IMMANENT FEAR & RESISTANCE TO INTEGRAL CHANGE

Yes, the future is a 'potential' that can become 'actual' right now if we embody it by boldly embracing the mind and sentiment-expanding visions gifted by the creative, God-Universal 'Presence' or 'Source'.  Nevertheless, the baby that fears the night, that bay who simply feels and fears the pain of his body, the recurring pain of his wants; that baby who often sorely cries for no apparent reason does KNOW in an instinctive way that his life (as felt through his body) is a DANGEROUS affair. And that baby, that human-fundamental baby at the 'root' of human experience is always in us and living as us RIGHT NOW as an atemporal knowledge, however masked.

to understand our relationship with the structured past, among other things we need to know if  our human-animal-reptilian-fish-bacterial genes change when -in the course of our development and social experiences- our ideological understanding becomes more inclusive? Can we pass on to future generations genes (the co-arising, UR, biological physical quadrant) a genetic change that can instinctively help them to feel more inclusive towards all other sentients? 

We are born with the instinctive feeling that our body is the source of our First Person experience and, being indistinct from the world, soon we realize that this source of sensations, needs, and feelings is inextricable linked with capricious happenings and with a lack of certainty and, thus, always in a potentially painful and thus... dangerous situation. Moreover, this instinctive knowing remains with us even if we move far into transcend-and- include understanding or in various human relational lines including cognitive and spiritual development. This is a biological-psychological programming that holds back Integral Theory as well as other adequate and lofty ideologies from catching up.

Establishing in a lofty world is structurally difficult for the recurring, ingrained memory of human instinct. We instinctively ask: what can we gain? Who else of practical consequence to us has adopted the ideology? Does this ideology 'rule'? In a competitive, consumer society we are constantly reminded by our human instinct that it is best to prefer comfort over risk. Nonetheless, personally transcending ideologies also motivate us because we also are instinctively inclined to move beyond our isolated selves. Thus, some of us will even self-immolate and die for a variety of self-transcending political or religious causes. Some of this self-transcendence may be suffiently inclusive to bring light to the political lives of people in pragmatic ways that apply to particular circumstances and some of it may be counterproductive, backwardly restrictive and generative of more attachment to structures that allay fear and promote safety for the average individual. 

To counteract the fear of risk; to promote 'Second Tier' being-in-the-world, we must first understand the very deep truth into which we are born as biological life forms: Life is indeed very dangerous because it can easily become very painful and destructive to us. Thus we need to hold on to falsehood and to lie to ourselves and to others. However true (and except for miracles) we won't be sustained by 'light' or by 'ideas', but by food, money and by a socially respectful or supportive environment that is more protective than violent to us. The present or present social structures are heavily defined by our First Person conditioning of the material and biological past. The inclusive, Integral future of love and respect for all sentience is defined by a potential that is not material. it is defined by the Subtle and Causal Realms which sustain experiencers without the need for destroying and competing over scarce resources. The future also includes bringing manifestation resources from this more inclusive realms onto the Gross, material world. Our idealism for change needs to include this poignant realization or else we'll be treading onto our own ever-shifting, seldom rooting ideological clouds.

A creative genius that promotes conviviality, respect, love and integration requires some degree of social acceptance to thrive. Are we transmitting (in an age of fast, superficial, communication and to a sufficient percentage of youth) the ideals, values and issues of the past, the inherited cultural wisdoms that present-day generations need in order to heed the call and to recognize the importance of a post postmodern view?