I've been putting up some integral material on the liberal political blog, DailyKOS.  My first few entries received some positive--though sparse--feedback.  With the latest entry, however, i find myself being somewhat shredded by criticism and misconceptions around Ken and his work.  I thought i would offer the link to you all, in case there are any others here who are also in the DailyKOS community, and wanted to add their voices to the fray.

All in all, though, the criticism has been sourcing some really great perspectives, in terms of the obstacles we all face, together, as we continue our collective efforts to bring Integral thought forward into the world.

Here's a link to all my blog posts (which is just mirroring content from Integral Naked/Holons):

http://www.dailykos.com/user/djrekluse

And here is the most actively critical thread so far:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/24/184954/507/665/541406

---

__________________________

Corey W. deVos (dj rekluse)
Brand Manager, Integral Naked
Audio Manager, Integral Institute
Managing Editor, KenWilber.com
__________________________

Kudos for that, Corey-san.  I've passed the word over to the political junky monkeys over on The Integral Pod [here], so they can join in the fun or cheer from the stands, as the case may be.

spirals,
Arthur

---

I am seeking meaningful work.

bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

"You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn

How's the dailyKOS thing going lately, Corey?

Here's another fun idea*!  Join the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Offical) page on Facebook and go all integral on their asses.

I have other projects on the go, so I won't be doing it myself, though it's a little tempting…trying to get across the idea of different definitions of spirituality (as discussed by Ken here) or “God” as defined by the various worldviews - including rational - could be an interesting exercise.

spiral out,
Arthur

________
*that I'm not going to personally follow up on

---

I am seeking meaningful work.

bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

"You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn

incidentally, the dailyKOS is mentioned in 'the big sort' as a good example of liberal sorting, suggesting it is much less than integral.

my understanding of wilber's recent remarks about the need for more pluralistic governance is, in this context, that it's best not to irritate dailyKOS readers and contributors with integral messages, the last thing they want to hear being anything that is not purely liberal. let them do their liberal thing, and when and if they tire of dailyKOS ideology, and in the meantime integral has been doing a good job, they will find it.

the same for conservative ideological hangouts, of course.

---

ralphweidner:

incidentally, the dailyKOS is mentioned in 'the big sort' as a good example of liberal sorting, suggesting it is much less than integral. my understanding of wilber's recent remarks about the need for more pluralistic governance is, in this context, that it's best not to irritate dailyKOS readers and contributors with integral messages, the last thing they want to hear being anything that is not purely liberal. let them do their liberal thing, and when and if they tire of dailyKOS ideology, and in the meantime integral has been doing a good job, they will find it. the same for conservative ideological hangouts, of course.

An integral person might be able to skillfully talk with such liberal folks in their own language, in a way that challenges them - in their own terms - just enough to help stimulate growth to the next level in those who are ready.  Then too, an integral perspective might be presented as, you know, just one perspective among many - it's all good, right? - and some people might be receptive to that...if they are "exit green" a.k.a. "sick and tired of endlessly passing around the goddamn talking stick."

But I certainly agree that coming in with AQAL guns blazing, "Here's why you all suck and my worldview is superior to yours" might not be well received...

I also remember Ken somewhere bringing up the idea of talking to anti-hierarchical folks in terms not of "levels of development" but "stations of life" - using a train track metaphor.  In other words laying down the vertical spiral as a horizontal track and getting under the radar that way.

As for my suggestion to go to the Dawkins site and "go all integral on their asses" - well, they arguably "deserve" the guns-blazing treatment,  but I was thinking more along the lines of the above suggestion.

I mean hey, those religious people are so clearly wrong and need to be converted to rationality - but the more moderate ones are often pretty good people, and to achieve our goal we god-sneering atheists need to understand the enemy better (in their own terms), so as to win them over.  For example, in studying this problem I've learned there are different definitions of spirituality, and each may require a different approach to deal with them effectively....

And so forth.

spiral out,
Arthur

---

I am seeking meaningful work.

bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

"You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn

I like those comments, Arthur.

Another way levels might be presented is as types. Maybe vertical "types" could be differentiated from other typing systems in some non-heirarchical way to emphasize their importance. At any rate, "different types" is kind of like "different strokes for different strokes" and might not be too galling to the egalitarian mind. Then once these different types are laid out a person might begin developing their own hierarchy among them without prompting, consciously or unconcsiously, explicitly or implicitly. There might be a subtle, indirect way of encouraging them to establish a hieararchy among them so that they feel that they have created the hierarchy themselves rather than feeling as though it is being imposed on them from without.

It's seemed to me that levels are about the last thing about AQAL the egalitarian, pluralistic mind will accept, so maybe we could discover what the easiest thing about AQAL for them to accept would be, and then the next easiest, etc. Types shouldn't be too controversial, I would think. Then perhaps states. Then maybe lines. Perhaps the quadrants after that, though in certain contexts the quadrants might not be controversial and could be introduced earlier. It might be hard to talk about "self" outside of a developmental context. Finally the vertical stages, or revealing that some of the "types" are actually a part of a hierarchy.  :)

In a political discussion, one of the big challenges for integral among pluralists is to make room for interior causation, yes? I wonder if there might be some skillfull way to point out interior causation, to at least open the door for it just a bit.

 

mm

Corey,

Knowing you are a frequent visitor to the kos sight, just wondering if you caught this diary?

http://tocquedeville.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/27/65732/1557/694/557641


Not really directly related to your post here, but is one example of how the parameters of acceptable discussion are set, and a good example of the good and bad of online forums in general.  Can't say that I'm a big fan of the site, although I think there are lots of intelligent and dedicated contributors.  I found a lot of the comments to be more thought provoking than the original diary post but have a really hard time sifting through all of the flame wars and in-fighting on kos especially.  I support your attempts to get the integral view out there, but can't say I'm too optimistic about the reception. 

Anyway, the more substantive parts of the diary and comments really interest me and would love to have some of these issues taken up here, whether in the forum or in KW's dialogues.  There are a number of perspectives from far left, far right and centrist empiricism that just don't seem to be integrated into discussions of "integral economics".  If I had to characterize the integral consensus on economics as I (grossly and probably inaccurately) perceive it, I'd summarize it as a call for more 'enlightened capitalists' with multiple bottom lines, who, if they can just evolve fast enough and rise to power through luck and cunning (and evolutionary imperative), will raise all boats (financially, culturally, spiritually,etc.) just enough to create the next set of solutions and appropriate responses to avert . . . . 

Anyway, rambling a bit, but I'd love to see more substantive discussions here on these forums about current events in general and encourage you to bring more tidbits here from your travels out there on the web.  Hard to talk about current stuff here without folks getting out their color wheels and painting everyone and everything with dubious claims of "altitude sickness" if you know what I'm saying.  So maybe it's the case that the Kos ain't ready for integral, but how bout the other way around? 

Garbageman:

I read the post you linked and watched the linked You Tube interview of Walter Kronkite.

He said that the "ruling class control our democracy."

I'd like to explore the distinction between people thinking they control us and them actually controlling us.

I am not seeing how the ruling class controls me.

Can you give any specific examples? I have a very personal motivation for asking this... (Innerline: if you are out there, feel free to contribute as well.)

This would seem to be one of those substantive discussions you refer to.

Good to hear from you garbageman. I started to drown on the forum on this. This is very frustrating for me.

Shalk and others,

To get some perspective lets seperate the real economy from the finacial economy. The real economy deals with real people doing real labor that meets our needs. But their is a whole economy that is just in ownership and speculation, basically betting, and FRACTIONAL RESERVE BAKING. This is what the modern banks use. It is fundumentally fraud.

Were the two economies come together is the money being used. Inflation causes people not to save. The dollar is worth 1-2% of what it was worth in 1913. This is slight of hand in a ironic and tragic way. Who determines the value of the dollar. The FED Reserve job is to manage the dollar. The fact that it is a private bank with private interest should tell you this system is not modern what so ever. Big flashing lights should be going on in your head. But we, somehow are well programmed not to look.

So Shalk, The monetary system is designed like a ponzi scam were debt can never really be paid off as a whole cause money is created from debt not real wealth. This is a very dangerous reality cause Wall St. can loose touch with the REAL economy. Recessions and depressions are about  Wall St.'s economy falling to match reality. Remember these cycles are made by the FED Bank. Sure there are cycles in a real economy, but these cycles are then controlled by a false economy, not basic cycles of just a real economy.

Well the financial numbers are way worse than the great depression and we are way more dependent on the doings of Wall St. verses Main St. So if you have a job or a bank account and more you will be effected.

One of my current doings is to make about 3 million dollars and be able to play against the big boys. There are going to be people who go from millionares to billionares on the shorting of the coming storm in the span of  two years. Maybe I could show Ken how to turn a million into a billion. The most dangerous people are those who have nothing to loose.

Schalk, the very notion of "control" is a universe of discussion in and of itself.  I'm certainly not suggesting that the ruling class "controls" you any more than one hopes to "control" one's bowels, or anger, or lust.  However, the ruling class (which we might struggle to define) does control you and I in some very tangible, concrete ways, and right out in the open, with our consent, and sometimes not. (Prison-industrial complex, anyone?)  A large part of efforts to control, in the present age, are through the restriction of information, or "perception management" if you prefer.  And yes, a very small number of individuals (relatively speaking) exercise an inordinate degree of control over the value of all that green paper laying around the house.  Not quite yet ready to put it on the spindle next to the toilet, but it may not be far off :)  I was interested in this diary on the Kos simply because it was tolerated, the author taking great pains to reassure the kossaks he was not treading into "CT" territory.  Personally I think the notion of "conspiracy theory" as popularly used is no longer useful.  The cognitive dissonance gets a little deep and makes me want to break out the hip waders.  Too much of the traffic on Kos resonates with me as "tell us the truth, except for the part we don't want to hear" but that's more or less the case across the blogosphere I suppose.

But do tell about this personal motivation.  Can you give specific examples of either incorrect information or viewpoints with which you strongly disagree? 

i know i'm cutting in on your conversation, garbageman, schalk, monkmonk and innerline, in order to reply to arthur, so feel free to cut right back in. i just needed some time to think about what arthur had said before replying, and in the meantime you guys took the conversation in a new direction.

anyway, kudos to you, too, arthur, for your award winning, integral elevator pitch. both yours and gilli getz's were fantastic. maybe, in my earlier message, i was reflecting on my own shortcomings--certainly not yours or corey's. i'm more of an intellectual, i guess, so that's the perspective i bring--you know, the one who does alot of talking and not much in the way of action.

i just read 'the big sort' on president clinton's recommendation to the annual governor's conference (remember him?). it's one of a number of books i seem to be coming across lately that demonstrate a 2nd tier altitude, what might be called proto-integral except for the lack of anything like an aqal map.

that lack, as both you and monkmonk have pointed out, might actually be a virtue. there aren't even the suggestion of levels or lines to get anti-hierarchical feelings riled up. at the same time it does a marvelous job of laying out the horrible mess our country presently is in in a way completely consistent with aqal.

wilber has stated it in its simplest terms: we are, and always have been, a divided country. the author of this book, a jounalist by the name of bill bishop, shows convincingly, i feel, that we have been moving for at least the last 30 years beyond mere division into dissociation. the simplest names for the two sides are, of course, liberal and conservative. bishop, incidentally, admits early on that he and his wife are liberals, but perhaps because they live in austin and she, at least, comes from kentucky, he is able to see that conservatives, as well as liberals, are right in their own way, and to give them the same consideration he gives liberals. at the very least he realizes that blaming either side is only going to exacerbate the situation.

he hasn't yet grasped the notion of levels, but he's ripe, i feel. if he were to read 'brief history of everything', say, i bet he would react as so many of us have to our first encounter with wilber: i knew all this--i just needed him to show me what i knew. in fact, in the last chapter he quietly introduces a possible antidote to this dissociation, and, wouldn't you guess?, it's spiritual.

i'm wondering if a book like this wouldn't serve as a good litmus test for readiness for integral. but i wouldn't want to try to introduce it to dailyKOS readers.

---

I have learned the most trying to express Integral to others and seeing their responses. I have concluded it is inappropiate to bring up any body of work that the listener has not studied. I have been finding success as a yoga teacher with students that have a strong sense of urgency with the big picture. I have turned on four people and have three that are inquiring. I did not realize this till this post, which is really funny. It was very organic. I think it comes down to people seeing something in you that they want. But being in a community that shares in rituals toward the great other makes it easy. Trying to get people attracted to Integral that does not share in contemplative community ritual is very difficult and  now think is inappropiate. I "think" it takes about thirty hours just to get introduced to Integral. I can not do it justice otherwise. Do we start putting intro seminars out there. Or hows about Ken does a awesome DVD/youtube video with movie clips and 3-d modelling. Then it could be like "What the Bleep do you Know? ". Maybe we turn on the film students at universities. Integral Marketing?

Schalk,  "Tragedy and Hope", By Carrol Quigley will answer your questions, but that is a 1300 page book. So I have been giving good summaries of what is gained from knowing the history in that book.

Does this link help at all?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/knaebel/knaebel18.html

 

Innerline:

I concur - it is hard to launch into Integral discussion with people who are not actively engaged in a contemplative practice.

The UL is the nut that has to crack for Integral to make sense.

If I do not regard the subjective inner world as legitimate or authentic and composed of hierarchies of growth, then I will regard my thoughts and feelings and urges as "JUST" random internal stuff that psychologists and probably cognitive neurosurgeons can figure out. The real answers are in material sciences, and the real applications are in economics, psychology and politics.

I realize think the world is ripe for some really hip and "naked" Integral movie/video productions that lay out all of the issues that Integral makes sense of.

People are inherently interested in hearing that there is meaning and structure and logic to their interior events and that dopamine and serotonin do not explain "why" we do things we do.

Integral is a massively empowering vision, but for it to make sense, we have to highlight the aspects of the dominant world views that simply cannot and do not make sense.  

So, on a note of self-congratulation, I say that we all deserve credit for a. taking note of the fact that a non-Integral world does not make sense, b. not being willing to live a life of glossing over that which does not make sense, and c. working to integrate what is our birthright and that is ... a wonderful world full of beauty and horror that is filled with logic and ever-expanding petals of support and love structure.

We are the canaries in the mine shaft. We have sniffed the gas. And we have sought higher ground.

 

I believe I have spent more time on the question of how to convey integral in layman's terms to a beginner than anyone on the planet (even Ken, because he was focusing only on teal/turquoise readers).  This is not bragging, actually far from it, because I have only made it so far in the attempt.  But after having written lots of drafts and after hundreds of conversations, I think I'm narrowing down what my version looks like.  You'll see some of it on the About section of IntegralLife.com very soon.  But wow was it a tricky problem, and remains so because different people orient differently from one of the four quadrants in how they process their world (i.e., quads become types, something we'll help our members understand on IL.com).  For the LR folks I go with the map of human experience, for the UR folks I go with the practice into completeness, for the UL folks I go with the freedom of awareness and the LL folks its the fullness of loving connection.  But the reality is you have 5 minutes and need a credible way to describe the headline, the statement of benefit and the reason to believe of Integral to anyone, anywhere. And also you can't, or shouldn't, even attempt to convey the 5 elements. Stay away from those.  If you can achieve genuine curiosity and a glimmer of understanding the possibilities with a beginner in 5 minutes or less, you're a star.  Good luck ...

Robb