My Critique of "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and Question About Obama: Postmodern Democrat Or Is There Any Possibility That He Could Be

17 October 2008 four to midnight

Some second thoughts to my second thoughts...

I initially started out arguing that John McCain belongs to the political subcategory of "Modern Republicans" (Orange) whereas Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are clearly in the sub-group of "Traditional Republicans" (Amber/Blue).  I then proceeded in the next several paragraphs to argue that John McCain perhaps belongs somewhere in-between "Traditional" and "Modern" Republicans due to his strong recent alliances with Amber elements and his somewhat dysfunctionable logic and critical thinking skills compared to Obama. 

However, considering his past record and the overall trends of the American political system in general, with its two broad political parties having split off into four different political subgroups some time ago, a more accurate assessment would be to say that from a strictly strategic standpoint, it makes better political sense to select a running mate from a different political camp within one's party rather than from one's own political subgroup.  Having both running mates representing identical values on the same ticket could potentially work to disenfranchise a certain segment of the party.  Thus, in spite of his noticeable Amber undertones and somewhat dysfunctionable logic compared to Obama, John McCain still represents the overall values of Orange, that is, of "Modern Republicans" (who, after all--comprise the greatest bulk of Republicans) whereas his running mate, Sarah Palin, attracts the Amber/traditional base of their constituency, that is, the "Traditional Republicans," to thereby compliment and balance out the GOP ticket to appeal to all Republican voters, and to unify its party.

17 October four minutes until midnight

I'm having some second thoughts about the political sub-group to which John McCain belongs.

Yesterday, I went against my gut feeling and bumped John McCain up a half-notch to the "Modern Republican" sub-group of American politics of the neocons and Wall Street.  This was based on a cursory glance of his record which led me to the conclusion that John McCain appears to be more progressive than Sarah Palin or George W. Bush -- yet squarely in the region of the neocons. 

It is interesting because prior to the start of McCain's campaign (pre-2006), I had always assumed that John McCain was more of a moderate Republican because of his committments to campaign finance reform.  Additionally, he did not appear to be a part of the "Vulcan Group" or the Neocons because he was a former POW and a "Washington Outsider."  I did not associate him with being affiliated with the neoconservative movement at all, initially. Thus, prior to 2006, I would have even placed John McCain in the political "sub-sub-group" of a  "more moderate" Modernist Republican or "Centrist," possibly even sharing many values shared by Modernist Democrats or Reagan Democrats.   Perhaps my less critical analyses from the past were based on the one obvious fact that compared to "W.," McCain appeared by contrast to be more reasonable and more conscientious for someone who is a "Republican." 

And unlike Bush, who struck me as corrupt as well as blind and whose legacy will be a man who for eight long years has experienced no personal growth, no evolution, and no regrets--McCain, by contrast, appears to be a "maverick" who is ever-changing or transforming into an unrecognizable creature throughout his campaign.  Although initially, I wasn't aware of McCain's close ties to neocons, oil, or big business.  Perhaps it had not always been the case as it had been with Bush, giving me the initial impression that McCain, by comparison was free of corruption.  Nor did McCain seem affiliated whatsoever with the "religious right."  Therefore, did not appear to be a person who is blind, illogical, close-minded, or self-righteous, as George W..  Combine those traits with a POW and an impressive military career and purple heart, I've no doubt that he's heroic and very logical by comparison.  Not that I would ever vote for him. 

Of course, I'm also aware that based on "Zeitgeist: Addendum" that policians in the two main parties, whether Democratic or Republican -- are irrelevent in and of themselves because they are merely puppets of the Corporatocracy who are merely pulling their "puppet strings."  And I can even agree with those sentiments to some degree.  Yet, it is wrong-headed to agree with those sentiments wholeheartedly in any absolute terms because to do so would be to ignore the real qualitative differences between, say -- a Bush or John Kennedy, for example--even if they are both owned by the corporate elite. 

So let's say that they are both irrelevent, George W. and Obama, for the fact that they are both members of the two main parties, Republican and Democratic, both of which are parties are "owned" by the corporate elite and thereby making both of these politicians "puppets."  Even so, had Obama rather than Bush been president in 2001, it's possible that we may have never gone to Iraq and may have reacted differently to the 9/11 attacks.  We may have not been in a trillion dollar deficit.  So it is wrong-headed to lump every single candidate in the same category and dismiss them all as "irrelevent."  Should they all truly be "irrelevent," then it is reasonable to suppose that they themselves, our elected leaders, have no "political power" whatsoever.  Then, conclude, from there, that we may as well all stop voting and reject the political system, which is Zeitgeist: Addendum's recommendation.  Yet, to argue that they are "all" irrelevent or have no power is foolish if done so in any absolutist kind of way.  I therefore still hold out a some hope that our elected officials may still, nonetheless, in spite of corruption--be capable of doing their jobs to have some influence over domestic or foreign policy so as to not entirely be irrelevent.

Take, for example, Obama's stance on free-trade agreement with Columbia.  McCain attacked Obama for his position on refusing to open up free trade with Columbia.  Obama countered that the Columbian political leaders were being targeted for assassination attempts by i forgot, but possibly by "hit men" and jackals from the American corporatocracy.  He didn't quite "spell it out" in those terms explicitly, of course.  Naturally, he's referring not to the invisible American Corporatocracy but to Columbian guerillas or peasants, perhaps, instead--or some other invisible force.  He's not "stupid" to try to implicate the American corporate elite, even if they were the ones who are truly behind these assassination attempts. 

Yet, if Obama is indeed "owned" by the corporate elite, why would he disclose such a thing to the American public to tarnish the face of free trade?  This indicates to me that he is not so much a puppet as McCain, who appears to have been "bought" and paid for in full by the American Corporatocracy.  Those who are bought and paid for with money -- are neither free to think for themselves nor to hold a position that is contrary or at odds with their masters.  It's obvious that American corporations have business interests in Columbia.  And in light of the movie, it isn't beyond the realm of the imaginatory that they are possibly sending out corporate jackals and hitmen to bribe these leaders to corrupt them into compliance with the American Corporatocracy to take out high-interest loans or to open up their borders for American companies to move in to take advantage of cheap labor and natural resources.  Then, to start a fake "revolt" or begin making assassination attempts, should these leaders fail to be corrupted by refusing to take these corporate hitmen's bribes. 

But returning to the "irrelevent" and lack of power issue.  Should we argue that way -- all candidates, including Nader and all third-party candidates, are irrelevant as well, for the fact that they have no political power what without any monetary clout or support of any corporatocracy behind them.  Given the nature of this political system, what with only a two-party system both of which, being bought and paid for by the American corporatocracy, it is unreasonable to expect that a third-party candidate will ever have a fighting chance to win at any rate, unless there is campaign finance reform in order to equalize the playing field a bit monetarily.  Yet even then, it would never be equalized even with campaign finance reform for the fact that American voters themselves are a population of people with a different center of gravity from those populations in countries composed of more diverse multi-party political systems. 

America has always has had a strong amber/traditional base.  Therefore, it's not simply the case of the "haves" versus the "have nots" in politics but rather, the fact that those on the left are less organized and more diverse on the whole than those on the right, who are organized.  Thus, a vote for a third-party candidate results always in a default vote for someone on amber/orange who then is elected as president.

Republicans have historically always been more organized and homogenous as a party.  This is because they are slower to change.  Therefore, with campaign finance reform, you would wind up with an assortment of different competing third-party candidates and Democratic candidates all crammed into the "left" and competing for only 50% of the votes on the one side, with a homogenous and unified Republican Amber or Orange single candidate on the "right" getting the full support of all 50% of the Republicans on the other side.  Resulting in an "amber" win every time.  Thus, until the center of gravity moves into a higher percentage of second-tier consciousness not merely among the politicans who are running, but among the voting demographics as well, it will always remain a closed, two-party system.  Until then, you have the Republicans and the Democrats.  Sometimes Independents.  The best we can hope to do is find a Democrat who is possibly Teal, if not an Independent.  Or possibly an Independent who is Teal.  At any rate, it is not possible for anyone in the Republican party to be of Teal consciousness or higher.  They have to evolve to "Orange" or "Green," first, for example.. 

Thus, whereas those on the right have always been more organized and homogenous with a strong amber base, those on the left have always been more fractured and diversified and less organized.  As a consequence, it is very true that a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for a Republican and third Bush term.  Which I find to be highly irresponsible at this critical juncture of human history.  Thus, as much as I would agree with and support the views of Nader, Ron Paul, McKinney, et. al.-- I also realize that  a vote for third party candidates is a vote for Amber.

To recap, in politics, there was first "Amber" for many, many centuries with kings and queens and monarchies and peasants and what not who were all ethnocentric.  This was prior to the age of Enlightenment.  With the age of Enlightenment came the rationalists and worldcentric views.  Then the French Revolution and their battle-cry, "remember the cruelties!" and "liberte, egalite, fraternite (sic)."  And this marked officially the birthplace of the "left," according to Gebser.  At the time, "Left" meant "Orange." -- which back "then," was the highest stage of development and most liberal stage, because only Amber and Orange existed at the time.  There was no "Green" split-off from "Orange" until the 1960s.

Back during the age of Enlightenment, "Orange" was "Left."  Whereas "Amber/Blue" was "Right."  This remained unchanged for the next two hundred years.  Then came the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movements, Feminism, psychedelics, rock music, and interest in Eastern philosophy.  Thus, the left further divided from "Orange" to "Green."  Today, most people in "Orange" are "Republicans."  This was due to the split off of Democrats from "orange" to "Green" beginning in the 1960s. Please click on Tracks 90 & 91 on my Reverbnation player on my profile page for KW's more thorough discussion with Stuart Davis.

Returning to John McCain, however: this is my overall impression with McCain's political alliances, which just so happens to be in agreement with a Comedy Central Clip of the Life of John McCain, "Reformed Maverick":

1936-2006, "Maverick Reformer" (Modern Republican, but not a neocon)

Prior to 2006, I knew very little about McCain though I presumed that he was a Modern "moderate" Republican but not a neocon so possibly something along the lines of a "Reagan Democrat" with no relations to oil or big business.

2006-present, "Reformed Maverick" (Neoconservative Modern Republican)

McCain began to strike me as someone who began to sound like a neocon and big money politician.  Since the year 2006, McCain has steadily grown in strength within the Republican ranks (as has Obama, to be sure).  Yet, that is always the case in a two-party system.  The difference between the two, perhaps, were the ever-changing messages and perceptions of McCain.  I didn't notice this happening with Obama--who has remained fairly constant throughout his campaign in his messages except for a few things here and their which he later clarified or modified.  My overall impression, however, is that McCain did indeed continue to become reformed and rehabilitated into a neoconservative and a traditional heartland Republican.  Perhaps he was always that way in the past; yet I find it difficult indeed to believe that these changes in my perception of McCain was unrelated to PR stuff to gain the strong and unwaivering support of all Republicans who want to rally behind a "hero" or "maverick" with the American flag to say, "My country is THE WORLD!". 

Since the time of the presidential debates in 2008: (Traditional/Modern Republican "Amber/Orange")

The object of philosophy is "to think most critically and most comprehensively."  I've had the opportunity to critically assess McCain's logical and critical thinking ability by allowing him to speak on his own behalf to defend his neoconservative/amber platform on three different occasions..  He was unable to do so.  Thus, whether from the standpoint of debating skills, reasoning ability, values, voting history, or political platform -- he seems more of a traditional "Bush W." than a modernist "George Herbert Walker Bush," who is a "Modernist" because he is supposedly more "rational" than irrational mythical.  In fact -- I would even go so far as to say that I may have overestimated McCain's evolutionary stage of development when I said that he was "Orange" and am now of the mind that this man is "Amber/Orange."

That said, I still think that McCain represents rational "Orange" values of Modern Republicans on the whole, nonetheless.  Perhaps the reason for the initial confusion was because McCain does indeed take on a more sinister or more irrational "Amber" tone than that of his true colour, "Orange," when standing next to or sharing a split screen with his debating opponent, Obama, on TV.  Who by contrast takes on a much cooler "Greenish" tone next to McCain.  Whereas McCain, by comparison to Obama's Green, takes on a decidedly warmer (or rather, "hotter") tone.  No--"strike that, reverse it" (because I definitely wouldn't say that McCain is "hotter" but rather, "hot-headed" in appearance, in keeping with his Orange tone and Amber undertone). 

With respect to Obama's "true colours," I tend to think that he is Postmodern Green although it's difficult to say at this point what a "Teal" --toned politician would "look like."  I guess I would have to read into it.  I would imagine that a Teal platform would be virtually indistinguishable from Green from a strictly ideological or political standpoint; resulting in stated aims which would most likely appear to be very similar to the current Postmodern Green, on the surface.  The differences, then, would probably come not in the form of "campaign promises" but rather, through the fulfillment and actualization of these promises during their terms, be they peace and prosperity, improving foreign relations, national and global security, balancing the budget, providing basic health care coverage, improving education, improving the economy, reversing Global Warming, switching fully to 100% renewable energy, and global sustainability.  The exception being, Teal leadership would be first level capable of effecting these changes positively and bringing them into reality.

And I realize that those are not quite the stated aims of the Obama platform above -- but let us hope they become so very soon for the sake of us all....

Analogous to Green vs. Teal politics, perhaps, would be the stated aims of both the Venus Project (from Zeitgeist: Addendum) and World Forum whose aims are identical in one respect, which is to help bring about global conversion to an energy system of 100% renewable energy.  The only difference being -- whereas the former would most definitely fail in its objectives, the latter would be met with success.  But only if there is sufficient Teal leadership in existence to implement these actions globally.  Otherwise, the plans or petitions are completely worthless without the cooperation of developed countries, in and of themselves. 

Thus, the difference between first-tier and second-tier politics in the 21st century.  Whereas the former is fated to a certain doom assuredly, the latter would capable of bringing about enormous transformations.

17 October 2008 four to midnight

Please add your name to the World Forum "Global Call to Action." (link corrected)

I have a question to readers on Integrallife about Obama, first. Would you regard him as a Postmodern Democrat as in "Green"/"Cultural Creative" or is there any possiblity that he could be on a higher second-tier consciousness such as "Teal"? I suspect that he is still on first-tier Green but thought I would get the opinion of others here.

13 October 2008 11:56 PM

Check it: The time-stamp is at 11:56 PM, or four minutes before midnight. The Doomsday Clock shows a similar time of day, 11:55 PM, or five minutes before midnight. The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clock maintained by the Atomic Scientists to indicate our current time (in minutes) from the hour of midnight, the symbolic time for armageddon or Doomsday. It is periodically re-set by moving the hands of the clock either backwards or forward in minutes to coincide with current global conditions and dangers that are imminent which could trigger a holocaust or global armageddon. Such dangers as nuclear proliferation, pandemics, climate change, global warming, wars, and a host of other factors are among the many dangers which we face today that could trigger such an armageddon.

When I checked the time yesterday the time was still at 11:55 PM, which indicates that Doomsday Clock has remained unchanged from the previous time of five to midnight from several months ago. I believe that this clock has been scheduled for an update some time in October 2008. I'm not sure exactly when this update will occur but for now will go ahead with my estimation that the new time will be set forward by one minute to 4 minutes before midnight, that is, 11:56 PM, to correspond to the current time-stamp of current post.

By chance, I happened to create this particular entry at 11:40 PM unintentionally (yet again, "The Doomsday Clock: What Is the Colour of Your Energy and What Have U 'Got' For Me? (W/Chart)" ,

and yet again, ).

"4:20 and America is not a Democracy: But Is a Corporatocracy" (Myspace is a different version of post on Integrallife.com).

Considering the theme of current post and proximity of the time-stamp to the current time of day on the Doomsday Clock, I decided to move up the time of my post by 16 minutes to "11:56 PM," to be more realistic and in keeping with the current times of the day.

The previous post, you may recall, was time-stamped accidentally at 4:20 AM. By chance, the time of "4:20" was also the subject of another post with very a very similar theme, one of 4:20, armageddon, and Doomsday Clock after first learning about its existence. It was during that time when I first had the idea of polar complimentarities and then proposed the concept of a symbolic time of day that could serve as the polar complimentarity to the symbolic time for armageddon, or minutes before the time of armageddon. I settled on the time of 4:20 as the most optimal time away from five to midnight, the time of the Doomsday Clock. The time of 4:20 therefore symbolically represented a time of utopia and peace to contrast with the current time of four minutes before armageddon.

Returning briefly to the post immediately prior to the current on ("America is not a Democracy: But Is, Corporatocracy"), you may recall a theme centered magically around the wishful pipe-dreams of peace-pipes smoked at 4:20 (the official time of smoking weed), which in turn was partly inspired by Part 2 of "Zeitgeist: Addendum," whose rosy picture of a utopian-society will never come to fruition and as such, is based on fantasy and wishful thinking. The first part of the Zeitgeist: Addendum, Part 1, however, differs dramatically from the second part of the film and is a chilling and accurate portrayal of the current crises that we face today in light of globalization, corporatocracy, and global warming. For this reason, "Zeitgeist: Addendum" well worth the time to watch, if only for the first part. Nevertheless, the "solutions" as proposed in Part 2 are based on unrealistic demands and recommendations.

The urgency of the times calls for a more realistic solution to the problem of global warming and sustainability. This post will therefore focus on more realistic solutions, such those proposed by the World Forum's "Global Calls for Action" and "We Can Solve It" rather than on the more radical and utopian goals as proposed by "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and their "call for social action."

------------

I am still in the process of "teasing apart" the various political subcategories in the American political landscape to better differentiate the various worldviews as they pertain to global warming and sustainability. As I had mentioned in a previous entry, conceptions of the "energy crisis" may vary according to worldviews or stages of consciousness-development. Thus, depending on the center of gravity of a given political group or subgroup and the overall center of gravity of its political leader(s) and policymakers, different perspectives may exist with respect to to energy policy and approaches to the "energy crisis." These perspectives or approaches, in turn, reflect the overall priority or attention given to the current energy crisis with respect to two critical issues affecting energy policy today, that is, environmental issues and energy independence.

These stages levels or worldviews contain interior and exterior correlates, that is, subjective, objective, and intersubjective components of reality referring to first-person, second-person, and third-person perspectives. These structures, in turn, may be mapped using a variety of different models or maps of stage-level development. Examples of such models are Ken Wilber's AQAL, Jean Gebser's "four dimensions (structures) of consciousness," Spiral Dynamics, Piaget's developmental psychology ("the process of individuation"), or even by the political 2008 compass created by the State of the World Forum (see Figure 1, below).

Because of incomplete understanding of all models in their entirety, my approach will be a patchwork "all of the above" approach using various terminologies or colour-codings by focusing primarily on Gebser's theory of the four different structures (dimensions) of consciousness (The Ever-Present Origin), the model with which am most familiar. However, due to the presence and use of colour-codes in more recent models and the conspicuous absence of colours in Gebser's model, I'm having to adapt various concepts of Gebser to fit in with the paradigms that are currently more in vogue, which are models that utilize a specific colour to denote a certain structure of stage-level development. An additional difficulty posed by this "all of the above" approach is that some of these colour-codes used by various different models of consciousness (or political theory) appear to inconsistent with each other insofar as their use of specific colours to refer to specific values (see Figure 1 below from the World Forum, which designates the colours "blue" and "red" in a more conventional manner by designating the colour "blue" as "classical liberal" on the West coast (to indicate Democratic blue) and the colour "red" as "classical (social) conservatives" on the East Coast (to indicate Republican red). This colour scheme differs from Ken Wilber's AQAL model, for example, which designates the colour blue (and amber) not as liberal but rather as mythical-traditional/ethnocentric and the colour red as an even lower value structure from that of mythical, to refer to magic-egocentric.

Please note that these are merely my personal interpretations based on my limited understanding of various models and do not necessarily reflect the views of the mapmakers themselves, such as Ken Wilber, Jean Gebser, et al.

[placeholder for charts]

The following is based on a video (click next link), a portion of which was cut off in their descriptions of the last two sub-groups, the Tradional Democrats and the Postconventional Democrats.

Video Details:

'A Tale of Four Americas' takes a look at the political dynamics and cultural perspectives that influence every part of the Republican and Democratic parties. It explores the ideological divides that exist within each party, and offers a simple map to help make sense of these seemingly conflicting beliefs.

http://integrallife.com/node/15726

In the slide presentation below (click on link above), American politics consists of four major groups of political values:

traditional Republican: two-dimensional mythical; blue (amber)
Modern Republican: three-dimensional mental-rational; orange
Modern Democrat: three-dimensional mental-rational; orange
Postmostern Democrat: three-dimensional mental-rational; green ("Cultural Creatives")

Today's political landscape consists of not two, but rather four major categories. I will also hazard a guess to say that the current presidential and vice-presidential candidates each represent four different politicians belonging to the four different political subgroups, although only two are identified in the video. John McCain and Barack Obama were not listed to remain neutral or non-partisan in their orientation. However, I will venture a guess to say that John McCain is a Modern Republican whereas Barack Obama is a Postmodern Democrat. George W. Bush, on the other hand, is a Traditional Republican.

Two-Dimensional Mythical ("Traditional Republican")

"Traditional Republican" is in reference to traditional heartland conservative values of Republicans. Usually, they belong on the Religious Right and are religious fundamentalists with absolutist values. Examples of people belonging to this political subgroup include George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Buchanan. These are the pre-modern blue (amber) traditionalists of Ken Wilber's AQAL model. In Gebserian terms, they are the renmants of the two-dimensional mythical structures of consciousness. As such, they tend to be ethnocentric and opposed to modern science, and are generally the least supportive to environmental legislations. The "energy crisis" from this structure is generally defined as "drill baby, drill" or "energy independence from foreign oil" for the purpose of domestic oil but not in the sense of Global Warming. Should global warming be accepted as reality, it is generally not accepted as a "man-made" problem but rather, is seen as a natural phenomenon caused by the hand of God. As such, many in this subgroup tend to have an apocalyptic vision toward global warming as a sign of the Second Coming of Christ and, for this reason, may wish to hasten the effects of Global Warming to be in Heaven with God. In Gebserian terms, two-dimensional is past-oriented and value-oriented.

Three-Dimensional Mental-Rational ("Modern Republican")

"Modern Republican" is in reference to neoconservatives, fiscal conservatives of Wall Street, and modern rationalists. These are the yuppies, businessmen, and free-market capitalists who advocate supply-side economics, less taxation, and less regulation. Although they do not reject the reality of Global Warming per se nor science, they tend to prefer to see a free-market solution to the energy crisis, which is perceived as "energy independence" and not necessarily that of Global Warming. Examples of people belonging in this political subgroup are Dick Cheney, Ayn Rand, George Herbert Walker Bush, and I will add--John McCain. In AQAL, they correspond to "orange" rational modernists. In Gebser, they correspond to "three-dimensional mental-rational" worldviews. In three dimensional, the orientation is materialistic and spatial with only a conceptual realization of time. It is therefore a spatial world that is temporally-frozen yet looks forward to the challenges of progress and material success. In Gebserian terms, three-dimensional is future-oriented and spatially (materially)-oriented.

Three-Dimensional Mental-Rational ("Modernist Democrat")

"Modern Democratic" refers to traditional liberals in traditional American politics. Examples of this subgroup are John Kerry, Joe Biden, John Kennedy, and Zell Miller. I will have to return to this one to understand it more thoroughly. However, I would venture to say that this subgroup hails primarily from the industral north-east and have more traditional working-class, blue-collar values and labor unions. Some of these may also be Reagan Democrats. These are also the Democrats that Hillary Clinton focused primarily on during her campaign. Because there is no such thing as second-tier politics in American politics, they too are three-dimensional mental-rational and materially- and spatially oriented, as are the Modern Republicans in Orange (above). In AQAL, they too are "Orange," as are the Modern Republicans.

Three-Dimensional Mental-Rational ("Postmodernist Democrats")

"Postmodern Democrats" refers to more progressive liberals in American politics. They tend to farthest on the left in the political spectrum and are typically concentrated on either coast, California, or New York, and in patches in other parts of the country. No example were given in this group as I recall but I will venture to say that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore belong on this category. This particular subgroup is the newest of the subgroups and differentiated from the Traditional Democrats during the 1960s during the Civil Rights and Feminists movements. They are the intellectuals, academics, and environmentalists otherwise known as "Greens" or "Cultural Creatives."

From a strictly political standpoint, Barack Obama also appears to belong to this political subgroup. However, it is difficult to determine at this point whether he belongs in the category of Cultural Creatives of Postmodern Green or is in a higher tier such as second-tier consciousness, such as that of Teal. I strongly suspect, however, that Obama is still among the first-tier conscousness structures such as that of Cultural Creative Green, and not yet Teal.

A teal leadership on the second-tier structure is what is ultimately needed for resolving the current ecological crisis through effective and dramatic policies. It is possible that Obama could be Teal and possibly adjusting down his platform to gain the support of the mainstream Americans. Let us hope that he is teal disguised as a "green," or "Cultural Creative" because a teal is what is needed for providing the leadership that will be necessary for combatting Global Warming and ending wars.

Postmodern Democrats likewise belong to three-dimensional mental-rational structures of consciousness. As a consequence, they are future-oriented, green (as in "Cultural Creative"), and materially (spatially)-oriented.

"Zeitgeist: Addendum" appears to be a product of "Green"/"Cultural Creatives" although they recommend that we reject all political systems. They are therefore not a member of any of these political subgroups, although they are still enmeshed in three-dimensional mental-rational thinking. As such, they are not value-oriented but are instead, spatially- and materially-oriented (in spite of their philosophy of Gaia and Systems theory as a replacement to religion). This results in an overall inability to perceive values and hierarchies, as is the case of all first-tier consciousness (with the exception of two-dimensional (such as that of Traditional Republicans) who are value-oriented toward religion but exist as a dominator hierarchy for the most part. So to do the orange of Modern Republicans who seem to exhibit dominator-hierarchical traits. However, on the whole, I would say that the Orange of Traditional Democrats and Greens of Postmodern Democrats are not hierarchically-oriented with the Postmodern Democrats being even less so.

Fourth-Dimensional Aperspectival-Integral

Second-tier consciousness refers to Teal and Turquoise political subgroups, which are not yet in existence in America. Whereas Teal is secular in its orientation, Turquoise is more spiritual in its orientation. Both subgroups are capable of perceiving levels or stages of consciousness-development. They are the first to perceive the difference between a dominator hierarchy and value-hierarchy. This is the four-dimensional aperspectival-integral structure of conscousness as described by Jean Gebser. Unlike first-tier consciousness, which is primarily past- or future-oriented--the new, integral consciousness is oriented on Present reality and the problems of today. Therer is a shift in concern over time over that of space and material objects, having already mastered space in the spatial three-dimensional world of first-tier consciousness.

Third-tier consciousness refers to Indigo and beyond.

The urgency of the current times calls for a second-tier Teal approach for resolving the current energy, environmental, and economic crises that we are currently are faced with. These problems require higher consciousness ability at the executive level, which in USA is the office of the president. Personally, I do not see McCain as being able to embrace these higher levels of consciousness. Granted, his I.Q. is 133, so I hear -- but I.Q. refers merely to intelligence quotient. Whereas consciousness refers to all levels of awareness, intelligence refers exclusively to the cognitive functions involving the cerebral cortex, such as thinking and reasoning ability. To account for consciousness on every level of being, we have to include the more primitive functions such as emotion and empathy to I.Q. of cognitive ability. The more primitive functions, such as emotion and empathy, refer to forms of realization prior to intelligence. We must therefore include those, in addition to intellectual ability. And then go beyond intellectual ability to measure the a potential leader's integral capacity, at which stage it is possible for consciousness to better integrate all present and prior levels of consciousness to form better judgment. At any rate, based on my observations of McCain, he does not strike me as highly intelligent. I do not know Obama's I.Q.

Whoever is elected as president in January 2009 will need to support the global call for action located on the petition down below. Currently, the signatures of Stan and Christina Grof, Jim Garrison, Jean Houston, and Paul Ray and a handful of other eminent scientists, scholars, and thinkers from around the world are listed on the petition. Hopefully, I can help to add more signatures by getting the signatures of those on my friend list, which here total to 213 friends. On another page, I have over a 1,000. To view and sign petition, click link below the image.

Getting back to the song, "Train of Thinking" by Whitetrash Shaolin. Notice the sound of a train or the ticking of a clock that accompanies the song throughout, in addition to a verse that appears in the chorus,

"Time for a stop on the train of thinking, open your mind....,"

which I interpret to mean that it is time now to make a mutation or "leap" from discursive thinking or from divisive, hair-splitting rationalization into higher consciousness into the diaphanon (open, spiritual, "verition") integral consciousness for realistic solutions from the merely intellectual solutions offered by the mental-rational.

I will comment on different songs later.

Sign the the World Forum petition for a Global Call To Action.

 

Don't dismantle the preexisting infrastructures: "Transcend and Include."

 

I find the World Forum's "Global Call to Action" to be higher in value or quality for effectuating changes in environmental policies than the "Zeitgeist: Addendum" calls for social action. Why, "higher"? Well, the most obvious reason that comes to mind is that whereas the Zeitgeit Addendum recommends dismantling and doing away with "Top Down" supply-side economics and moneytarism and using "Bottom Up" demand-side (resource-based) approaches and technology for resolving the environmental problem, the World Forum "Global Call to Action" calls for both "Top Down" and "Bottom Up" approaches; both supply-side and demand-side economics; both moneytarism and technology -- and doesn't recommend some lofty or unrealizable goal for some time in the near-distant future but rather, sets an actual or "definite" time-frame for accomplishing this task, which is a 10-year goal of phasing into a "demand-side" economics to guide environmental policy from its current supply-side. Why is this important?

 

As they explain on their petition, "Global Calls to Action," global warming is not a future threat but a present reality. They estimate that if governments fail to take immediate action to implement drastic energy and environmental policy changes within four years -- it may be too late to save the earth for your children and your future generations.

 

And to make a final contrast, whereas the "Zeitgeist: Addendum" urges conversion from "religion" to "philosophy" (such as from "Christianity" to "Gaia Principle" or "Systems Theory") -- the World Forum had the following to state on its stance on religion or spirituality:

 

...It is a campaign that is economic and political in scope and spiritual and moral at its core....

...Cultural Creatives tend to be spiritually motivated and committed to personal growth but are not dogmatically religious. They embrace technology and economic development but only within a deep affirmation of the environment and community. They tend to view the world from the perspective of holistic systems. They are the people paying attention to world events and global trends.....
 

Therefore, striking me as being far more inclusive and value-oriented than the Zeitgeist: Addendum, which merely offers "philosophy" as a replacement to religion. As Gebser notes, both religion and philosophy are manifestations of three-dimensional mental-rational consciousness whereas spirituality is a manifestation of the fourth dimensional. Therefore, philosophy is not necessarily a "higher" or more "evolved" way of thinking as opposed to "religion." At any rate, we need to move beyond merely three-dimensional, partial, either/or, or 'one' vs. the 'other" way of thinking. And although the Zeitgeist: Addendum video pays lip service to "wholeness" and "inclusivity" by way of "symbiosis" and "emergence" -- the World Forum plan, on the whole -- is far more holistic. Additionally, you will note that it is also hierarchical in nature in that it transcends and includes all things -- and is therefore a value hierarchy. The Zeitgeist: Addendum, on the other hand -- is highly oppositional to dominator hierarchies but as a consequence of this kind of oppression -- rejects all hierarchies resulting in a confusion between "dominator hierarchies" and "value hierarchies":

 

"New Political Compass," the World Forum (click image above)

 

"The old left-right picture confused issues of strategy and constituency, and says nothing about values, or messages."

 

Zeitgeist: Addendum  

: "4:20 and America is not a Democracy: But Is a Corporatocracy "). 

 Upon watching Zeitgeist: Addendum a second or third time and witnessing all the corruption going on in the American corporatocracy and the political system, I became disenchanted with the entire political system to the point of having serious doubts about Barack Obama, my choice for Election 2008. Thinking to myself, "what difference did it make?" if I vote this year or "sit it out" in protest if the candidates of both main parties are irrelevent and controlled by the American Corporatocracy?  

I even decided that I would no longer make the effort of aligning all images or videos to "center" of page as a form of silent protest against the mainstream but to instead, allow all future videos and images to be aligned to the left-hand margin of the page instead, by default.  

I then added a project playlist to the entry and gave it a colour of dark olive green, and moved up "Ackamonkey" by Dirty Boyz so that it would play immediately after "4:20" by Eli Cash; but just prior to "White Collar Boy" by Belle & Sebastian as a protest to white collar crime and "Pig In a Blanket" by Rudimentary Peni as a statement against the people who are killing animals and some people, as well.  

Then I noticed the song selections following Rudimentary Peni: "The Terminator" by Aphex Twin and "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" cover song (Tears For Fears) that I did with my l'il bro, Michael, who is currently unemployed after losing his temper irrationally and walking off his job in protest from my mother's restaurant. 

Then I began to think... Is this message really Green, as in "Cultural Creative" -- or "RED," -- the violent and regressive underbelly of Green?  

It's interesting to compare and contrast the differences between Zeitgeist: Addendum's calls to social action and The World Forum's "Global Call to Action," both of which are identical in their aim in one aspect, at least -- global sustainability through conversion to 100% renewable energy.  

I would like to go into these differences but will have to go back and review the call to social action in "Zeitgeist: Addendum" in part 2 of the video, which lists five recommendations on "what to do," which are:

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

5.

 

I can't remember in what exact order they were named. I do recall that among the calls to social action that they had offered were to boycott the mainstream media outlets such as CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, and CBS and to turn to alternative media on the Internet instead, arguing that the mainstream outlets are filtered by four corporations in the corporatocracy that own them and, for this reason, cannot be fully "objective."

 

While there may be some truth to that claim, I still have a problem with it overall because it leads to isolationism of the individual from the mainstream establishment and from the power class. Which, in spite of its gullibility toward materialism and corruption, is an element of society that needs to be reckoned with and transcended and included: and not simply "rejected" out of protest. Thus, it is an unwise recommendation overall as it leads the individual to ideas that are possibly more subversive, underground, conspiratorial, and possibly dangerous.

 

Another recommendation was a call to reject all theistic religion. Which I personally find to be far too radical and unrealistic as a goal for the fact that 70% of the world population are ethnocentric, meaning Amber and below. And while there are certainly a great many disadvantages to traditional theistic religion, such as the fact that they are more traditional in their outlook (which makes them by nature, ethnocentric ("my country is the 'WORLD'") and more gullible on the whole toward ideologies that are upheld by the ruling or established corporatocracy, such as that of consumerism), it is unreasonable to exclude 70% if the world population or expect them to "change their minds" and hearts on their beliefs by simply offering a new or different paradigm that they consider "better" than religion.

 

For instance: Instead of urging the boycott of religion or theistic religion, it is better to urge religious leaders to put ecology at the core of their theology. This can be supported (in Christianity, for example) Biblically by checking it to find out what God's first commandment to humans was.

 

IMO, the first commandment of God is not the "Mosaic Laws" of the 10 commandments. Rather, it is the commandment found in the book of Genesis in which God is recorded to command humans to be the stewards of the earth. When God saw things occurring to humans and to the earth that displeased Him, He sent Jesus, His only begotten son, to save the "earth." A passage supports that concept that goes something like, "for God so loved the earth that He gave his only begotten Son." This could be interpreted as not only salvation to humans but to salvation of earth, as well. Whatever the case, it appears that God cherishes not only humans but the earth and all creation. Saving the earth, therefore, is as much of an importance to God (if not more) than saving souls of people, if the Scriptures are interpreted literally. The people are the stewards of the earth and are responsible for God's creation. That's only my interpretation, however; but I think there are others who are in agreement with me.