* * * * * for Integral Economics

  My thanks to the authors/producers of the video on Integral Economics I.  While it was pretty intense/dense/pithy and I did not understand all of it, it helped me form a base from which I can make better decisions and analyses.  I'll also listen to it again to let it sink in better.

  I especially liked the liberal fundamentalist vs. conservative fundamentalist discussions and how there can often be a pre-/trans- fallacy going on.  I guess one of the reasons I liked the discussion was that most of my life I've had the curse of being able to understand other people's or group's arguments.  Many times I've felt I've been in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation without a perspective I could take that could help me resolve the issue.  Aperspectival maddness may be a step up from the previous worldview, but from personal experience it's been, well, maddening.  Part of the maddening aspect was the lack of the ability to argue for one side or the other effectively.  Most people in the Pre- level argue vociferously and aggressively for their viewpoint and aren't capable of even seeing the other side.  Thus, whenever I would even acknowledge any validity to their argument, I usually ended up hamstringing myself. 

  In showing me the existence of the pre-/trans- fallacy and of holarchies, I was thus able to understand that while their arguments were true at some level, there were higher levels of being true and being more encompassing.  This in turn has opened me to an argumentive style that at least gives me some ways to argue more effectively, while also validating other's viewpoints.

  Another thing I liked about the presentation was that it looked at both sides of the problem, and I thought they did it fairly, such that I was able to get through the presentation without feeling that one side or the other was beaten up or elevated unfairly.  One of the reasons I've quite reading most extremist arguments is because they are generally so one-sided and often vitriolic in nature, that even if I agree with their argument, I end up feeling angry (at the other side) when I'm done reading the article.  Since that's not what I'm about, I'm glad to see this new style of presentation.  I also recognize it's a variation on Wilber's theme that no one can be wrong 100% of the time...

  I also look forward to part II of Integral Economics to see how it fits with my present ideas.  Since I'm in my infancy in using the integral method to analyze situations, it's very helpful to have these presentations as a form of feedback to see how well I'm doing.