.

hey hey,

thankyou for describing all of this in very lucid detail, i appreciate it! now, i do think that perhaps knowing a map or a guide, and mind you a good one such as integral is a vital step in the process of natural evolution, growth. that being said, you mentioned the stakes: what if integral is the only one that is the most comprehensive, covering the most states, stages and so forth? then yes, the stakes are quite high and there almost seems to be a compulsion not only to observe the natural holarchy of the garden at work, but to actively learn and gain knowledge about it, participating and facilitating it carefully. i think it's also important to ask: is integral really the best map or guide right now? does this stage of evolution, so to speak, or unfolding, naturally have many different guides which begin to emerge and, in the spirit of evolution, compete for effectiveness? after all, ideas have always evolved, and competed for the most efficient kind (some less developed, others spiraling up and out). i guess the real question is: is integral the only good map out there? or, if one is in what we call "2nd tier" or "turquoise" - will they naturally enact good maps? 

to give an example in the micro, a really good friend of mind, whom i consider a very ancient soul, is very intuitive. she often comes to the same conclusions that wilber, gebser, or even krishnamurti make, without having read much or any of their writings. this knowledge, or knowing, seem to spring forth from her perception, her stage - and there it seems is a certain degree of "naturalness." if integral is real, i believe, it's important not only to express crystallized "maps" like we have here at I-I, but also to recognize the natural, organic versions that are popping up around the world.

i think it would be a good idea to inquire about this: to what degree is it natural, and to what degree is it learned? if both do exist, then it's important for us to promote and encourage them simultaneously. after all, if we look at spiral dynamics, 10,000 years ago when blue was emerging - there were no maps about it! yet it happened. it's not that it wasn't important to push for blue-centric, the people at that time certainly were. so too in our time, to push for 2nd tier, turquoise, wherever we can, whatever we "label" it - so the map, as integral philosophy describes and as we are familiar with, is vital for us, and naturally important for many others who will never hear of ken wilber...

sorry for the ramble. this is such a subtle part of my focus in integral philosophy, but it's one of the most fascinating parts....

-jer

--

 Mu!

 Thanks Schalk, I appreciate your honesty.

First, let me allude to a response you gave to Anne in the other comments: I had to become more guarded in my spiritual experiencing, perhaps because of that right turn I took. There was a bit of negative feed back loop going on, not entirely of self. Pity.

now back to the gist of this: 

Let me be clear in my uncertainty: I don't don't know anything for sure.

I merely am posing a question of the folks who seem to “get” integral theory better than I do.

I figure there are lines of inner development. It gets rather confusing to clearly understand what one is experiencing, when we must pass a questionnaire of our sanity by first throwing off the ego's lenses, (myth of the given) and seeing if there is anything left in the experience which might be relevant.

Asking if I can prove it to be true is good in human relations and for controlling one's emotions, an admirable line to make progress in, but it does little for trying to develop intuitive and empathic capacities, and other areas of “spiritual connection” along those lines.

Our ego will drive us to be aware of some characteristic having to do with the flower first, and may exclude some parts. As an example, autistic persons look at the mouth of the speaker, it is said that neuro-typical persons look at the eyes.

The significance is the “collective” ego of humanity, local or world based. Of course that assumes that there is a collective ego, I think culture may be a good word for it.

It is the collective ego which I suspect may be the place of great potential in “development.” The ego being the “operating system” of our selves, not the usually interpreted “Top Gun” personality display.

I don't know how you are defining metaphysics.

 What seems to be at hand is the question of issues and how we handle them: in an all out attack? Or is “transcend and include” more of an act of addressing global environment issues by re-wiring our lives to a “planet-user friendly” system? The whole effort being more of a focus on generally being a good and conscious neighbor?

These are not my ideas originally, but based on these men's words:

Neale Donald Walsch:

“this day of your life, Kamm, I believe God wants you to know...

....that all the problems you face today are going to go

away, unless you worry them to stay.

Problems like worry.  Worry is a magnet for them.  If

you just "let it be," the current worrisome condition

will not even be part of your life a short time from now.

If you worry enough about it, however, you can be sure

that it will stick around.  So, just do your best around

all this...then turn it over to God. Yes?”

Bill Harris:

“Since so many people are struggling with bad feelings and outcomes they don't want, let's review for a moment why you might be feeling bad, and why you might be getting an outcome you don't want. Actually, this is an easy question to answer, because there's really only one way to feel bad or to have some part of life not work, and that is to focus on what you don't want.

(In this context, it is taught that if I say: “I don't want to be angry” is interpreted by the ego as “I want to be angry.”

“Does saying “We don't want Global warming,” in a collective way, make it “we want global warming?

The focus creating the energy that causes the phenomenon.? )

When you do that, you get a kind of "two for the price of one" deal. First, you get what you don't want, since when you focus your mind on something, your mind does everything it can to create it or attract it to you, and your mind is very good at creating whatever you focus on. Second, as a bonus, when you focus on what you don't want, you instantly feel bad. In fact, there is no way you can feel bad except to focus on what you don't want. So changing your focus to what you do want is definitely a remedy for feeling bad or for experiencing outcomes you don't want, because you can't get what you don't want without focusing on it, and you can't feel bad without focusing on what you don't want. “

Cheers. I hope this made more sense.

---

I don't know anything.