hi lizzie,

for bert parlee's review of 'no country for old men', just google bert parlee (sorry i don't know how to provide you with a link).

i've been disturbed, too, by previous books by cormac mccarthy, but after seeing parlee's review, i read this, his latest book, and was able to appreciate what he brings to the integral table.

what he writes about is disturbing, but he's doing us a great service, i now believe, in warning us.

---

My only personal reservation was in making an analysis on a sound bite, and a misrepresented sound bite at that. Obama’s words haven’t been mentioned. He was discussing several people who had a dream for America and tried to implement that dream, saying that we can have a dream for a better America and implement that, Yes! He could use some help from the Integral community on this vision, of course. A second tier group of individuals will seek to direct that vision along healthy lines.

 

One quick take on the campaign and the candidates , not a quadrant assessment or a discussion of the horizontal health and vertical depth of it, is that any nation , as a holon, is going to have self preservation as a tenet integral to itself. If ethnocentric it is nationalistic, if pathologically ethnocentric it is a danger to other nations. The USA holon of today is viewed as a dysfunctional, nationalistic state with pathological aspects. And that is a real tough nut to crack, when your nation state is the most powerful in the world.

 

John McCain and David Brooks, who likes McCain a lot, seem to be willing to address moderate reforms of our nationalism and dysfunction, with emigration policy and campaign finance reform. However, they indicate no change, or even recognition of a pathology in our militaristic inclinations. This may be agency, but if it is pathological?...

 

Hilary Clinton is going to compete with McCain on who is the stronger on the war on terror, homeland defense, and who supports the biggest department of defense. She says this often! Daily? Other pathologies like corporate resource control she has in the past supported. She will, of course, try to adjust some of our social dysfunctions, but how can she reach out, across the aisle, where the other side is so opposed to her, for a consensus.

 

Barack Obama, also believes in a strong military and a strong corporate society, but I believe he sees the pathology and dysfunction of it all more deeply and acutely than the others combined.  He will try not to start another war, and will try to create a disposition that will allow these dysfunctions to come into view and change. A really, really hard task, and he may not change things in a dramatic way, but he may set up a framework of a unifying reach that can allow a foundation for a future that moves from global crisis, to global cooperation.

 

How does he differ from Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, or Cynthia McKinney (green party), the progressive policy politicians? I am beginning to think he has access to something that can reach a wider audience. It’s a bit of a mystery, what that is, more than just a presence, maybe a flexible Teal-like and aikido like ability to make the right move, say what can contribute to a unifying dialogue, though it may offend certain people at a certain moment. Create paths that could be walked on, new ways of looking at problems, and if people choose, to move toward a common ground opportunity. I don’t see any other politician who has this ability. People are responding to this.

 

I like what others are saying about Obama and I’m enjoying the posts of this thread and others which are exploring this. There is one contradiction, I would point out. The community points to the fact that democrats are exterior oriented and republicans are interior oriented. Yet, Obama is characterized as relational, communitarian, associative, dialogic, with a strong interpersonal line, all LL qualities. That looks like a bridge to me between the Left hand and the right hand quadrants. It would give his administration a good start at an Integral framework.

 

Thanks Ralph!  I found it.

  Also found in Holons a link to a really insightful article by Andrew Sullivan on Barack Obama called "Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters......linked through Holons on Atlantic.Com.  Really balanced, looking at the heart of the matter. Worth checking out! 

 

thanks very much lizzie!

i couldn't find the Holons link, but googling andrew sullivan worked. his article 'good bye to all that: why obama matters' addresses fairly compellingly all the doubts i've had about obama, especially faith:

Here again, Obama, by virtue of generation and accident, bridges this deepening divide [between belief and doubt]. He was brought up in a nonreligious home and converted to Christianity as an adult. But—critically—he is not born-again. His faith—at once real and measured, hot and cool—lives at the center of the American religious experience. It is a modern, intellectual Christianity. “I didn’t have an epiphany,” he explained to me. “What I really did was to take a set of values and ideals that were first instilled in me from my mother, who was, as I have called her in my book, the last of the secular humanists—you know, belief in kindness and empathy and discipline, responsibility—those kinds of values. And I found in the Church a vessel or a repository for those values and a way to connect those values to a larger community and a belief in God and a belief in redemption and mercy and justice … I guess the point is, it continues to be both a spiritual, but also intellectual, journey for me, this issue of faith.”

this is a real surprise to me--precisely what i though was lacking in his 'dreams from my father'. also, from a june 2007 speech:

One Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called “The Audacity of Hope.” And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, he would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

---

hi jim,

i've been following these primaries much more closely than i ever have before, partly because i'm unable to come to any stable conclusion. i do feel that the three principal candidates remaining would, each of them, make a good president--that we don't need to be afraid about what one of them might do, once in the white house.

following lizzie's suggestion, i just read the case that andrew sullivan makes for obama, and for me at least, it's quite compelling. his take on obama is surprisingly integral.

i've been supporting clinton, who i still feel is more ready to be president, but sullivan's argument has got my head spinning, even though i can't agree with one of its main premises, which is that boomers are to blame for the present divisiveness in our country--that clinton would only exacerbate this, and only obama can pull us out of it: we have been a divided country since before there was a country. then it was northern manufacturing and southern slave economy. now it's blue and red and that's not something boomers, even in their most exaggerated self-perception, could have created.

you seem confident that obama is actually crafting an integral politics. i think we would all welcome that, if it is the case. however, the LL, collective qualities you point out need to be balanced somewhat by the individual qualities (such as individual responsibility) more characteristic of republicans.

---

Here is a link to the Atlantic article that has been mentioned here: Andrew Sullivan - Goodbye to All That. Thanks for recommending it.

Probably the most intelligent argument regarding the 08 election I've read thus far. Takes into account Obama's race and color from the stand point of foreign utility and symbolic transcendence. Shows his faith to be appealing across religious lines (to whatever extent is possible) in that his spiritual quest has been not rote and conforming, but intellectual, contextualizing. Sullivan even mentions that the "struggle to embrace modernity without abandoning faith falls on one of the fault lines in the modern world." As far as Integral and ISC go, this is one of the prime objectives and I'm sure its a fault line almost all of us here have had to deal with personally and/or socially. It portrays his embrace of God as a choice to do God's will and let Him work through him, an embrace I can relate to.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

tim,

i've gone a step further, trying to make sense of obama's amazingly broad appeal, and read andrew sullivan's latest book 'the conservative soul'. afterall, why would an avowed conservative be campaigning so hard for a democrat?

unfortunately, my suspicions about the motives for another conservative's, nytimes columnist david brooks', effusive praise last fall for obama have proved justified (see his latest column about fading magic and OCS: obama come-down syndrome).

it's disheartening. i've no doubt he has 2nd tier altitude and can see beyond the deep conservative-liberal divide, but evidently he's given up on that vision. his column comes at the same time as opionator tobin harshaw's advertisement for talk show host hugh hewitt's attack on a michelle obama speech. harshaw's and brook's messages are mutually contradictory, if you're interested in the substance of what they have to say, but not if your only interest is that they besmirch obama. not so coincidentally, the nytimes has endorsed clinton, however the person most likely to benefit from this is mccain. no wonder people get sick of politics! i think we have three great candidates, with the media in between us and them, making a mess of things.

will sullivan go the same way as brooks? i don't think so. he's made of much sterner stuff. his conservatism, i would say, is nonideological, indeed integral. (incidentally, he has called hewitt a christianist so as to emphasize the ideological nature of hewitt's conservatism.) if we look at the translational/transformational dimension of integral politics (cf. the many faces of terrorism, part 3), also called the conservative/progressive axis, he puts priority on the first, but so that we will be well prepared to tackle the second. he's an integral conservative, somewhat like whole foods ceo john mackey is an integral libertarian.

unfortunately, he doesn't recognize development or human evolution, i.e. evolution beyond the biological. otherwise, he does a very good job of distinguishing between orange/green conservatism and amber conservatism, which he refers to as theoconservatism. thus, he does not recognize that the problem is not that we have amber conservatism, which is unavoidable, but what is becoming of it, in reaction to flatland orange and green, namely, an unhealthy fundamentalism.

anyway, if you're interested in how can conservatives and liberals possibly get together integrally, this is a good book to read.

---

That is an interesting article.  It sounds like he idealized Senator Obama and then crashed and burned looking at different things that irritated him about Obama.  Fair enough.  That is his perspective; for me the "come down" is realizing how vicious Senator Obama will be attacked from those who play to what is worst in man rather than what is best in man.(and woman!).  Steeling up for that is challenging. Like some people, there are times i would rather forget and slip into the world of illusions and just buy stuff, or eat stuff, or drink stuff.  I forgive myself.  It is teamwork, afterall.  One will be up when the other is down and we just have to pull together.  It is diffucult at times, the burden of hate directed at one is daunting ; i wil just say i lived in a duplex where on  the other side a man who worked for a defense contractor had his "office".  Being a single parent, he told me one day that he was glad  i had kids "because they needed more people like me".  I thought that was a nice thing to say, but boy was i wrong.  His real  intent was a bit darker and continues to this day.  So, i know how vicious the worst in mankind can be;especially when one can justify another's life as less than yours because of race, sex, religion, economic status etc. .  Many many people want to hide from this truth behind systems of belief and fantasy; we all have these moments.  The reality of this world of duality is painful!  That is my comedown when i am reminded of this viciousness and how it will enter the process as the subtle snake it is.

  I will continue to support Obama and his ability to bring out the personal best in people and to unite people. That is no small thing.

  just sayin'

lizzie

 

 

hi lizzie,

good news about david brooks! on the news hour with jim lehrer this evening he acknowledged that his column spoofing the obama mystique was somewhat of a mistake. as he since has come to realize, and i trust his judgment in this matter better than my own, supporters for obama aren't generally that mindless about it. in the language of aqal, they are coming generally from higher altitudes, so they have their doubts about him as well, although easily outweighed by all the assets he brings to the table.

brooks, in effect, agreed with your last paragraph, saying obama works from the bottom up, in contrast to clinton, who tends to see change actually being brought about from the top down.

with the possibility that the clinton campaign may be brought to an end this coming tuesday, people are beginning to acknowledge what an outstanding candidate she is as well. clearly, if obama is to facilitate our coming together, not only as a country but in the world as a whole, he is going to need to begin with clinton so as to unite the democratic party. joe perez has a blog about this suggesting that she be made the senate majority leader, where she could work with a president obama to make at least some of his dreams a reality--or a president mccain, for that matter, although the dynamic would be different.

uniting us all won't be easy. as you suggest, he is going to be strongly opposed--in the election and afterwards, if he wins, and it's still a open question, i believe, who will garner the most effective support, before and after. obama is already being painted as the senator with the most liberal voting record since 2004. i think obama is too smart to let them do this to him, but it's going to be a hard fight, and it won't be ended by an election victory.

and opposition is not a bad thing. if obama is going to be a uniter, he will need to recognize conservative values as well as liberal values. i imagine this is what david brooks saw in him and will continue to remind him of by pointing out the admirable qualities and ideas of his likely opponent john mccain.

it's hard to stop talking about this, definitely the most exciting and, potentially, the most far reaching election i've ever seen.
what if clinton does about as well as obama this coming tuesday?!!
ralph

---

ralphweidner:

what if clinton does about as well as obama this coming tuesday?!!
ralph

All hell breaks loose, democrats all across the country take up arms (or perhaps just placards on sticks), and we enter into a months long democratic civil war until Pennsylvania, and perhaps beyond. God forbid. It would be beyond ugly and ensure a great big fat win for McCain come November. I shudder the thought.

Lights candles for Obama. Yes We Can!

---

There are two types of conversations worth having; those about the deepest things, and gossip!

with you 100% Kameshvar. it is awesome to hear, "God forbid." as you've used it. Amen brother, Amen.

I hope we all see the metaphor in Barack Obama. There is no way to be integral and not support him--except for the simple fact that he will not even need all of our votes come November, as by the consensus on him will be decided. This is as struggle between intrenched hierarchies of moneys and dynastic power between the defining goal of the entire emergence of the Rational Mind: realize Equality in Diversity without Hierarchy.

Check the news article, printed just the other day:

“Race watched round the world—From Russia to Italy, from Kenya to India, the U.S. presidential campaign has not only captivated a global audience, it is reshaping the image of America. NEW DELHI—India has a long history of being led by political dynasties, and like the United States still battles sexism and racism. So for many Indians, the latest US presidential campaign is something of a wonder. An African-American stands a good chance of winning his party’s nomination. A woman is his primary rival. And, most impressive of all, she appears to be increasingly handicapped—rather than helped—by the fact that her husband was once president. Sen. Hillary Clinton “played the dynastic card a lot, and it’s worked against her,” marveled Seema Mustafa, a political editor with India’s Asian Age newspaper: “That would never happen in India, where it always works for you.” This year’s US campaign, with its groundbreaking crop of candidates and its focus on international concerns like Iraq, is reshaping the world’s views of the United States, political analysts say. In some places, officials see the candidacies of Clinton, fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain as a chance to heal rifts with the US over such issues as the war on terror and global warming. Many people abroad are surprised to find the United States is perhaps not as racist as they had imagined. Others, impressed at the lively campaign, are regaining faith in American democracy. Concerns that the US has used torture against terrorism suspects has continued to support authoritarian rulers in nations like Pakistan and has backed away from international institutions like the United Nations have blemished the—Please see World.”

When the world sees that dynastic rule and claims to hierarchical supremecy are no longer able to resolve the legitimization crisis face by equality in diversity, those who claim to be at the top will be seen poor in spirit and change will happen.

Yes, We Can. You don't need four quadrants and Buber's I-You paradigm to see that Yes, We Can, Yes, We Does. Yes. We IS.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

tim:

This is a struggle ... between the defining goal of the entire emergence of the Rational Mind: realize Equality in Diversity without Hierarchy.

what do you mean? are you wanting to do away with hierarchy and, consequently, holarchy?

---

There is no hierarchy or not-hierarchy, any more than there is self or no-self. our visions of hierarchies are merely conceptions of the rational mind, they are imposed, they are projected. now, of course, it is suggested by the holarchical nature of the Kosmos, which we do see with the Rational Mind, to the benefit of all Truth for sure. but we must see the detriment and pain hierarchies currently cause all over our world. in Nepal we've caste systems with terrorists fighting kings for representative government, the kings no longer legitimate at the top of the hierarchy, no longer able to off the protection of the gods, no longer able to protect. in our society, we've a direct, empiric, rational representation of hierarchical worth: money, inextricably exacted to power. but it digs much deeper than that: why do folks at different memes work towards different types of illusory selves? they all feel they are fit to be at the top of the hierarchy, and money is surely a way achieve this (again, not to say there aren't other ways to ascend our separate-self-sense-driven hierarchies, but to the degree we have an authentic meritocracy when it comes to monetary worth, we have a great degree more who've the monetary worth without (spiritual) merit, perhaps philanthropic merit, to a different ear.) integral is most definitely not to be placed above teal or above green. integral is the whole as each part. a hierarchy requires division from any Oneness.

why? protection. the protestant work ethic was born of a need to understand the self's role in a "predestined" world. to justify one's place in heaven, one must lift up their life on earth. they must make a humble attempt at asceticism in the world, seeking profit, equating time with money, profit as a portrayal of spiritual merit. we can judge this for whatever its worth, but it was the birth of the capitalist spirit. that our fallible minds have been deluded by self-interest seems also evident, and we have perhaps lost sight of this first calling to duty in service for equality in diversity. it was to lift everyone out of the poverty rut, the entire race, and with faith this is what it still do. We can still do it, We wills the poverty of spirit to the wealth of the spiritual.

perhaps it is just a personal observation, but it seems like the reason most people hold on to their self-conceptions is to remain in the hierarchy of separate selves, vying for influence and power. even spiritual quests can be jaded in these ways if not check by awareness. equality and hierarchy are dualisms that do not have existence without our own projecting them out there, there is only a story: realize Equality in Diversity as Unity without Hierarchy.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

zneval:

I hope we all see the metaphor in Barack Obama. There is no way to be integral and not support him--except for the simple fact that he will not even need all of our votes come November, as by the consensus on him will be decided.

You must be pretty certain of yourself to say something like this.    No way to be integral and not support him?  I seriously doubt this.   It's comments like this, by people like you that make me find myself pushing this organization away. 

Let me be one of the few speaking up in favor of Hillary to say, what are you Obama infatuees going to do when she wins it all ;)? 

In fact guys, I'm so certain that Hillary is going to win, that you all should go buy lots of canned goods, right now.. make sure to get plenty of bottled water because we're in this for the long haul.  Put some plastic up around your windows, maybe some boards because between the combination of hell freezing over, and the disastrous hurricanes/tornadoes that will result of her presidency you all are going to need it.  Also, make sure that you don't have kids for the next four (or god forbid--- EIGHT years!!).   These are just the minimal security risks that everyone should employ in this time of dire circumstance.