No, it should be clear and obvious that I was appealing to the absurd. Only if reality parallels that absurdity can it then be construed as a serious point. So tell me - is the idea patently and easily seen as absurd, or is it in your view a serious reality?
I’m not sure who you mean by “we” or what the “fight” is that you are imagining.
Hyperbole - again. Nowhere close to factually correct.
But again, you are stuck in the old language of 1990’s conservative talk radio that has no relevance in describing the current situations.
Individual experience and experience in microcultures most likely. I see a very huge gap between the overall general local state culture and my own microculture, and an even larger gap with the national culture.
Simple - don’t try to “implement” it. Live it. The same answer again to the same broken record question based on the real world data that Democratic socialism works but you probably only choose to see the possibility of authoritarian socialism. Why would you hand over the keys to your kingdom to anyone? That’s not collectivism, but the exact opposite. In a collective, there is by definition no single person or group that “holds the keys”. If there is, then it by definition is not collectivism.
I don’t think so, no. Why do you equate the Democratic Party and Integral? For that matter, the Democratic Party isn’t even Green, much less Teal or Higher. It’s an organization that operates through power and money. We can argue if the Republican party or Democratic party operates more in Red, Amber or Orange but political parties deal in power, money and influence for their group, not in integrating all levels all quadrants.
Whether “IT Geeks” “get anything done” is purely up to the geek.
But also, IT actually has the word “Theory” in it - not It’s not Integral Implementation or Integral World Domination or anything else. It’s a theory, a way to describe something. Many people who live integral lives may know nothing of integral theory and many who know integral theory back and forth may not lead integral lives.
@raybennett and @FermentedAgave … You guys sure enjoy autopsying reality from your individual perspectives. It’s fun to watch (read) it’s very engaging but I suggest it has little relevance to influencing the collective reality of the whole humanity.
As individuals we have very few true freedoms. The one absolute freedom we can exercise is how we think. That thinking happens inside of us … alone in our spiritual space, the bible describes it as “The Kingdom of God”. It is inside ourselves that we connect to a deeper collective reality; we communicate with it thru internal conversations. To a religious person they may see that as God?
When we try and communicate our personal attainments to others this can lead to arguments. From our individual perspective we may feel like “we’re right” “I won” or “I know” … yet what do we really know for sure about the whole of reality?
The duality perspective is just our view and a contrasting one … can we start by simply connecting those two dots in our perception? Even if we added a hundred, a million or a billion more perspective dots to connect it will still never complete the picture.
The closest we become to being all knowing or truly integral is hearing, agreeing and accepting everything that exists; because it does. We get to experience what life offers us and we do that by our thinking. Is the world wonderful or defective? Is it happy or sad? Is great or broken? The answer is yes!
We can choose to observe it all and flow with it all … or choose to fight and battle about it … whatever feeds our soul? We live in the world that we describe to ourselves. We can live by love and light or by battling the darkness. These are our choices and we make them both … to find balance between the opposites.
No one is able to accommodate or encapsulate the wholeness that keeps humanity connected and thriving. The Apostle Peter said something like … “From the days our forefathers fell asleep in death all things continue exactly as they have since the worlds creation onward” … I think that the wholeness of this reality will continue long after we transform off this planet
I see you both as right from your individual perspectives and I also see the holistic strings that tie you two together so magically (Pun Intended!) I certainly do love you both! ~ Peace
I don’t think I actually want to do that, lol.
It actually sounds like a very grandiose dysfunctional desire to have.
I understand that observing two people in apparent conflict makes some people uncomfortable. If it does … well, that is something for them to deal with. I disagree that integration only includes nice and agreeable methods. If you believe in a God that is only kind and benevolent - those are your beliefs. My own beliefs in a non-God all-encompassing intelligence allows for the whole range of human existence. Life and death, joy and sorrow, peace and war, meekness and aggression. Each has a grand purpose and only living half of the spectrum tends to allow the other half to grow larger in the shadows.
But in this discussion I believe I’ve mostly countered the dialogue presented with attempts to present facts and logic when presented with the opposite.
I find it odd that you don’t seem to mind letting the forum be filled with anti-liberal (the imaginary enemy) dialogue. You seem to be completely ok with @FermentedAgave 's “2 minutes of hate” day after day after day.
But when I challenge those ideas … that’s when you believe it stops being integral?
I’m not that familiar with Christian oriented communities that would fit you - but I’m sure they are out there.
And there is always the challenge for you to create.
I believe that if you were to begin the process of trying to form your own community based on your own ideology, you would have to come to terms with certain things (dozens of things not just one or two) and if you are able to find solutions to those challenges, you and your community will grow exponentially, but if you are not able to find those answers the idea will never germinate or will wither on the wayside.
So start some kind of meetup group and see what kind of people you attract.
I would be willing to bet if you start a group and only talk about how bad liberalism is you will attract a rather unpleasant group of whingers, complainers and whackos, but I could be wrong.
Bingo! … Right on @raybennett I agree with your integral presentation here.
I see the connecting strings between you and @FermentedAgave. When we talk about an ideal or better society built on love and caring as on objective, one side can push back that it’s Religious fanaticism or push back it’s a utopian Marxist nightmare. Some of us are happy with it all unfolding before our eyes in a free for all dance called the reality of life … we get to watch it unfold or participate in it as we choose.
Is the “your beliefs” referencing me @raybennett? Your description is certainly in conflict with the God of the Bible as I read it. I am not here to promote religion or Marxist utopias. I see the reasonable rational well thought out presentations that you both engage in and I agree with you both.
It’s from the place between the conflicts and contradiction that I find my fulfillment. I am a promoter of love and spirituality the connecting fibers that make up our reality. It’s the Trinity of life and a 3-fold cord in not easily broken and that’s what maintains the holistic balance throughout the whole of our reality.
Counter position for Authoritarian rule over Democracy. Main thread in article is that Democracy can be chaotic, corrupt, and unfair as compared to centralized authority strucures. That is if the authorities remain benevolent and less corrupt than the deomcracy alternative.
“Commanding authority figures can potentially be quite good at that. Democracy, on the other hand, can be messy and divisive – and especially in countries with little experience of it and where strong centrifugal pressures have historically been managed by a strong central state.”
That is a HUGE “if”
Where in all the history of humankind on any continent has an authoritarian regime ever been less corrupt and more benevolent than a Democratic alternative?
Frank Herbert dealt with this theme very well in his DUNE series. People want peace and security at the expense of freedom but then when they have peace and security but no rights or freedom they struggle to get the opposite.
There are types of people who are always looking to the other side of the fence as “better”. The article mentions Suharto. It says some percentage of people believe Martial law under Suharto was better, (but not the ones who were purged, of course). The case of Suharto is even more interesting if we point out the fact that he was responsible for the economic problems in his country resulting from the 1997 Asian - then he resigned and people kind of forget that he was the failure.
This is the common ploy of the Dictator, which can be seen in the would-be dictator Trump. Claim successes that are not yours and blame others for your failures.
The nature of Authoritarian regimes is they have a fanatical minority that convinces a slight majority to not interfere while they brutalize an opposing minority.
In any case, Authoritarianism is pretty much anti-Integral. As in the opposite. Killing people or imprisoning them for having opposing views can create hegemony but hegemony is not integration.
Religion is used with a negative negative connotation. The video presents wokeness as an undesirable thing and even “dangerous” for the very reasons that it resembles religion (Christianity).
This is a massive shadow you guys are dancing in. Do you realize that this video only makes sense if you are against religion at any end of the political spectrum? If there was any element of dislike towards wokeness because it resembles what you see as religion, but not yours so therefore dangerous.
I myself don’t see a lot of difference between Christianity as a religion and wokeness as a religion myself. If the narrator made the same video but from the opposite end of the political spectrum it would make the same amount of sense to me.
Again agreed The negative negative connotation I see it as a click bait headline … Also the “Conservative” title given to Douglas Murray would no way meet a traditional definition of that word either. I think we all agree that fanaticism is net-negative from all sides of the debate.
I am glad you confirmed you do not support “wokeism” I’m sure @FermentedAgave nor myself agree with religious fanaticism either. We can sometimes get sucked into defending something we fundamentally disagree with when the debates become intense and ego’s take over.
This is a symptom of the emerging click bait culture. People often just react against those not in their perceived tribe without actually looking any deeper.
I do support a lot of so-called “woke” ideologies - but not the caricatures that the “anti-woke” try to paint. So there’s no point in even discussing a caricature.
I also support fiscal responsibility, accountability for one’s actions, self-reliance and individualism. I would own a gun but I don’t because frankly I’m a terrible shot because of a stigmatism in my shooting eye.
I’ve lived in a country without any kind of social “safety net” like welfare and you had to pay medical bills cash up front, and I’ve also lived in a “Social Democratic” EU country. I have to say I prefer the social safety net and being able to go to the hospital when I’m gushing blood all over the place.
