Climate Leadership Campaign Meshwork

Interesting post and I will try to engage you a little bit here.

I agree generally that as a community we need to be more careful about what we accept as facts in an upper right sense. 

"No upper left thought process can produce truthful bottom right conclusions based upon upper right facts that are not truthful."

I think this is an accurate statement.  But in order to determine which upper right facts are truthful or not, the right-hand quadrants can not be severed from the left.  We have to understand who is producing false upper-right facts and why.  Is a false UR fact correlated to an incompetent developmental level taking up a right hand methodology?  I.e. do you trust a three year old to look in a microscope and tell you what the microbes are doing?  This would fall into what I think we can call natural or unintentional factual fallacy.  This is an inevitable mistake that will occur in varying degrees at every level of development.  In other words, I think we need to value the partial truth that one's values shape the "facts" one sees.  

But I think there is a second type of factual fallacy that you might be suggesting in your post.  This would be an intentional factual fallacy.  This type of fallacy can still not be seperated from an individual's developmental level because that will give clues to what motivates them to commit the fallacy in the first place, but it is clearly different from an unintenitonal factual fallacy, obviously in that it is done dileberately.

Okay, with that little conceptual introduction, let's continue.

What I do see integral doing is taking propaganda geared toward certain segements of our population (bottom left), and even though that propoganda presents untruthful fact (upper right), integral still produces correct understanding about value systems and what makes a lot people tick (bottom left).

Just to quickly reiterate, there's another aspect that can be looked at using the theoretical model (well many more aspects but an important one I think you might want to add to this paragraph).  We can attempt to understand the "who" that is making the propoganda you are discussing.  Maybe it is elitist bankers.  Okay, if it is them, let's look at where their motivation may be stemming from.  Is it a "red" drive for power that makes them want to employ this tyranny?  Is it a "blue" strive for greater order?  Is it an "orange" strive for greater profit and opporunity for those willing to compete in a more open and equitable system?  Is it a "green" strive to honor diverse cultures on one planet? Is it a "teal" strive to improve the efficiency and health of the entire system?  And so on and so on and so on.

Now to answer those questions, we partake in one and/or two things.  First, we can examine, for example, an elitist banker ourselves.  Or we can listen to other perspectives that are extrapolating the banker's motives for us and examine their evidence.  But we can't just examine their evidence, we must also examine the examiner.  What are the values of the source of the facts we are provided with?  What are the values of people like Alex Jones?  What are the values of individual television hosts or the values of a television company?  In short, how are the values (which are developmental) of our source of information coloring that very information?

And of course we can't forget to leave out ourselves.  How are our own values coloring our perception of the evidence, of the bankers themselves, of the individuals or companies/websites providing us with evidence etc.?  Am I completely critical and not open to a particular news source?  Conversely, am I totally supportive and unquestioning of a news source?  Who's perspectives do I niavely take to be true?  Whose perspectives have I done a thorough investigation of their value structures so that I know what "shade" of fact I am getting? 

This isn't offered as any type of challenge to what you have stated above.  I'm just pointing out what a perspectival mess the whole thing is.

From my perspective, your last couple points about "orange" are right on.  Let's help "it" find healthy expression in the world.