An Open Letter to History

Hey Matt!  Welcome to the community, and thanks for adding your voice to the choir.

1. Regarding the idea of transcend and include. Isn't the motivation for moving to a higher level the result of seeing the shortcomings of a particular level or way of being? In the act of transcending we take not only the positive but also acknowledging the negative too, right?

Yes, this is pretty much right on.  The contra-positive to "transcend and include" is to "negate and preserve"--one example being the fact that as previous structures of consciousness are transcended and included through development, like rungs in a ladder, the view of the world from those rungs is negated.  This is why it is typically incorrect to say something like "you are being so amber"--to truly "be" amber, even for a moment, would imply a regression to ethnocentric "my people" mentality.  People can "light up" traditional amber values, if you will, without being amber.  It's a subtle point, but an important one.

2. Are either sides of this argument truely integral? There doesn't seem like there is much respect for perspectives on either side. I hate to use terminology that I am still digesting but isn't this whole thread blue fighting with green?

I might propose (if i was feeling generous ^_^) that both sides of the argument are Integral, but we have yet to reach a real synergy point in the conversation.  Schalk is leaning toward the side of preserving amber values, while i am leaning toward the side of negating amber views.  Both arguments are crucial to the discussion at hand, but have yet to be synthesized.

Of course, the root of the argument between Schalk and myself may simply come down to artistic taste.  Art is such an intrinsically subjective process, and poets like Saul are able to create such dense clouds of vocabulary, that the range of interpretation would vary greatly from person to person, as each connects the linguistic dots in his or her own way depending upon the range of experiences and perspectives that sit behind the viewer's eyes.  It's almost like a Rorschach test, without all the meaninglessness, randomness, and interpretive neutrality ^_^

3. Wouldn't it be more constructive to focus on developing plans to move forward rather than just being reactionary and anchoring ourselves in one perspective? From my point of view this was what the poem was all about.

I tend to agree.  I am not sure if the intent or the meaning of the poem can actually survive this process of deconstruction, nor the state of consciousness it is trying to transmit.  Let's use Saul's perspective to edify and enrich our own, regarding it as a legitimate point of view--with the knowledge that if we choose to omit this crucial perspective on creativity, oppression, and urgency, we are leaving something very important out of our own Integral view of the world, and only end up reinforcing any blind spots we might have.

So again, my challenge to anyone who chooses to participate in discussions like these--try to lead with the agreement.  Set the stage for integration--you can certainly disagree with anything you like, but do so only after conceding some amount of common ground.  And when dealing with someone else's disagreement, try to do the same--before posting a purely reactionary response, try writing the words "I agree, and here's why" and see where that takes you.

Of course, this is fairly idealistic, and sometimes we deal with comments that are completely off-the-mark to begin with, and there really isn't much room for agreement.  Feel free to argue these comments, but do so with an open heart, an open mind, and as much buoyancy of Spirit as possible.

And whatever you do, do not take yourself or your perspectives too seriously.  Laughter, always.  As i mentioned in a previous post:

"Laughter is the sound of a Mystery caught masturbating.  It is the sound of one hand fwapping.  And it is the only sane response to an utterly absurd world."

Once again, welcome to the community Matt, where perspectives ricochet across the room like stray bullets in a Tombstone saloon.  I am very happy that you have joined the discussion, and feel free to send me a private message if you have any questions at all about anything on the Integral Life site.

--

Corey W deVos
(dj rekluse)

Managing Editor, Integral Naked
Writer, Content Producer, and Audio Manager, Integral Life
Managing Editor, KenWilber.com

"Include the Values, Negate the View!"

Good day Shalk,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will not go point by point through your repsonse. I do not consider this a debate, nor do I expect any winner/loser dynamic from this exchange.

I greatly appreciate your acknowlegement that their are views from the heart and views from the head. And I also know, as you accurately point out, the neccessity of combining head/heart (our rational and non-rational way's of knowing). I would also point out that (immho) there are two forms of non-rational knowing. One is connected with the Instincts, the other with the Intuition. Both inform the Intellect but the Intellect often mistranslates each. It is through this "cleaning up" of the translation process that head and heart are combined. And it is important to realize the Intellects role in this process - to verify the rationality of its own interpretations of the non-rational information.

We must not confuse non-rational knowing with irrational ideas (or vice-versa). Non-rational knowing is a knowing that comes from the whole to the parts. Viewed from the typical rational lens of analysis it does not appear to have a rational basis. But, when viewed as a totality (if it is a clean interpretation), it is seen to be a perfectly rational idea.

While my interpretation of Saul's poetics as 2nd tier to Amber may not be evident in the analysis it does hold up in the context of what I see as a capacity of an Integral perspective. As I have said elsewhere on IL a 5th person perspective is capable of holding multiple perspectives at once and (here's the point) is able to access and utilize the necessary perspective appropriate to the task at hand.

Saul was clearly able to step into the perspective of those that have felt oppressed by the past. (whether or not all black feel this way or not is irrelevant. It is clear that many do and there are many of all races and bodth genders who can and do identify with the victim image. All to often they let this feed their apathy) The general purpose of his poem was to inspire people to vote (this is beyond dispute, given the context) who may not feel their vote mattered. Its Integral purpose was to move those individuals from a strictly amber center of gravity (caught in racial/ethnic victim images) to the more inclusive orange world view (image of self that is free to participate in world at large to the best of individual ability). It is not likely to contain openly Integral ideas which would be meaningless to the Amber worldview. Rather it speaks to the well being of amber (freedom from the past) while pointing the way to orange (participate).

I do agree with you Shalk that as an expression by an Integral perspective about the Integral perspective this poem fails misserably. But, not all Integral communications are about Integral itself. If that was the case the Integral 2nd tier world view would be as segregated and separate from 1st tier world views as they are from each other. It is not merely what the words mean, it is what they do. (with the understanding that all words can be twisted and abused by others so that they are beyond the recognition of the one who put them together. Much as people have done to your words here.)

With that, I thank you for putting yourself out there and look forward to hearing more from you.

Jerry

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

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.