Integral should focus more on MOM.

 The following was intended to be a very brief comment response but grew into some kind of dissertation so I apologize for the length.  I don't want to identify the commentator as that would make him or her feel that they should have to read the whole thing to respond to unless they want to, so I will make a generic response instead: 

Sorry [name withheld],

I didn't see your post before.  I agree that in an integral discussion of politics it is "likely" if not "very likely" (the IPCC defines "likely" as a probability of 66% or greater and "very likely" as over 90%) that an MGM (Mean Green Meme) bias creeps up unawares in those with an integral center of gravity if they are politically left-of-center (although in theory, it would happen only occasionally or otherwise, only in certain areas of non-expertise if they are truly "integral" centers of gravity overall).  Otherwise, if this bias is more than "occasional" or sporadic and occurs "frequently" or "always," then the person is obviously green and may be infected with the "MGM."  And/or the integral observer himself or herself may be biased toward orange or MOM  (Mean Orange Meme) or right-wing  such that s/he perceives a healthy green meme erroneously as an MGM.  However, given the high degree of uncertainty that exists in assessing other people's interiors and stages of development (let alone assessing our own, except in very general terms by identifying those traits or characteristics that are most definitely "below," such as amber or below), it is also possible that the orange to integral observer who is right-of-center politically may be biased to see a high frequency of "MGM" when it is not the actual threat due to over-identification with right-wing ideology and immersion in Ken Wilber's brand of "Integral" and concept of "MGM."  Not to mention that integrals can be infected occasionally with MOM as well. So it goes both ways.

Based on my observations and interactions with members in this community, it is clear that a MOM bias can exist in individuals with integral centers of gravity: so it is not merely the case of unhealthy memes from one stage below only manifesting as a pathology in integral stages that is holding us back as you assert or as Ken Wilber asserts in Boomeritis.  Pathologies can occur at any stage of development and can persist through integral stages.  I do not see evidence for the contention that MGM must be singled out as a disease so rampant and widespread that it threatens our collective transformation into integral.  Rather, I see instead a persistent MOM going on that is likely to destroy us collectively due to our inability to connect our "business as usual" strategies of "doing and subsistence" with the existential reality of planetary scarcity and climate change, which is the theme of second-tier integral.  Green can recongize the existential threat, but may not be able to provide the necessary leadership and planetary solutions due to its lack of awareness of stages of development although it is possible that with more orange transitioning to healthy green, a "tipping point" can occur in consciousness such that a recognition of this threat can be finally realized to act in time to lessen the impact of abrupt climate change on our children and grandchildren.  I personally think it is too late to avoid a "tipping point" and catastrophic climate change at this point, and that a significant reduction in human population will occur by 2100.  The best we can hope to do at this point is to try to slow the process and lessen the impact for the sake of immediate generations  to come whom we know and love.  It is unconscionable for someone with an integral center of gravity to not consider immediate generations such as children and future grandchildren that they know and will come to know personally in their own lifetimes..  This indicates to me that the disease that is infecting Integral is not MGM, but rather MOM--and that Integral has a duty to address this core issue. 

Furthermore the study indicates that Yellow "hates" orange more than green, that Yellow identifies with green values more than any other stage values in first tier and that green is the least likely to "hate" any other stage or meme.  What is more, the study suggests that orange "hates" green more than green "hates" orange.  In terms of relative destruction or violence and capacity for destruction and violence, orange is by far the most destructive and violent of all stages.  To myself, based on my personal assessment and my readings of Gebser, the stage that is most resistant to change and is holding us back collectively toward collective transformation into integral is rational orange, not pluralistic green; although orange more so than green is capable of sending a "false positive" of "integral" due to its lack of pluralistic values. 

Obviously, Wilber himself--who is obviously beyond orange or green--is not totally free of an MOM bias toward certain areas or issues of controversy such as his seemingly condescending attitude toward academics (which could be a personal thing and justified in his case due to certain experiences so not for me to critique), the environment (because of focusing on web-of-life theory at the expense of staying up-to-date on the science of climate change), and Iraq (since his argument for this illegal war appears to be based on the allegation that Saddam Hussein killed 300,000 of his own people rather than attempting to justify the war basd on the usual arguments and claims, which he himself concedes cannot justify a pre-emptive strike against another nation unless we argue that Saddam Hussein had actually killed 300,000 of his own people.  Yet even then, only if we go through the proper channels for doing so such as multilaterally through a World Federation or U.N. Security Council rather than unilaterally as in one nation pre-emptively attacking another).  The allegation about Saddam cannot be confirmed conclusively but at any rate does not appear to justify a unilateral and pre-emptive strike of one nation against another even if he did commit this atrocity, all things considered; although a multilateral pre-emptive strike could be argued if enough evidence could be found that he did in fact commit this atrocity.  

More frequently, I see a bias toward orange or MOM on these forums although I do occasionally notice the bias going the other way toward green or MGM (such as the integral blogger who presented arguments that Dave Matthews reflects an integral awareness, when the evidence s/he presented suggests that Dave Matthews is at least at the stage of green but is not necessarily integral, since healthy green is a trait of integral as well (although Dave Matthews may well be for all I know, but his argument seemed not especially compelling based on the evidence that s/he provided).  But in this case we are not talking about a case of someone who is infected with a MGM (whether with respect to the person who posted it or to Dave Matthews), but simply a case of someone who may have recognized certain integral traits in Dave Matthews but did not communicate it very well, or had otherwise confused certain healthy green values with integral, since what s/he described as integral could also apply to someone who is at healthy green which is pluralistic and "holistic" but is not yet integrated.  So a bias may exist one way or the other depending on the issue or circumstance but not nearly enough to warrant such attention on MGM and target it in exclusively as the cause for some possible paralysis in transformation, given the presence of a clear orange or MOM bias that exists in many integrally-minded people who are spared of such ridicule and feel smug about it to boot.  Which leads me to wonder if orange or green (and not "integral") is the actual center of gravity for many members in the Integral Life community.

So while it is quite possible that a bias of green or MGM exists among integrals who are left of center, it is just as likely if not very likely that an integrated person who is right-of-center may be biased to perceive certain healthy green memes as "MGM" due to their indoctrination into some ideology, or is basing the observation in areas in which he or she is not fully integrated into healthy green himself or herself such that he or she may confuse healthy green with MGM.  Which can and does happen to the "best" of us.  Happens to me all the time (not to say I'm "the best," lol) but only whenever I get involved in discussions that are over my head and out of my area of expertise, such as economics or meditative states.  So I try to avoid such conversations except to lurk or to inquire for informational purposes or for curiosity's sake.  Or to present a counter-theory or argument if what is being asserted as "integral" is in contradiction to my understanding of integral theory or to my observations or interpretations of what is "true."  Because unlike pluralistic green, which questions the very idea of "truth," integral affirms it and imparts it.

 I admittedly take little interest in economics so am not "integrated" in that sense except whenever it turns to a debate over various economic strategies to address the climate crisis, although I can say with confidence (nay, not "I can say," which implies a claim or assertion that is being confidently made by "me," (which in turn amounts to stating a personal "opinion" or "perspective," which everyone can do and everyone is entitled to an opinion or perspective and to express it however assinine or deluded it may be) although not everyone has a perspective (in the Gebserian sense of the word). (In Gebserian terms, first and second person perspectives are not yet "awake" enough to have "perspectival" awareness so are referred to as preperspectival (first person singular) and unperspectival (second person plural), but not yet "perspectival" (which refers to both third person singular and fourth person plural), since "perspectival" implies the existence of a thinking subject who has extricated himself or herself from the two-dimensional immersion of "we" to thus stand in opposition to both "we" (intersubjectivity) and space (objectivity, e.g. "it-objects") to think independently and rationally on any given subject or issue.  Furthermore, thinking or thought refers to mentality and to the brain, which as an organ cannot occupy more than one person at a time so is in reference to individuality and not to the collective.  This differs from the collective pre-thought of dreaming, or "being-in-thought" that exists in the collective soul of  two-dimensional myth (amber or blue), in which there is not yet "thinking" as in mentality and individuality as it exists in the mental structure but rather is more akin to a "state of mind" that alternates between somnolence (one-dimensional magical pre-perspectival, as magic is blind and works in the mystery in the darkness of night) and semi-somnolence (two-dimensional mythical, which refers to dreaming and to twilight).  However, it is only in the diurnal brightness of day where observation and sight permit me to "see" that I begin to affirm my freedom and right as an individual thinking subject to say or claim or opine whatever I think or believe (after all, thinking can either be defined as "believing" or "knowing" but in any case does not refer to veracity or impartation of truth in and of itself (not even "knowledge") unless one naively assumes that observations will always correlate with whatever is observed as an exact "data match" ("myth of the given").  Of course, the emergence of pluralistic green exposes the fallacy of this myth but then goes too far to say that "everything" is relative and there is no truth.

The remainder of this does not make sense to me although I initially had a point, and I am too tired to go back to see what I was trying to say below:

Thus, the assertion of "I can say" refers to a certain kind of perception based on an observation made by a thinking subject who can measure and analyze this "thing," which is then taken (often naively) as the absolute and unerring truth although belief is not abandoned in third person perspectivity (orange).  Whenever there is doubt or uncertainty in the observation itself (in which case the knowledge is acknowledged to be a "belief" and is demoted to a hypothesis, which replaces belief in the absolute sense of dogma or faith (mythical two dimensional), which in turn replaces the one-dimensional magical foreboding and wishful thinking via prayers of appeasement to magically effect some action or change because "belief" or "nonbelief" are meaningless to speak of in one dimensional magic because it is non-thinking and a form of proto pre-thought that does not "reflect" or "believe" as in myth or "believe" or "doubt" as in rational consciousness. Thus while there is "knowledge" and "belief"  the implicit understanding that a third person singular perspective recognizes the freedom of speech as an individual rightand not to a pure utterance and impartation of truth, which is what the theme of "integral" is, according to Gebser.  veracity (to replace belief, knowledge, or opinion) presentiation.  "my claim," in which case perspective" that is true relative to "me" and everyone after all has a perspective and is entitled to state their "opinion" whether it is true or false, although stating something dishonestly in order to deceive is not covered under "freedom of expression" or speech) whether not a pure utterance of truth so could be true, false, or altogether irrelevant from an integral standpoint.

But this is not to say that there is no uncertainty in the integral structure.  Ineed "uncertainty" is an aspect of integral though not in the sense of doubting the existence of truth altogether; and so this truth must be made transparent and imparted via presentiation.

 So in Gebserian theory, "verition" or "presentiate," is more apt than "can say" which implies a certain "truth" that is true for me, but not for you and therefore only relative to the person who is speaking it and in a sense denying truth.  Therefore "can say with high confidence" differs from pure utterance and impartation of truth which is what concerns "integral."

I can say with very high confidence (nay, verition) that there was a point to all of this but I will have to finish this diaphaneity some other time.