Is bipartisanship a 2nd tier function?

Steve:

  Thanks for your very helpful information on 2nd tier demoncracy, I mean democracy.  I appreciate your note about your misprint, since totally as joke (humor alert), I'll occasionally tell a few friends with a good sense of humor that the word Democrat is derived from the word demon.  However, I also always tell them I'm just kidding, so they don't think I'm trying to give a left handed bash to the Democrats.  I just like puns or whatever this might be called.

  I found your information on 2nd tier to be very helpful, since, upon reflecting on what you said, I would concur that what we're seeing in most politicians able to see multiple perspectives is green meme consciousness.  And, even though it appears to be a mostly a healthy green, I look at my own green tendencies and see it as a real detriment in dealing with amber and orange. This is because they typically, in my opinion, don't hesitate to take advantage of a person who is able to look at multiple perspectives, will call them wishy-washy or flip-floppers, etc., then bash them with a completely monological argument.  Poor Kerry.  Also, if you've followed any of the discussions following the msnbc.com news articles, on say the economic stimulus, the vast majority of them are pretty nasty and appear to be deliberately provoking.  I've already seen a number of them calling for Obama's impeachment!  Oh, please!

  That said, I'm really ready for your 2nd tier political system, however, I'm not sure how that transition will be made without at least initially polarizing the whole world.  I read today's article about the Pope saying that Pelosi can't be a Catholic and support abortion legislation (even if she is personally against it).  So, we're talking about some pretty heavy hitters lining up against each other and I don't know how this will turn out in the present climate with 70% amber or more in the world.  I am concerned this particular situation will get a lot worse before it gets better.

  So, what I have said several times before is that the first step toward achieveing a sustained 2nd tier culture is that we need an educational system that gives all people, K-12 and after, the opportunity to achieve teal/turquoise levels of development, if they want to.  Otherwise we will just keep fighting the same old battles with each succeeding generation of amber citizens.

Dear Robb:

  Thanks for your insightful comments.  Since this is the second time you’ve referred to Von Mises, I guess I’ll have to suck it up and pay that $95 on Amazon.com and get me a copy of his book.

  I also appreciate you pointing out the delicacy of this situation, and will be more careful in the future.  I had noted in a previous IL political analysis that the discussion centered around Democrats viewing LR as the problem and Republicans the other quadrants, especially UL.  I liked that type of analysis since it gave a helpful perspective without raising the specter of levels and hierarchical value judgments.

  However, in some of Wilber’s books, he points out that Republicans are generally more amber and Democrats more unhealthy green.  While this was the basis for my “amber” statement, I now see it was misleading.  Since my further statements were about the economic stimulus, I could see how it could be inferred that I was saying that their fiscal policy was amber.  For that I apologize and also now understand that a person can go back to a traditional value, but that value doesn’t have to be amber just because it’s traditional.

  I mostly interpret your point to me as saying that I was seeing the problem as a developmental one, and that you are saying that the important perspective is one of Keynesian vs. Austrian/Von Mises philosophy.  I will agree that I completely missed that perspective and based upon what you stated about fiat based money systems always going to zero, I support your perspective and want to learn more.  Last, I think I'm also safe in interpreting that you are saying that these philosophical models are not amber, but higher levels.   

  On the other hand, in other blogs I have stated and continue to believe that the level of development of the individuals in the system is often as important and in some cases more important than the level of the system/philosophy itself.  This is because the system functions at the level of the center of gravity of the individuals in the system.  Thus, I consider the present financial system melt down as more an ethical and cognitive developmental problem of certain, not all, individuals running the system and not a failure of the capitalist (or governmental) system.  I’m certain there could be endless debates about that statement, but I am not stating it to be pejorative, but merely to explain the perspective my blog was written from.  P.S., I have read those articles (Horwitz, etc) on Flow referred to by Michael Strong.  That said, I’m always ready to learn more comprehensive ways to discuss these issues.

  Last, you also noted that: “The republicans lost this election because they got away from this core ideology during the Bush years and so their base punished them.  They have now learned their lesson. “    While I understand that you are probably stating this in such a way because of limits of time/space, I wonder if it was really their base that punished them or was it the swing voters?  I would like to hear more of your ideas on this in another blog perhaps?

   Anyway, I was told you were going to be coming out with some further discussions related to the economic system in the near future, so I will hold on my upcoming blog on:  “The Economic Stimulus, How Integral is It?”  Presently I feel that there is some critical perspective I’m missing in my “integral analyses” and so I realize that some of my blogs are not what they should be; but through doing blogs like this one, I am getting the feedback to help me improve and grow.  My take home from this one is that one way to do a higher level analysis is to look at the philosophies involved (which are systems), rather than just do the ground hugging developmental analysis.  I will thus read the upcoming IL developmental presentation with great interest.

Yours,

mb

Excellent otm post.  I'd like to note a couple of thoughts that occurred to me in relation to this last:

As far as I can tell, Obama's message (Change, Hope, Unity) is beginning to sound like a “signifier without the signified", i.e. words that in the end no one knows what they mean or refer to. It seems as if Obama's “words” merely allow us to consent to what we know is a lie so that we can avoid a direct encounter with Reality: the unconditional claim of Spirit that demands we change fundamentally the way we live in relation to each other and the world. In other words, with Obama's soaring rhetoric, it is Capital whose demands are now more absolute than ever - and far more pressing than the demand to transform our social and natural reality. That is, what if the Obama presidency merely allows us to think and feel that we (through US national politics) are contributing to a better world all the while staying comfortable within our protected enclaves?

I like this. I feel it asks a question directly concerned with the dynamic of growth in spirit - being present, and holding/moving through discomfort and pain to a deeper ground - rather than the sometimes distant abstractions of Integral thinking which can also function in the very way you suggest here.

I would also add that there is a middle ground between Obama = The Messiah and Obama = George Bush (a distinction borrowed from Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com) which is somewhat equivalent to the middle ground between holding our ideals clear and strong in our mind and confronting their inevitable failure. It is between these two poles, to echo another often heard phrase, that our spiritual path flows. A path of keeping those ideals strong and clear in mind while also yielding and compromising, and sometimes simply sitting with the impossible. That radical leap of faith that you have spoken of in other posts is applicable here, I feel. It is simply to acknowledge that manifestation of spirit, of our higher self and vision/s, is messy and painful, and will break us. As Beckett said (Sam not Thomas) 'I can't go on, I must go on. I think we do need to cut Obama some slack here.

That doesn't mean, of course, that we allow Obama unfettered grace, we can, however, allow some genuine intention to his words - hence their power, I feel - while looking carefully at what he actually does. Then, praise him when his actions warrant praise, and criticize him when his actions warrant criticism. What is required is that we ground our support or critique in his actual actions, and not the heady formulations of either President Obama or Integral thought. This is exactly what you've done. Its great to see it. Thanks.

Its what we all need to do, loudly, so as to encourage, and support, and push Obama to walk to his talk. He needs that to govern properly. Its the Integral thing to do in my view; playing in that ground between ideals and what is actually possible, and, in so doing, finding an actual way forward in spirit.