “all those people” believe one way or one thing - wife reminds me. Lol
I’m actually ok for the young bulls to thrash about and help sort things out whilst we chill out enjoying the Peace of God, Allah be with you, Namaste, and perhaps take a bit longer (inclusive?) view to bring more people along?
I use the term duality to identify opposing points of view. Integral or oneness is understanding the wholeness or completeness connecting these polarities. Arguing one side without incorporating the other will remain an argument and will remain in conflict.
Those battling for one-side over another are quickly exposed. This is evidence to suggest a non-integrated understanding, an unwillingness to accept and acknowledge the other. Showing a limited understanding of integral comprehension, especially when name-calling and insults surface. These reveal that the emotional triggers are firing.
Rational thought and sound reasoning have left the room. Leaving the ego free reign to throw a temper tantrum to validate itself alone in it’s singularity. This lacks concern for others and is just another dance in the chaos go-round available on every social media platform out there.
When someone is triggered they likely do have less concern for others. But lack of concern is a symptom, not the cause. Can we let our “discerning mind” continue to discern yet remain non-judgmental?
The Bible covered this several millennia back and has a not insignificant population of students, at all levels. Matthew’s (New Testament) recommendation of “turn the other cheek” is seen by Christians as a transformation over Leviticus’ (Old Testament) “eye for an eye”. In my layman’s interpretation, Leviticus is saying don’t over react and make things worse while Matthew (New Testament, transformed by Christ) is saying don’t react at all or even turn the other cheek so they can slap that one too.
So why would you turn the other check to get slapped again? It’s to let the other person unravel their own triggers, heal their past hurts, perhaps free themselves from what binds them.
A book that helped me “Grow Up” some (still a work in progress) was Goleman’s “Emotional Intelligence” (the first one). We can perhaps rationalize all of these through the psycho-physiological concept of Amygdala Hijack. Key concept here is that once the Amygdala is triggered, we start losing access to our higher level thought processes (cerebral cortex et al).
I would also just like to add that in all these discussions I’ve noticed a kind of trend, and that is the ability of some but not others to separate the point being discussed from the person, and by extension a specific technique that person might use from the person.
In my judgement that is a very Orange skill - the ability to get into a very heated no-holds barred debate, but at the end of it rationally walk away without judgement of the actual person, and also to carry no judgment on oneself.
I’d compare it to a boxing match where two people engage violently against each other and cause each other (temporary) physical harm, but at the end of the match shake hands and do not bear any grudges on a personal level.
Can a boxer be Integral even if he steps in the ring? I would say yes. It’s one of the misguided crusades of Green to remove conflict from society and eliminate competitive sports. Any judgments “Green” has about the violence of boxing, American Football, wrestling and is pretty much “Green’s” problem.
It would be nice if Green’s methods of compassion, inclusiveness, “we are one”, empathy, caring and sharing worked in all situations every time - but they don’t always, and often backfire or just cover up problems until they blow up.
Your summary is good @raybennett and I would simply suggest that any one color, tendency, style, level, etc. that refuses to accommodate the perception of another color, tendency, style, level, etc. Will not reach a peaceful integrated resolution, but rather will perpetuate the disconnections.