Please Log in to Vote.

9 out of 10 members found this useful.

Pathetic

Posted October 8th, 2011 by Jennifer Grove in Integral Politics

In Reference to:

#OccupyWallStreet: The Seeds of an American Spring?

Guideline #1

My highest self is not available to take your call right now. Please leave your name and number at the beep and she'll think about returning your call later.

[BEEEEEEEEP]

Guideline #2

Yup. The self is pissed. The self has had a shitty week. The self is caught by a thousand devils and phantoms. The self is behaving consistently with a survival instinct which is unchosen and mostly pre-conscious. Making it chosen would involve illegal acts. So, the self is going to settle for just getting pissed.

Guideline #3

I would like to hold the standard for Integral ways of being also. But only in this group. When it comes to the U.S. population, that's just not possible. The U.S. population is made up of Blue/Orange/Green. And the Green energy is asserting itself really hard right now. So, I'm going to push for that because it is the highest of the 3. And I'm going to ignore your perspective, Evolver Team, because that is what you are doing to us. I spoke clearly and politely months ago about what was coming and what should have been done, but you ignored me. So, if you feel ignored and disrespected, that's exactly how I've felt for months now.

Guideline #4

I would prefer it if people who disagree with me would go discuss your disagreement on your own blog space. This is my space. And I would prefer it if folks who agree with me somewhat to help me think - to think cooperatively with me - so that we can actually think productively. I don't need to mention you by name because my ideas are not in reaction to yours. See if you can maintain at least that small measure of maturity yourself.

Guideline #5

Fuck friendly curiosity right now. Sorry. But I've been very patient. And I feel pretty much not heard by anyone at IL and Lord knows my opponents consider it sport to fuck with me and offer nothing really substantive beyond insults to my character. I would welcome substantive and cooperative thinking. That is it.

Guideline #6

This is the best I can do right now. I'll calm down as time goes by.

My own Guideline:

If people Troll me, and you feed them, I will report you too. Do not feed Trolls in my space or you will go on my list.

I hope that is clear enuf. If not, too bad.

---oOo---

This is the last Evolver that I will ever try to listen to. It is utterly empty of all value.

I guess that is the value of those who put this program on, but I don't consider that Integral. In fact, I see the mindset of those who feel this way to be directly hindering the evolution of the U.S. as a whole and as individuals and this can't be considered Integral. Integral has never been less effectual than when trying to manage the feelings and intentions of individuals into effective groups. Integral has been completely blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to what the We even IS, much less what its purpose is.

I wish people here would either lead, follow or get the fuck out of the way because the next thing for America is Orange exiting into Green. If you have an allergy to green then you need to get out of the way, because this is what is next evolutionarily for America - like it or not. This is not about which party we want in office. The whole idea of parties and govt. predates even Blue ways of being. Party politics is over. All the old ideas of govt. are over. the American Experiment is over. Something new wants to be born and most of the Integral folks here are too deaf, dumb and blind to even see it because they equate Green with Democrats and Liberals or Communism. Grow up!

Of all the people to lack imagination, I wouldn't have thot it would be Integral thinkers. I have heard nothing here but the raspings of dead patriarchs who have nothing to offer us here considering the technology we have at our disposal.

I hope to lay down some of my thots on this later, when I've calmed down, but for now, consider this my personal declaration that the Daily Evolver is pathetically ineffectual as any kind of guide or leader when it comes to politics or world events. This is not personal to Jeff or David. They are truly sweet and great guys. But their ability to generate a conversation worthy of Integral about Politics is worse than Ann Coulter on a bad hair day.

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

4 out of 4 members found this useful.

You're Right! . . . Salzman and Riordan don't reflect...

Posted October 8th, 2011 by Brian McConnell

I've listened to Salzman and Riodan's discussion a couple of times now. I share several of the sentiments you've expressed for reasons I'll explain. Because their underlying assessment orients and presents itself as being primarily 'developmental' from an integral perspective, there are huge blind spots nonetheless, in their discussion. Like you perhaps, but for me, the most frustrating aspect of this is that these are two post-modernists who, for whatever reasons, seem intent on talking fluff rather than specifics. I mean where's the discourse pertaining to transformation of the lower-right 'systems' dimension that, in my view, constitutes our only real hope of salvation.

As a result, their voices reflect a 'white, upper-middle class' vantage point that all but ignores the world's impoverished masses (or about half the global population) and its respective suffering. Yet, the tragic irony for me is, even though the classification of 'white, upper-middle class' defines the background of my own personal demographic, the views they express sound sadly like rhetorical post-modern propaganda. In this regard then, they don't appear to ever get beyond the limitations imposed by their own (conventional) psychological contexts.

A rather poor reflection of 'integral mentality' indeed! Consequently, we're disappointed by the fact they're neither visionaries nor reflecting transformative relatedness in respect to those of humbler circumstance, like you or me.

In that regard, I'm left holding an existential bag of responsibility in relation to my own role and relationship in all this . . . which is, as they'd probably contend . . . 'the way it should be'. Kinda ticks ya off, doesn't it?

Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

Yeah

Posted October 8th, 2011 by Jennifer Grove in response to You're Right! . . . Salzman and Riordan don't reflect...

I am constantly amazed at the different interpretations of what postmodernism and/or Green is. There seems to be very little agreement. LOL Oh, well.

I interpret their behavior as specifically one of the Integral/Yellow/Teal pathologies: inertia. They are constantly taking power away from anyone or anything that may be concentrated into a decision or action. It's the disease of "perspective-taking" that is completely useless. It's great for a while to move out of the Green unconscious and unchosen activism problem which can become a performance contradiction. But they have zero ability to bring conscious and chosen action back online. ZERO!! This translates to the literal meaning of USELESS!!! NO ACTUAL USE WHAT SO EVER!

What Integralites need are options to either go the way of activism or go the way of perspective-taking, but we're not being given options. We are only allowed to have perspective taking. And this is directly in the way of what comes next, which is pretty much exactly what you describe:

"discourse pertaining to transformation of the lower-right 'systems' dimension that, in my view, constitutes our only real hope of salvation."

LR Systems are a gigantic piece, but the solution will, of course, have to come from all 4. What they are missing is the LL sharing of values. They are ass-u-me-ing that we all share their value of space-holding and perspective-taking - which is at the very least only partially true. They are not taking all of reality into consideration. And so, their actions will reflect only their own value. This means that the disallowed value (basically, ours and also some others) will get ZERO AIR TIME!!! This makes it look like they live in Disneyland or what you call,

"white, upper-middle class' vantage point that all but ignores the world's impoverished masses (or about half the global population)..."

I've gotta go. I've got winterizing chores to do out back. I'll try to come back later for more in-depth...

Bless you, Brian.

"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."

~SES pg. 148

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Redoubtable

Posted October 9th, 2011 by Jeremy Richardson

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

“My highest self is not available to take your call right now.” I love!

Something extra-ordinary happened to me yesterday. I sort of lost my wallet and cell phone and someone returned it.

Eckhart Tolle tells the story of a Zen master, “…accused of fathering a child with a farm girl. He said, when confronted, “Is that so?”. The girl’s father insisted the child was his responsibility. He said, “Is that so?”, and took the baby from them. Cared for it 2 years. Later the girl confessed the father was a neighbor boy. When they told the man, he said, “Is that so?” and, when they asked, he returned the child to them. Now, imagine how the ego might have responded at any point in this story!”

Any-who, my cell phone works even though it was run-over. By a truck. Louis C.K. mused “Verizon SUCKS? How it is even possible this thought exists? Verizon RULES. This shit is better than Star Trek. YOU suck! :-p”

KW said some Eastern masters have these finishing tools meant to shatter the ego. Consider: in Japan, for example, you have the collective regarded as more important than the individual, compare and contrast this attitude with the United States of America’s rugged individualism. So, it totally makes sense that Buddhism flourishes there.

So, then, when a big boisterous American with his super-sized ego, gets his ego pinged with this “ballpeen” hammer it just bounces off!

When I was first understood the Buddha’s story from actual Buddhists I had a thought I imagine to be widely shared – get off?...the cycle of birth and re-birth? Why would I want to get OFF? Sure’n I could be a grasshopper. But I could be a GOD. C.S. Lewis. “Make your choice, adventurous Stranger, Strike the bell and bide the danger, Or wonder, till it drives you mad, What would have followed if you had."

I was thinking about all this, in regards to losing my wallet, and to Guideline #2. When the neighbor I had only met once, previously, walked up and said “is this yours?” I just hugged him. I looked right in his eyes and said, “Thank. You. So. Much.” The whole thing seemed to be healthy egos behaving consistently with a survival instinct which is naturally selected and […] pre-conscious. [Going against it] might involve illegal acts. So, the egos are going to settle for just getting lifted.

As for the rest… a la Jack Black, fuck the kids [integral]. Hold on now… I don’t mean fuck (gestures obscenely) the kids. I mean fuck (gestures dismissively) the kids. With respect to KW, he knows as well as anyone that the era of single world-wide saviors is over. I am sorry that I can't stop myself from reading into your post a desire for a man, on a white horse, who will come to save the day. Probably says more about me than anything.

Maybe, you could treat your karma like a bank account~just a thought that seems to've done me some good relatively speaking. Remember: Integral is not integral any more than christianity is Christianity. It's a pretty strangle little universe we live in -- when you surrender somehow this opens up room for your desires. But, you can't pretend to surrender in order to obtain something -- you have to really do it. You can't psyche out the universe -- as far as I am aware. "'Cause, it's dust to dust. Until we learn how to trust"

नमस्ते

Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

guessing

Posted October 8th, 2011 by Annie

If I understand you correctly...you want the Evolver to pick a path or choose a perspective, rather than mimic a movement? As far as I could tell, the dialogue was empty of content and void of any meaning, just creating a box and putting a label on it. Some may call that Integral, because we can see the development levels, oh but it is much harder than that! Seeking value and meaning, then assimilating it into pieces that can be swallowed, or maybe savoring the texture and taste of each morsel.

Meta perspectives are good but sooner or later you must give some indicator of the Source from which it is derived and the means it uses to create its extensions. More accurately...a meta perspective has a perspective.

I really don't understand what the protestors are trying to accomplish (other than being heard) but I think I understand what is lacking in this dialogue. We are (somewhat) arrogantly standing above the crowd thinking that we are evolved beings who understand the masses, calling it a meta perspective because we think we are watching the dynamics of the chaos. But, meta means we see this in accordance with all the other values and indicators of other eruptions and unrest. We are not picking up the pieces and putting them together, we are only a warehouse that is storing data with no inventory of its usefulness.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

???

Posted October 10th, 2011 by Jennifer Grove in response to guessing

"If I understand you correctly...you want the Evolver to pick a path or choose a perspective, rather than mimic a movement?"

They have already chosen a perspective. They have chosen the perspective of noticing all perspectives and not allowing energy to form into intention.

I don't know what you mean by "mimic a movement". Do you mean "mock" a movement? Because that's what they're doing.

Meta-perspective does not have to disallow choosing a position to embody with attention and intention. In fact, embodying a position with attention and intention is only possible with a meta-perspective. It is the trans- part of the pre/trans position taking. They are stuck in the line in between where there is no position taking.

Part of the reason people don't understand what the protesters want is because they themselves are taking a meta-perspective on positions. People keep looking for their positions because taking positions is how we've been doing politics since the begining of politics. But something new is happening here. And only a few people are noticing or understanding what it is. The Daily Evolver certainly hasn't. All they noticed is that the document is made up of a list of statements that begin with "They..." and therefor it goes in the Green box and the lid is put on and that takes care of that.

If you look at the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Occupation of NYC, you'll see that they have almost the same exact format. So, do we say that the Founding Fathers of the United States were Green because they were blaming someone else and feeling like victims and thus dismiss them? WTF!!???

If Integral doesn't see the nuance in this, but others do, what does that say about Integral?

Here's a piece by Harvard Business Review - by a Capitalist, no less!!!

And here's one by Douglas Rushkoff in CNN Opinion.

And this one from Salon is great because it focuses on the hostility from the Democrats! This is NOT Right vs. Left!

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make a violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

[editing to correct spelling and add something...]

And this guy who can explain it in very simple terms that even bullshitters cannot wiggle out of.

"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."

~SES pg. 148

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

the masses

Posted October 8th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to guessing

consist of individuals.

i disagree with Terry Patton, when he quotes Melissa Ethridge (sp?), in that, i wouldn't say everyone has the capacity to 'break my heart', story or no story.

Today, i got to listen to your voice, next to the church i stopped attending, had been avoiding, whose pastor, a (former) refugee from Ghana, by declaration, is, i believe, remarkably offended, still, in part invoked by my not having returned her calls suddenly, over a year ago, by my no longer attending service-she was moving things around <15' from where i stood, on tables, for the second hand store whose proceeds go to fund the orphanage she founded with her sister, in Ghana. She was wearing bright bright blue, tealish, i guess, close to one of the multiple colors my mother claimed as her favorite, though my mother, i think, prefers a more intense, i want to say, aggressive, shade. i like bright colors too, on their own, i think.

maybe, i'll say 'we', but i don't know about myself, in this case...(hmm)...maybe we are less tricky than we imagine, maybe most of us (a different we) simply don't live with an understanding that the tendencies we have demonstrated in our pereptual organizational habits of mind, habits of attention, should qualify us to become circus connaisseurs.

i don't mind. i like it.

Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

The trope that trips me...

Posted October 10th, 2011 by Lincoln Merchant

Near the beginning of every Evolver, David asks Jeff something along the lines of:

"So what's the integral perspective on [the subject of the week]?"

Jeff, who I believe is authentically feeling the integral impulse, generally gives Jeff Salzman's perspective with reference to Ken Wilber's AQAL meta-theory (at least Jeff mostly used "tribal, traditional, modern, and post-modern" as descriptors rather than the damn colors in this one) . He is not showing us how to look at something integrally nor is he presenting the Integral position. I'm not sure if that's clear to everyone who listens. If Integral Life were like one of the newspapers of the integral community (if there was one), than Jeff and David are kind of giving the staff editorial for that paper. No one outside the community should think that is the perspective shared by everyone in the community. No one inside the community should feel like they have to share that perspective in order to belong to the community. That's just a little of my meta-perspective on Jeff's meta-perspective.

I personally relate quite a bit to the inertia that Jennifer points out so well. I am prone to that still. Jeff "hopes" for all kinds of things to happen and can understand where every participant, including himself, is coming from....from 30,000 feet. Does he just sit around and meta-perspectivate and have hope/faith in evolution of spirit and feel into where people are coming from all day? Where's Jeff's damn "juice"?

I've been relatively inert over the last 12 years. I actually remember deciding to go on strike when I realized the education/economic system was designed to extract value from me for others benefits....or at least that's what I told myself at the time. There are many other factors. It's been very frustrating to one of my more artistic/activist buddies many times over the last decades in how well I understood things, but how little I was doing about it and at such a slow pace. I've acknowledged it as a problem for a long time in a general sense and have unblocked a lot of stuff over the years. Just in the last year I've got over the "getting ready to get ready"-problem and have been much more active in my community and in writing stuff for other people to read. What I'm looking at now is to what degree the big picture thinking and lack of activity has been an attempt to hold everything still and not use my life up...to avoid existential dread.

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

Oh, Good! Then Maybe You Can Help Me Out...

Posted October 10th, 2011 by Jennifer Grove in response to The trope that trips me...

You say:

"Near the beginning of every Evolver, David asks Jeff something along the lines of:

"So what's the integral perspective on [the subject of the week]?""

...and then you say:

"Jeff, who I believe is authentically feeling the integral impulse, generally gives Jeff Salzman's perspective with reference to Ken Wilber's AQAL meta-theory"

...and then you say:

"He is not showing us how to look at something integrally nor is he presenting the Integral position. I'm not sure if that's clear to everyone who listens."

...and then you say:

"...Jeff and David are kind of giving the staff editorial for that paper. No one outside the community should think that is the perspective shared by everyone in the community. No one inside the community should feel like they have to share that perspective in order to belong to the community."

That is a buttload of nuance that I cannot keep up with right now. My brain is in a very regressed place at the moment. But it's not incapable of more nuanced thinking - period. It's just not capable at the moment. So, maybe you can help me out and show me how those are all different.

If Jeff is asked to give "the Integral perspective" and he only gives Jeff's perspective, is he being negligent? Or blind to his own context? If he understands his own context, then should he notate that or is this something that we're supposed to just "know" and so it "goes without saying"?

Isn't the event of "looking at something" concisely labeled with the word "perspective"? Or are those different? I'm trying to use the words "position" and "perspective" to say two different things. Are you? Are our meanings coinciding?

For me: "position" means, the location on the Spiral that one stands on in service of making decisions and taking actions. It is not necessarily (and cannot necessarily be) the highest "perspective" because the highest perspective is completely inert. I think we all get that this is one of "Nirvana's" characteristics. It is that within which everything that moves moves, but it itself cannot move or be moved. I think KW has gone over this enuf so we all get that. But he has also made it clear that while that very high perspective is true, it is also true in a different way and very much good and beautiful that we "take a position" and make decisions and take actions from there - with no lack in passion or exertion and love. Isn't that what I'm hearing from him?

And that "perspective" is the place from which we "look at objects"; and this is why it is good to be able to "take the perspectives of others" - so we can understand them and take their values into account. So what part of Jeff's perspective reflects KW's clear teaching about both?

So, with your "house organ" analogy again, what exactly are members supposed to think if they disagree with that perspective? If we shouldn't believe that we have to share that perspective in order to belong, what are we, exactly, if we don't share it? What does it mean to be a "member of a Community" if not that we share meaning and value? What does "belonging" even mean if it doesn't mean this? Is this propaganda? I daresay, that would open up a can of worms that ... well.... would be wormy!!

And if this doesn't represent what IL stands for, then what are outsiders supposed to think? If this isn't it, then what is? Why should an organization go thru the motions of publishing something if not to inform others what it stands for? If it is merely an editorial piece, where are the different Voices inside the organization?

---oOo---

I realize that this may be a genuine blind spot for me. That is not unlikely considering what I've been thru lately since the Leadership Conference. If it is a blind spot, it's an inneresting one and one which I want to know more about.

Thank you, Lincoln, for helping me think.

And I loved the "getting ready to get ready" story. LOL Great!

"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."

~SES pg. 148

Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

Hi Jen and Lincoln

Posted October 11th, 2011 by James Barrow in response to Oh, Good! Then Maybe You Can Help Me Out...

Great conversation happening here - thanks!

Jen said: "I think KW has gone over this enuf so we all get that. But he has also made it clear that while that very high perspective is true, it is also true in a different way and very much good and beautiful that we "take a position" and make decisions and take actions from there - with no lack in passion or exertion and love. Isn't that what I'm hearing from him?"

I sure hope so, but I couldn't point to any well known aspect of his teaching that says this. Would the closest to it be his definition of the BMI and working towards the greatest depth for the greatest span?And if he has made it clear then it appears to have been largely buried by many or most online Integral bloggers - making clear decisions, taking clear positions and acting on them has been replaced by a "holding-more-perspectives-than-thou" mentality. It is the one thing that has stopped me becoming more interested or more involved in the "official" Integral movement. So thank you for having a clear eye on this and calling it.

And this too Jen had me shouting "YES!": "I interpret their behavior as specifically one of the Integral/Yellow/Teal pathologies: inertia. They are constantly taking power away from anyone or anything that may be concentrated into a decision or action. It's the disease of "perspective-taking" that is completely useless. It's great for a while to move out of the Green unconscious and unchosen activism problem which can become a performance contradiction. But they have zero ability to bring conscious and chosen action back online. ZERO!! This translates to the literal meaning of USELESS!!! NO ACTUAL USE WHAT SO EVER!"

I remember being baffled by this and bringing it up years ago when I first really got into Integral on the Zaadz/Gaia forms. Bruce Alderman gave a well considered response along the lines that he regarded Integral, or at least online Integral forums, as more like "incubators" for ideas and theories, and not necessarily a means for guidance or directives for action (apologies Bruce if that's a simplified paraphrasing) Hmm... I also noted recently on an online video presentation how Ken described himself very clearly as a theorist.

OK, but if the theory has any value it needs to be translated into action, right?

So, for what it's worth, my own understanding (and hopefully aligned actions!) on the Occupy movements and related issues can be summed up by Robert Kennedy Junior here: "If it’s government against an individual, the government wins. If it’s corporations against the individual, the corporation wins. If it’s corporations against the government, the corporation wins. Show me any exception to that written by that Supreme Court. . . Last year they repealed this 100-year-old law and made it legal for the first time in a century for corporations to flood our federal political campaigns with a tsunami of money, and that is the beginning of the end. . ."

One of the things Integral statements about conscious capitalism leaves out is that there are plenty of successful, powerful, very rich people who are not driven by good intentions, and who are as capable of being as greedy, dishonest, malicious and power hungry as anyone else. The influence of such people causes greater suffering because their reach is greater, and so we need institutions - judiciary, government regulators, investigative journalism- to rein such people in for the sake of protecting other fellow humans. Just this morning I came across yet another example of how this is not happening because of politicians being bought by corporations here and here. And as we know Jen from sources such as The Century Of the Self documentary, these people aren't just claiming control over material resources, they are also largely responsible for shaping the media and the flow of stuff into our cultural quadrant. To quote Robert Kennedy junior again:

“Today as a result of Reagan’s changes—Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine in 1988 as a favor to the Christian right, which had helped him get elected, and wanted to take over all of AM radio, which is now complete. Talk radio is 95 percent controlled by the right. And the big studio heads helped him get elected who wanted to take over all media....“So now you have five giant corporations that control virtually all 14,000 radio stations in our country, all 2,200 TV stations, 80 percent of our newspapers, all of our billboards, and most of the large internet content providers......“So you have five guys who are deciding what Americans hear as news. They no longer have an obligation to serve the public interest. Their only obligation is to their shareholders. They serve that obligation not by informing us, telling us the things we need to understand to make rational decisions in a democracy, but rather by entertaining us. . . . They got rid of their investigative reporters. Eighty-five percent of them lost their jobs in the last 15 years.”

If this information is anywhere near correct, then I don't really think the biggest concern for Integral should be Boomeritis. So this is where I disagree with Ken - it's not mean Green meme that's most responsible for blocking the next step in development - it's pathological Blue/Orange in the form of the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. I agree that the next developmental step is for more Green. But a lot of what's needed is just an insistence on healthy Blue/Amber when it comes to big business and commerce - fairness, honesty, rule of law, being accountable for your actions. What we gonna do about it?

Other Qs - if inertia is most likely Teal's shadow, do you know of anyone who seems to have transcended this and turned it into acting mostly from healthy Turqoise? Maybe Robb?

Jen, did I miss your full "report back" from the Integral Leadership event, or are you still processing stuff!?

All The Best

James

P.S. BTW Jen, I know what you mean from another of your comments elsewhere on IL about being able to have higher quality discussions over at your FB page. I tried to post a comment there the other day but couldn't work out how to "friend" you or to find out how you like to receive comments (if at all!) from people who are not on your FB friends list (yet!?) Would you be happy for me to occasionally join in over there?

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Bless you, James!!

Posted October 13th, 2011 by Jennifer Grove in response to Hi Jen and Lincoln

Sorry about the Fb snafoo. I keep my page hidden. For obvious reasons. I will pm you the link. Also, I had all my posts mis-marked for a while and they were all going to one person instead of out to all my friends. No one told me that I had gone missing, but then I didn't ask why all my friends had gone missing either. LOL It was a pretty funny discovery.

The "Holding more perspectives than Thou" thing is indeed rampant. And indeed, fed by the Achievement Culture which is also rampant. It's like an extreme sport for some.

To me it can become much like nihilism: it's the thick black line between unconscious/un-chosen movement (or meaning) and conscious/chosen movement (or meaning). One should remain seated until the unconscious movement comes to a full and complete stop. Then, one can unbuckle one's seat-belt (omg, how'd that get there?) and get up and walk off the plane under one's one conscious volition. It just seems really obvious to me that staying seated in a non-moving airplane is not a sustainable place to live your life. Call me crazy...

I've been listening to KW for years so there are several vids or audios where I've heard him talk about this. I will try to find some, but it will take some time. I like Bruce. But I don't think he likes me much. That's okay. Some people's karma is just not compatible with others'. But this:

"..."incubators" for ideas and theories, and not necessarily a means for guidance or directives for action..."

...is a totally false duality. Or at least not a very advanced one. That may be the difference between Orange and Blue/Amber, but not Yellow/Teal and Turquoise. The action logics for Turquoise are nothing like those described there. The knowledge of where to apply some pressure or a suggestion or even just a simple question is received, not from God Almighty or whatever one's Authority of choice is, but from "the ether" or "intuition" or simply seen or perceived or felt or other odd things. There's no tactics or strategy given. And it's not handed down dictatorially, which makes it extremely vulnerable. Many times these events come and go and no one notices because no one knows what to look for. It doesn't usually come from within the hierarchy structure - and we are absolutely addicted to hierarchy structures. Still. But things mysteriously change. And sometimes it doesn't even seem related to what was said or done.

This may or may not reflect on Bruce, because we can't be sure if this is quoted right. But it is a commonly understood and assumed duality regardless.

This intuition can only be perceived after that thick black line of a full and complete stop of unconscious movement has been achieved. An Old Testament story of God showing Himself to Moses demonstrated this by having Moses stand in a safe place while He made several bombastic displays of force and power. And then all that stopped. And then there was a very gentle breeze. And the lesson was that God was not in the storm/lightening/thunder/etc, but in the gentle breeze. And in order to hear His Voice, one had to be very quiet. Inside! I may be screwing up that Bible story with another one, but you get the picture. LOL That's the main gist.

Incubators are for infants. Infants are not expected to build their own houses, grow their own food, or stop a Civil War, or start a revolution. Ideas begin as infants. And they must be nurtured in a safe and healthy environment. Then they grow. And they become mature. And they harden into adults. And then they are ready to strike iron and make sparks.

Few important actions are going to be easy. They may be very simple. But they prolly won't be easy.

Once you friend me, I'll show you a "Note" that I wrote before all this OWS stuff began and you can check out the kinds of ideas I was playing with. This is not the place to share them.

The Leadership Con was immediately followed by one Drama after another and I had no time to reflect. I'm sorry about that. Truly, I regret that. But I'm glad I spoke my peace on those calls. I'm glad I stood out and let the Conscious Capitalists know that they didn't get it. It's recorded.

It's interesting that you mention healthy Blue being needed. I think this is where Curtis exposed the subtle side-step that we took. What The "Authorities" did in the 80's and 90's was buy into the idea that the economy was a human-driven system. It was driven, not be each rat in the wheel, but by all of them in one giant wheel. It was better to let that wheel be used as the drive train instead of letting the rats vote and change their minds every 2 years (The Freuds made it clear that we were no smarter than rats in the end). So, they gave it all up to the machine of the Markets. That last segment where Clinton was shown being bored with nothing to do was telling. Esp. when the Pollsters were so pleased with themselves for tricking people into voting for something they didn't really want.

Both the Left and the Right were "satisfied" by this because it took the moral questions completely out of it. Not only because they wanted to get away with murder, but because morality was not a single entity. It was several and they couldn't agree and they tended to be abusive. So, everyone was taught to violently reject morality or goodness or anything that said it was "right" in the moral sense. They were and still are shamed into silence. Just like people are trying to do with Stanley. There is a huge contingency here in the Integral Community with this "Blue Allergy". And it can be found in the Right and the Left. Even KW has it! THAT is Boomeritis! And that has been what's been holding our culture back from evolving into Green, because Green brings a sense of rightness back in after Orange bludgeoned it. I could hear the confusion at the Conference when people spoke about not wanting to be told what to do in any way shape or form. Green is mistaken for Blue here and attacked.

Great contribution, James. I couldn't get your last two links to work tho. Try just pasting them out directly as text and I'll see if I can get them.

Gotta go for now. Tired...

"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."

~SES pg. 148

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Aawww, thanks Jen

Posted October 13th, 2011 by James Barrow in response to Bless you, James!!

Sorry about the links - here they are:

http://www.ewg.org/reports/Free-Pass-for-Oil-and-Gas/Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Exemptions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

Yes, I don't want to misquote Bruce either, but the false duality you refer to is what probably baffled me.

Jen: "The action logics for Turquoise are nothing like those described there. The knowledge of where to apply some pressure or a suggestion or even just a simple question is received, not from God Almighty or whatever one's Authority of choice is, but from "the ether" or "intuition" or simply seen or perceived or felt or other odd things. There's no tactics or strategy given. And it's not handed down dictatorially, which makes it extremely vulnerable. Many times these events come and go and no one notices because no one knows what to look for. It doesn't usually come from within the hierarchy structure - and we are absolutely addicted to hierarchy structures. Still. But things mysteriously change. And sometimes it doesn't even seem related to what was said or done."

Aaahhhh, this! This is the Action Logic for Turqoise!? Whoa, OK this makes sense now. My first reaction is Orange will have a field day with this "airy fairy nonsense". How do you, how does Ken suggest, protecting and nurturing such a vulnerable sensitivity and mode of operating? Also, how do we ourselves guard against slipping back into pre-trans on this?

You think Ken has blue allergy - any particular things or actions on his part that led you to this thought?

Thanks for offering to send me a pm with your FB info. Unfortunately, I am ashamed to say I am not a paid up premium member, and in July Corey et al changed the settings so that only Premier members can now use the PM boxes. I'm happy to share an email address of mine here if you think that's OK?

Thanks again

James

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

My position....

Posted October 11th, 2011 by Lincoln Merchant in response to Oh, Good! Then Maybe You Can Help Me Out...

It's impossible for me to say. It would be easy for Jeff to say. Jeff and Boulder Integral Center (Boulder AQAL Center) are in Ken's orbit and he works directly with Ken. We in the audience tend to bring a lot of projections to the Boulder in-crowd. They seem to me to be pretty down to earth and just doing their best with what they've got. I'd guess that Jeff would be confident that his perspective was integral, but he'd be more than happy to allow that it's not the only integral position. Maybe he doesn't know how much Ken and his inner circle are projected onto so he thinks it just goes without saying. It's not like he ever even said he was some kind of expert on politics/economics news. A weekly current events show on Integral Life is a good idea (and [relatively] very popular if you look at the number of facebook shares) and Jeff stepped up to the plate. In that case, he's not even the staff editorial, he's just a weekly Letter to the Editor.

Which is fine! I like to hear what other people who know AQAL and are like-hearted have to say about things. The fact that Jeff's depth and span on these topics doesn't greatly surpass my own isn't that big a deal in itself. Hell, maybe he's just keeping it simple for the sake of people new to the integral scene (integral baby food, you called it one time ). In terms of other voices, Robb comments on the economy and politics sometimes on his facebook feed usually from a more conservative angle.

However, because the Evolver looks so shiny and prominent, because Jeff works directly with Ken, it is easy for people to think it's supposed to be the Official Integral Perspective. They could easily clarify this.

I'm trying to use the words "position" and "perspective" to say two different things. Are you? Are our meanings coinciding?

I'm not sure. I should probably be more careful with such technical terms. My "perspective" is my experience of existence in all the depth and detail (or lack thereof) currently available at that moment. If I am deliberately "taking a position", then I am selecting where, within the scope of my perspective, I should act and speak from to do what is needed in the moment. I am not sufficiently advanced that I am deliberately taking a position the majority of the time. Most of the time, my position is an unconscious expression of my unconscious perspective. That's where I'm at.

An organization can also "take a position", which would conventionally mean, by whatever decision-making process, that the members of the organizations perspectives are compared to see what is shared and everyone gets behind some statement of that shared perspective.

What does it mean to be a "member of a Community" if not that we share meaning and value? What does "belonging" even mean if it doesn't mean this?

But I do feel like I meet a lot of like-minded and like-hearted people here. It's an openness to the world, the whole world finally and all the wisdom and potential therein! It's an embrace of every aspect of human nature, the possibility and commitment to a healthy balance and healthy growth and healthy expression of every energy available to us! It's reaching out and supporting each other and working together to step into the unknown of all these possibilities. Putting it all together, not trying to simplify but trying to open to it, to let the complexity and challenge of trying to be fully human, sustainable with nature, in harmony with each other in this new global era push us to higher levels of being and action. All of that is meaningful and valuable to me. That's what I mean by the integral impulse and I do find it here quite a bit!

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 1 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted October 11th, 2011 by admin

This comment has been deleted by the author.

Please Login to Add Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Injunction is at the Core of Integral

Posted October 13th, 2011 by Brian McConnell

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

I hope those following, and having previously posted to this thread will forgive me for this rather cursory overview. Nevertheless, I'm concluding that much of the discontent and criticism expressed in the discussion, including my own, arises as a result of not being more fully engaged, ourselves.

Along these lines, but as Barrett Brown notes in his dissertation, "Conscious Leadership for Sustainability", 'action logic' as understood by Susanne Cook-Greuter "emerges from a synthesis of doing, being, and thinking" [italics added]. In this regard, and acknowledging Jennifer's comments concerning 'perspective taking', for me the problem in Salzman's and Riordan's analysis results from their objective detachment. In other words, what they're talking about, is not the same thing as, what is.

Consequently then, I've got to go with Ken Wilber's assertion; 'if you want to know this, then do that'. To the extent one's approach disregards or otherwise compromises the full spectrum of AQAL, it constitutes only a partial perspective . . . not one that's more fully integral.

Truth be told, the integral movement as a whole, and as 'cutting edge' as it otherwise is, remains at a relatively early stage in its own development. Because 'integral' is comprised of human beings possessing human limitations, its own identity and focus has been shaped primarily, by those to whom it's been of greatest (shared) value. Although 'inclusive' in theory, practical interaction with and between its practitioners, at times, will divert by virtue of the fact no one can be everywhere at once.

Nonetheless I suppose, I'd suggest we to continue to care for, and interrelate with each other in as loving a way as possible . . .

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Ahhhhh.....

Posted October 14th, 2011 by Jennifer Grove

I'm much calmer now. There are still dramas happening, which keep my survival fires burning, but they are at a steady red glow right now, instead of sucking all the oxygen up and turning my preferred polite demeanor into floating cinders.

So, Jeff and David:

I'm sorry for being so rough with you guys. You are both so sweet and generous and good-natured.

After reading a certain leader's plea to not be afraid and to "Occupy the Self and nothing else", I am now calmly resolute. There are at least two minds within Integral about this issue. And we're not gonna see "I" to "I". So, I will stop struggling.

I would still appreciate it if you guys would not speak as tho you were "The Voice of Integral", but if you do, I will still be here. In fact, I will Occupy Integral Life and continue to be a Voice of dissent. I will try not to be talk as tho I am "The Voice of Integral" too.

"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."

~SES pg. 148

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted October 14th, 2011 by admin in response to Ahhhhh.....

This comment has been deleted by the author.

6 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Moderation

Posted October 15th, 2011 by stefano in response to [Comment Deleted]

This is a message about personal feedback, and also about respecting people's preference for the kind of discussion they would like to have.

Schalk, please be reminded about this note to you:

The Community Guidelines have a Rule 4:

Don't wait for others to make the experience you'd like; ask explicitly for what you want and take steps yourself to help create it.

Everyone is free to create new blog entries, and be responsible for the topic they are writing about. In keeping with the general forum etiquette of staying on topic, people can ask for what kind of discussion they would like.

Mod note on September 17th

Also be reminded, from the Community Guidelines:

However intense the interactions may be, we ask that members refrain from personal attacks, defamations of character, and trolling, baiting, or flaming other members.

Schalk, I also note that you seem to respond to moderation issues with a tone of sarcasm and ridicule, as shown in your blog post here. The problem is that you don't appear to agree with the Community Guidelines. By posting on this forum, which is provided by IL, you need to be in agreement with the guidelines.

Like communities elsewhere, IL reserves the right to refuse community service to anyone for whatever reason. We relish diversity of perspective; we also value basic remembering of the I-Thou We-space. If you're routinely causing a disturbance, or not living up the guidelines, you will very probably be asked to leave the community. If you enter this community, you are agreeing that you can be removed for any reasons whatsoever judged necessary by IL, and reasons that do not have to be argued or explained; you are entering this We-space with that understanding and agreement.

Note that moderation does not need to argue with you nor explain to you any further -- if you don't like the rules here, please find a forum which has rules you do agree with, and participate there.

As I explained to another member the other day, the rule I am enforcing about not giving people unsolicited feedback, is a much higher standard than you will find on most any other internet forum. I agree you are perfectly entitled to find it reasonable to disagree with that rule. It is not reasonable to express your disagreement by taking aim at other members and trying to ridicule them or attack them.

I also note that you have made it very clear in the past that you are not willing to entertain any discussion with anybody about your own shadow (I'm saying "shadow" generically as in, all people have shadows). Please note that under the existing rules, that is fine, and I would as moderator step in and enforce your right to ask people not to press you about your shadow, and if they persisted in grilling you about your shadow, or make inferences about your shadow, it would become a more serious matter for moderation. That is what rule 5 is about. It protects you too.

If you want to discuss this further, let me know if your private messaging facility is active. If not, then please email IL to ask to have them reactivate it and you can talk about this with me offlist by private message. We won't take up more of this thread on this matter.

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Pathetic

You're Right! . . . Salzman and Riordan don't reflect...

Yeah

Redoubtable

I Would Appreciate More Clarity

guessing

???

the masses

I Don't Know...

ok.

Ah!

The trope that trips me...

Oh, Good! Then Maybe You Can Help Me Out...

Hi Jen and Lincoln

Bless you, James!!

Aawww, thanks Jen

My position....

[Comment Deleted]

Injunction is at the Core of Integral

Ahhhhh.....

[Comment Deleted]

Moderation

[Comment Deleted]

[Comment Deleted]

From The Trenches

excuse me but...

[Comment Deleted]