the LR (ITS in relationship to I)

Sure. I meant we all want to be good people. However we've come to understand 'good' at whichever point we are, in our lives. So blaming people with hate doesn't make sense, really, since we can't know for sure someone's intention, especially when we're feeling hateful, since we can't feel how they are people, who want to be good, because being good is rewarded, it's good for people. Sometimes we are not as far as the rest of our community, developmentally, sometimes we have surpassed the norm- but maybe we imitate the actions and word or thought formations and expressions of people we see, who are good, by the community standard, but they don't quite align with how we are feeling, on the inside, in our feelings and thoughts. Does that make sense?

It is inevitably tricky, in a rich communication environment like this, to determine who's responding to what perspective, which line of implication to follow next, & whether we have been misunderstood or are simply watching a fellow explorer unpack an adjacent dimension of our topic. 

(Aside: Reich is, in general, lamentably misunderstood by his fans and foes, excluded from academia, and reduced in significance to either "madness" or "the problem of sexual repression."  Yet he stands to psychology as Nietzsche stands to philosophy or Adi Da stands to religion -- an integral, advanced, potent, brilliant, often disturbing man, amazingly marginalized and quarantined (perhaps partly voluntarily) from the common conversation.  Reich produced a dynamic "both/and" model which he called Orgonomic Functionalism which used subtle energy to orient a study of bio-psychological heath vs. pathology in the context of emotion, libido-as-electricity, post-Marxist ideological critique and the relationship between human thinking and cosmocentric patterns.  Has to be read in context and in the original in order to get a good sense of it.)

Now -- are we talking about the same aspect of the I/WE interface?  Hard to say.  Safest for me to ask for more explanation but more fun to guess.

Revisiting your first post in this thread, here's what is sounds like you're saying:

• It is possible that one of the roots of genocide, as an example of a pathological ethnocentric manifestation, is simply the fact that the quadrants are not experienced.  Thus if the self-identity of a person involved inter-ethnic atrocity was shifted from a localized subjective position of self-viewing (UR)to a more general position (viewing all quadrants) then much of the imbalance might dissolve.  Is it possible that the cognitive tool provided by the presence in culture of a 4 quadrant model would itself resituation the ethnocentric individual psychology away from merely perceiving itself over against the dark forces of "Them" and instead reveal it to itself as an "I challenged within the WE."
• Perhaps a 4 Quadrant Model is not quarantined to 2nd Tier or even Rational-Global consciousness but could be presented in a simplified form to/in the ethnocentric worldspace -- helping to make their situation obvious to them.       --

So IF that's something like what you're saying, then my response had the following significance:

I absolutely think that it could help as an evolutionary-stabilizing tool... up to a point.  Artifacts from higher levels of complexity, especially in simplified form, can contribute to the complexification of lower levels.  AND, perhaps more relevant to this, a balancing tool has the task of helping promulgate balance.  So if we look at genocide as imbalanced ethnocentric activity then anything which improves communication between its own quadrants will help re-normalize the situation.  Yet we must be mindful that normal (for ethnocentric) IS to establish antagonism boundaries at the edges of its ethos, especially when its own depth seems "full up". 

This is where I introduce what the Reich/Wilber dichotomy (complementarity!) represents for me:  the really fruitful question of the relationship between "normal primitive behaviour" and "pathological-regressive behavior".  There are many places in the greater integral discourse where one could ask -- is this a sign of toxicity, imbalance, repression, bio-psychological dysfunction OR a sign of simplicity, primitivism, etc.?  In what ways are they the same?  Different?

H'annie;

I will certainly agree that what is essential is not "a structure" but an appropriate orientation toward structures.  However, I would add that this leaves a lot of room for flexible, temporary, creative use of structures.

ON NON-THREATENING INTERVENTIONS

This sense of non-threatening presentation is an important consideration, especially when looking through the lens of intervening in the life of an individual who must be embraced properly -- so that new information is not simply rejected.  We can look at the person and say, well, what can they accept?  What will not trigger them to lock-down? 

But commonalities will exist in what is non-threatening generally to ethnocentric individuals, and to what types of cultural artifacts they would be able to "grok" and cheerfully affirm to each other -- creating a health-oriented mood to supplement the practices and insights of individuals.  So there is a kind of human non-threatening approach that might play up and down the spiral AND what is specifically non-threatening at each level may involve translating ideas into terms which resonate with the structural contexts of their worldspaces.  

One thing we need to keep our minds open to is how "non-threatening" does something need to be in order to acceptable?  It must vary from individual to individual and level to level.  More solid people, and people at level in which reality is structured more forcefully, less sensitively, may actually have a more dynamic response to aggressive or even dictatorial elements.  Obviously this is tricky stuff.  

I am reminded of Santayana's description of the Tyrant.  He says that a Tyrant is publicly denounced by this does not mean that the ethnocentric population views him as actually illegitimate.  In fact they acclaim dictatorial monarchs and a "tyrant" is simply an update, a new monarch not linked to the old system but prepared to institute a new regime that is more contemporary.  What I'm getting at is that "pushing a structural element" is not always inappropriate, even when there is pushback.  It is not too difficult to read the ethnocentric reaction against Obama (tyrant!) as a kind of request for  a more dictatorial force which they see as necessary in order to accomplish the social repatterning promises in the rhetoric.  Yet it is very difficult for green & post-green sensitivity to accept that this sort of forcing is really what other people might want in certain contexts.

This could, I grant, appear as the very megalomaniacal masculinity that has pathologically characterized human history but at the same time it is "outdated approaches" which always characterize less complex holons.  Obviously this isn't everything but it might be an easy dimension to overlook with our more refined sensibilities.  

ON THE ELEMENTS IMPLICIT IN MORAL EXPANSION

Certainly one of the best things is to catalyze emotional self-investigation and moral feelings which, swelling with practice, will tend to exceed their current tunnel of ideology... reaching out for a "bigger Jesus", etc.  You remark that Christianity can remain exclusively omnipotent and allow for a lot of growth.  So "exclusive ideological omnipotence" is an ethnocentric element that is being embraced here as a vehicle for an integral context.

ON THE PUTATIVE NON-THREATENINGNESS OF THE 4-QUADRANTS

The 4 quadrants should be non-threatening... and yet they are reactively denounced even by many sophisticated Western academics.  Yet these people live in/as those quadrants.  What are they being "threatened" by?  It is the specific form, the terminology, the appearance of the messenger, etc.  People who understand the quadrants must be careful not to conflate their own resonance with the obviousness & universality of these tools with the idea that they will appear innocuous to levels which do not try to think universally, obviously, etc.

ON PROCESS VS. STRUCTURE

Integral is BOTH a structure and a process.  It is the structure that is produced by fidelity to the process AND the process around which the structure is organized.  So we can make some informed guesses about what parts of structure and the process can be manifested in other worldspaces, and through what translations this can be accomplished.  All of which is no different than speaking the local language... just from a different angle.  Of course this risks, as you say, that the principles could be compromised.  But this is a constant risk.  It only means that we have to remain vigilant and stay on top of situations with a sort of opportunistic eye toward healthier orientation of structures.  If a new dogma forms -- this is neither inherently good or bad.  It will always happen when dealing with dogma-people.  The question becomes is it a better or worse dogma?  Does it facilitate health (normalization & improvement) or impeded health relative to whatever was going on there before?

Layman Pascal