I would like to just explore something, not completely seriously, but not completely on a lark either.

It has to do with the possibility of creating a series of rules or injunctions that might be applied to guide coherent inquiry and discourse on Integral matters.

I am exploring whether following these injunctions can lead to more disciplined and useful discovery of Integral matters.

Integral inquiry can take on many forms. Truth, beauty and goodness can emerge from casual conversation, artistic display, civility devoid of operational content, combinations of the same, etc.

But there is also a form of inquiry that can be regarded as fairly serious. Not serious as in grim, but serious as in disciplined. And that involves identification of an issue that is apparently relevant and the mutual exploration of the issue with an aim of revealing deeper or hidden or higher or more comprehensive truth perspectives, the process of which can be filled with beauty and goodness.

So, I ask myself: is this already done somewhere? Where do people inquire together in a disciplined way with the aim of getting to the truth of a matter? Any matter? What example of this exists that contains authority and legitimacy? And I think: the law.

So, I am going to try to adapt the Federal Rules of Evidence to what might be called I3 (Integral Inquiry Injunctions). As they say in the world of game design, too few rules and the game is no fun, too many rules and the game is oppressive and confusing. I3 should try to find a happy medium in this regard.

These are not merely American evidence rules, by the way. In one form or another, most Orange societies in the world use variations of these rules to guide the inquiry into the truth of matters in their legal systems.

The following is a "Draft Code." Comments are welcome. Comments on substance, application, etc. Please refer to the specific rules. Please do not comment on the very notion that such rules could be useful or helpful or anything else that meta-discusses the event.

I am fairly certain that there will be some who recoil the moment they see this. My mean green demon is going nuts right now! I invite you to play with it and see if you can improve upon it.

I have a very strong sense that it could be useful within certain areas of inquiry.

***************************************************************************

Integral Inquiry Injunctions

Rule 101. These injunctions apply to the sharing of ideas in mutual inquiry into Integral matters, on or off line, where two or more parties are sharing inter-subjective meaning.

Rule 102. These injunctions shall be construed to secure fairness, elimination of unjustifiable waste of time and resources, and promotion of Integral awareness among all persons to the end that Integral truths and their application may be fully known and enjoyed.

Rule 103. No one has authority to issue a final ruling on the issue of whether an idea offered by another is in compliance with the rules. Everyone has authority to offer their perspectives on whether another is in compliance, providing that the offer is done is a way that is consistent with the aims set forth in Rule 102 above.

Rule 104. When the relevancy of an offered idea depends upon the fulfillment of a condition, the idea shall be considered proper provided that the condition is ultimately met.

Rule 105. An idea may be offered when it is relevant to one issue or sub-issue, but it shall be considered only for the purpose of that issue or sub-issue. Reasonable attempt shall be made to identify how and to what extent ideas are relevant.  

Rule 106. When writings or recordings are offered on an issue, the remainder of the same writings and recordings may also be offered as relevant.

Rule 107. All parties to an inquiry shall have authority to offer rulings for consideration. Each party should refrain from offering more than one ruling on an issue, from responding to the rulings of another, and from offering rulings that are unnecessarily long or difficult to interpret.

Rule 201. Certain facts may be agreed upon to be beyond dispute for the purposes of the inquiry. This is called "taking notice" of those facts.

Rule 202. Within the context of Integral inquiry, it shall be presumed that the Integral model is relevant and provides a useful framework. Should there be questions about any aspect of the Integral model that call into question the legitimacy of the model itself, those questions should be addressed de novo in a separate and independent line of inquiry.

Rule 301.

a. All persons enjoy the right to offer, withdraw, or amend ideas.

b. All persons enjoy the right to refuse to participate in an inquiry or to withdraw from an inquiry.

c. A person who raises an issue and then withdraws from or refuses to participate in further inquiry shall be regarded as having waived the right to have the issue inquired into. Any other person may continue the inquiry into the issue and in so doing shall be regarded as the one raising the issue.

302. All persons may request the assistance of other persons in offering ideas for consideration.

303. Offered ideas which are shown to be incoherent, inaccurate representations of other ideas, or inaccessible to others through expressible injunctions shall be considered incomplete and, until coherence, accuracy or accessibility is established, shall be considered improper.

Rule 304. When there is probable cause to believe that the determination of an issue will be furthered by obtaining and considering additional ideas, and those ideas are reasonably available, it is proper to suggest that such a search be performed.

Rule 305. It is proper to relate events that one has personal life knowledge of, subject to Rule 402 on relevancy.

Rule 401. Relevant ideas are those ideas that tend to make the existence of any matter of consequence to the determination of an issue more probable or less probable than it would be without the idea. Issues shall be clearly framed at the outset so that relevance of ideas thereto can be established. Additional related issues may be proposed and with the concurrence of all parties to the inquiry, may be added as additional issues. Ideally, issues will be numbered and all issues will be cited together so that the scope of the inquiry is clear.

Rule 402. All relevant ideas may be offered. Ideas that are not relevant shall not be offered. If an irrelevant idea is offered, it is proper to inquire into the relevancy of the idea, and until the same is established, it is proper to regard the idea as improperly offered and therefore irrelevant.

Rule 403. A relevant idea may be ignored or identified as improper if its value in assisting in the injunction of Rule 401 is substantially outweighed by considerations of prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading others, waste of time, undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative ideas.

Rule 404. The character or character traits or motives of those who offer ideas are generally irrelevant.

Rule 405. It is proper to offer ideas on a single occasion within an inquiry that tend to show that another has a particular habit or character trait which tends to regularly appear and limit perspective-taking. This however shall not constitute a new line of inquiry into an issue. Further comment on or defense of a proper Rule 405 offering is not permitted. Subjective examination by the subject of a Rule 405 offering is encouraged but not mandatory.

Rule 406. Where it appears that one who intially offered an issue and/or ideas on the same has personally transformed or changed vertically or horizontally, that shall not be construed as making the issue and/or the ideas previously offered irrelevant or moot.

Rule 407. No person may offer to compromise or terminate inquiry into an issue unless all parties to the inquiry are in agreement. A failure to register assent or dissent within a reasonable amount of time shall be construed as waiver of the right to object to compromise or termination.

Rule 501. No persons who have joined an inquiry are privileged or permitted to withhold ideas that advance the concerns of Rule 402. Those who wish to withhold relevant ideas or materials should consider withdrawing from an inquiry by expressly stating so.

Rule 502. No person shall be expected or asked to disclose personal data of an intimate nature.

Rule 503. No person shall be expected to disclose the identity of other persons who have served as the source of ideas or life events.

Rule 504. No person shall be asked about their relationship with a medical doctor, attorney, psychotherapist, clergy, counselor, spouse, child or other intimate or private relationship. The person holding such a relationship may disclose what they wish without the risk of further inquiry. Requests to inquire into the nature of such intimate or private relationships by any person are discouraged.

Rule 601. All persons are competent to offer ideas relevant to an issue of inquiry.

Rule 602. A person should not offer an idea for which they do not have a reasonable amount of personal knowledge along any line of development.

Rule 603. All offerings shall be made under an implied oath of fidelity to the spoken word, to the sangha, and to the spirit of true and sincere inquiry. Such an oath shall not be construed as legally binding.

Rule 604. The credibility of an idea may be questioned through the offering of evidence of bias, prejudice, or motive to misrepresent on the party of any proponent. In such a case, additional inquiry should be conducted to determine whether the idea can be independently established as credible.

Rule 605. Race, religion, sex, age, physical condition and social status shall not form the basis of a proper offering of ideas.

Rule 605. All persons may offer ideas in any order they wish. A reasonable balance shall be observed such that the mutuality of the inquiry is protected.

Rule 606. Unless otherwise clear from the idea, it is proper to inquire as to which element of an issue an offered idea is relevant.

Rule 607. Prior ideas offered on a similar or related issue are relevant to consider the consistency or stability of an idea.

Rule 608. Parties may object to the form or style of ideas on the following bases.

a. the idea is ambiguous;

b. the idea is unnecessarily compound and lacking focus;

c. the idea is essentially argumentative without eliciting or pointing to supporting factual matters;

d. an idea depends upon an unreasonable amount of predicate material that cannot be verified;

e. an idea is too broad or formless to have meaningful or referential normative content;

f. an idea misstates another idea;

g. an idea or question calls for a narrative discussion of an unreasonable amount or range of other matters;

h. an idea or question improperly re-frames the inquiry in a way that the 1st person event of another party is included and examined. This includes but is not limited to assertion that shadow elements, undesirable motives, sexism, racism, or any other form of bias is coloring the generation by another of an idea.

Rule 608. Persons who persist in violating the rules may be asked one time by one party to refrain from further offerings on an issue. Any such request shall contain a clear statement of which rules were violated, how they were violated, and how the concerns of Rule 102 are furthered.

Rule 701. Offerings should attempt to make a clear distinction between opinions and matters that can be verified by the other parties by following an expressible injunction in any of the AQAL forms.

Rule 702. Persons who believe they qualify as experts on matter should provide sufficient foundational material to establish that they merit such consideration.

Rule 703. An expert shall be given wider latitude in offering opinions.

Rule 704. Experts may be asked to disclose underlying matters upon which their opinions are founded.

Rule 801. Hearsay is generally improper. Hearsay is defined as an idea or experience of another which is offered in inquiry under the guise of one's own idea or experience.

Rule 802. Hearsay which demonstrates humility or doubt about one's position or offerings is proper.

Rule 803. Verifiable or repeatable knowledge is preferred.

Rule 901. It is proper to ask a proponent of an idea to authenticate the idea or the matters supporting it.

Rule 902. General principles underlying the Integral Theory are self-authenticating. Should a concern arise as to the legitimacy of granting self-authentication to a general principle of Integral Theory, this matter should serve as the subject of a separate and independent thread of inquiry.

Rule 903. No person shall be required to product original materials in any form. If there is reasonable doubt however about the existence and/or authenticity of original materials, inquiry into this is permitted to the degree and extent that the matter is central to determination of an issue.

Rule 904. All persons are encouraged to faithfully summarize the relevance of voluminous or lengthy materials when providing links to them.

Rule 1000. These rules shall apply only to serious cognitive inquiries by two or more parties into Integral matters. They may be applied in part or in whole to other inquiries with the consent of all parties thereto. Where the rules are applied in part, the specific rules adopted should be identified in advance.

Rule 1100. These rules shall be known and cited as Integral Inquiry Injunctions (I3).

********************************************************************

My sense is that an attempt to use I3 will not only lead to greater focus and economy in the search for useful ideas, but it will provide the discipline that is necessary to gain greater cognitive altitude.

Such cognitive training is a fundamental feature of Tibetan Buddhism for example. But the Christian and Muslim and many other traditions have similar rubrics that serve this purpose.

Enlightenment is a matter of vertical altitude to Indigo on at least the cognitive and self lines (as well as horizontal identification with non-dual states) according to KW, so this essentially builds in a discipline that serves the enlightenment project.

 

Hi Schalk,

 

Your interest in inquiry resonates deeply with me. In fact i can think of few things more valuable for one generation to pass on to the next than the importance of an ongoing sense of inquiry.

 

One of the things i like most about what could be called the integral impulse is its overall embrace -in the sense that it offers the possibility of using everything. This includes the span from pre-rational to rational to trans-rational, the three modes of operation for which in order can be seen as instinct, thought, and intuition.

 

And while i cannot help but admire the intensive labor required to link what you have called integral inquiry to the rules of evidence in various legal systems, it seems to be almost inextricably linked to -if not mired in- the world of thought.

 

And as much as i admire and value clear thought, when viewed through the span, pre-rational to rational to trans-rational, thought itself appears to be very slow indeed. It's a little tricky to use thought to describe itself, so bear with this shifting of gears into analogy: Consider how much faster thought is than speech; using an arbitrary number say 30,000 times faster, and similarly what if intuition is 30,000 times faster than thought?

 

The trans-rational, whose mode of operation i suggest is intuition, does not by definition fit well in to the rationality framework of point A to B to C, etc.; it may go from A to C to Q for example. Obviously this makes it difficult to write any sort of rule for its operation except one of ongoing openness.

 

This is not to demote or denigrate thought in anyway; obviously it is among the most valuable of human capacities; however thought itself is subject to the non-resolution of a repetitive endless loop, a sort of play of the opposites, or ‘he said’ ‘she said’ argument, that goes on like the repetitive skip track of an old phonograph record; one that begs for the well timed nudge (of intuition) that allows it entry to the next groove of the evolutionary spiral.

 

Warmly,

 

Charles

88W18'28" 41N58'02"

Charles:

A very thought provoking post!

Thanks.

You are suggesting that I3 would limit the ability to benefit from trans-rational ways of knowing? That is, it would force inquiry to stay in limited ruts? Back and forth plays of opposites?

I know what you mean. The monastic tradition, etc. Logic. Dry and uninspired.  

Here is my concern: transrational knowing is either a zone 1 or zone 3 event. I know something in my interior or we know something together in our interiors, right?

Rules that dictate discipline in inquiry do not prevent either kind of knowing. And they do not prevent zone 2 or zone 4 references to this kind of knowing.

What they prevent is hijacking of an inquiry by frames and contexts and concerns that essentially derail the inquiry.

There is a place for more spontaneous meandering and inspired transrational dialogue. (I suggest it is best done face to face however, and not by sending words back and forth on a computer!)

I cannot begin to count the number of threads that were onto an important or vital or interesting issue that have been essentially hijacked by discussion that took the frame of reference and changed it. At that point, the original germ dies. Almost always.

Integral is not a style. It is an injunction for gaining truth and knowledge about how things work in the Kosmos.

The on-line experience is perfect, because it allows for people spread around the world to come together very quickly around issues of mutual concern. Space is no longer a limiting factor.

And a coherent statement about how transrational knowing is relevant and useful at any point is entirely appropriate within this system! But the system will exclude subtle changes of topic or reference or reversal of pointings back at an author ... which are time tested ways of gutting inquiry.

I am proposing rules (that are eminently field tested in the world of law) that guarantee relevance and usefulness in inquiry.

By the way, this very discussion we are having right now rigorously comports with the rules that I propose! And if there is any transrational form of knowing that you are failing to get from this, point at it the best you can. That is relevant too.

If you want to ask me to look at my motives for saying this, that is not proper. If you want to talk about the LA Lakers at this point, that is not proper. If you want to not respond to a direct question I ask without telling me that you are dropping out, that is not proper. If you want to write something that I cannot even understand, tht is not proper. Etc.

Let us also remember: the disaster of green has been primarily a failure to recognize the validity of hierarchies.

I am suggesting that there are hierarchies of forms of mutually-shared cognition.

If you tell me that what I am saying is not relevant, you are making a hierarchical assessment of my statement.

If we operate within what you call an open ended framework, we get flatland. It meanders all over the place and ends up like an in-grown nail, irritated and stunted.

I have yet to hear of something that cannot be pointed at very effectively using words. And if we cannot do that well, hey, maybe through a little discipline we can learn to do it better?

To begin, we would want to start with a proper boundary between what are therapy/feeling based posts and what are serious inquiry based posts.

Hi Schalk,

 

According to my understanding of integral theory ‘flatland’ refers to a situation where one of the quadrants is favored over the others to the extent that the others are denied; which at very least has the effect of robbing them of possible depth and meaning.

 

What i was rather clumsily pointing at is something else completely different. Let me try to explain: rationality has a place in human unfoldment -roughly between emotionality and intuition; and intuition as a place roughly between rationality and trans-rationality. This means that in terms of descent, deeper or more cohesive integral truths -when seen as fragments of trans-rationality- serve to inform rationality in ways that it is unlikely for rationality itself to perform.

 

Consider the phenomena of Mozart for example, unlike the equal (but ascending) genius of Beethoven who had to write something over and over again in order to rise to the level of optimum performance, Wolfgang, it's said, more or less comprehended the music as a whole thing, and simply wrote it down as an act of amanuensis. A possibility which i attribute to the human quality called intuition.

 

The evolutionary grooves laid down for sensation or physicality, and for emotionality, as well as rationality are deeper and more generally recognizable. It's my view that the next similar aspect of human development engages intuition as its instrument; and if i am to include everything as part of the integral impulse ignoring it simply won't do.

 

If outlining this view appears to be irritating and stunting, rather than encompassing and liberating, it -much to my sadness- only reinforces the view of the limits of a less than fully informed rationality.

 

Warmly,

 

Charles

88W18'28" 41N58'02" 

 

 

 

 

 

This would be good Schalk

"To begin, we would want to start with a proper boundary between what are therapy/feeling based posts and what are serious inquiry based posts. "

 

Charles:

Let me say for starters that the dialogue we are presently engaging in perfectly accords with the rules that I am suggesting. I mean that literally.

So, what is our current dialogue missing that irrelevant matters, incoherent statements, mutual references to the motives of each other, and the like will add in the area of trans-rationality?

I'd like to point out that the post you just provided is in my opinion an excellent elucidation of the role of rationality and its limits. There is probably more to be said on the matter, but that would require a continued agreement to abide by certain focus and discpline in the inquiry. :)

The analogy you provided is very germane.

So, what if the goal is to write Beethoven's 5th?

I can't dance the mazurka, sing you a song, twitch my eyebrow, waft the smell of pine needles, or shake your hand on line. But I can benefit from your disciplined arrangement of words on a page.

If that requires an occasional backspace or deletion or pause to check a fact or mistake, that's a small price to pay for coherence and complexity and richness, in my opinion.

Am not sure the current open ended format is giving anyone Mozart, by the way...

On second thought: let's compare Mozart and Beethoven to a bad grunge rock group.

The issue is not spontaneity vs. crafting. It is adhering to rules of form vs. what is essentially pouring out amorphous data.

The grunge group would be mortified to hear that their music could benefit from more discipline. They will argue that their sound would be harmed, the spontaneity destroyed. I would disagree. They could generate even better grunge sound if they worked on cutting out what is irrelevant noise from their pieces.

And from a complexity standpoint, the group could be much more interesting and poignant if they disciplined themselves and learned more about music theory.

I know, the real point is, they would not want to have anyone catch them agreeing to engage in the discipline. It sets them up for ridicule in their community.  

Dear Schalk,

You are obviously trying hard to take the perspective of others. That's a good thing. Keep going. Don't give up. Then one fine day, if it be God's will, you may actually succeed in doing so.

Bye, witz

Witz:

I offered the rules as a working model for Integral Inquiry.

I asked that the focus be on the rules or a variation on them and on the viability and usefulness of the same.

And your response?

a. is a zone #2 reference to my internal motives (you are obviously trying hard to...);

b. ofers a judgment from zone #2 (that's a good thing);

c. gives me advice on how to act within zone #1 (don't give up);

d. and then concludes, after a series of irrelevant set-up comments, with what I guess is an insincere comment (then one fine day, if it be God's will, you may actually succeed in doing so.)

This is a very succinct and classic example of the kind of irrelevance and improper comment that the rules seek to address. It could not have been more classic!

The focus of my issue came from zone #4 (3rd person look at a collective meaning event) and then from zone #8 (3rd person look at a collective exterior system). And I specifically requested that the inquiry be focused on the perspectives I identified.

So the rule would ask you to respect that framework and work to further it.

Your proper choice was to either offer relevant comments on the proposed rules or the viability of something similar.

Instead you chose to hijack or sabotage the perspective and undercut the point of reference.

I cannot tell you that you cannot do this. But I can point out to you that this is what you have done and what I see happening over and over due to a lack of discipline.

And then? I can now take your new zone #2 issue and do what Arthur previously did which is to suggest that from zone #6 you need to read Mr. Brin on physical addictions yadda yadda.

See what I mean? I have turned your issue and referencing perspective from an interior one into an exterior one.

And I am sure you can come back with an interior response ... or ... turn the issue around and talk about my addictions (which is properly within the UR perspective now, but has taken a step back and included reference to the speaker)... yadda yadda yadda... and we are all missing a chance to be helpful and useful and gain something important through disciplined inquiry. 

Hi, Shalk - my intention in this post is to connect with you in a potentially more feel-good way. Of course I also want to speak from my integrity to the extent that I am able and willing. My post will be brief and I hope it doesn't feel too off-topic or off-rule. I put this here on this thread because here is one of the places that you intensely present your recurrent thesis.

Part of my feel-good strategy of the moment is too appreciate, truly and sincerely, some things - I am hoping you don't dismiss my imperfect attempt too readily, though that's not within my power to ensure, and I hope that you can feel some value in my post - and I hope that there is significant value in this post.

I do feel appreciation for the 'skillful means' of this fine legal/ethical-like rendering of rule and principles. I also want to acknowledge its merit, despite the fact that I feel/think that the appropriate applicability of this and some other of your injunctions is more limited, maybe somewhat proportional to the partiality that I feel these ideas speak to and from as human communication tools. But, in my attempt for a feel-good connection, I want to emphacize again my appreciation for the power, esthetics, and value of your presentation.

I feel that I have somewhat un-formed yet quite latent in me, some fairly extensive contextualizations and criticisms of the full applicability of your desired streamlining and potentiating methods and desires (if that is a close enough quick characterization). As a fast and unexplained example, I don't agree that the forum should adopt a policy that requires a person to speak from only within and only relevant to the single zone that has been presented at a given moment. To me this is a big story with lots of points to be made, and please excuse my limitation of responsive energy, in that I don't want to pull that all together and explain or justify myself, at least at this time. I'm not in a good spot for it.

I do, with almost no hesitation, think/feel that your demanding and your trying to enjoin people with this format in a thread that you are hosting is totally cool, OK, valid, sweet, powerful. I also think that in the "seventh circle" it's pretty much given that anything goes. Therein, insist, demand, cajole, inspire, curse all else but. The rest we are feeling/thinking around and through.

Getting back, redundantly perhaps, I want to appreciate so much about your presentation here on this thread and elsewhere, your 'energy', and as with many of us, ongoing developing integrity, and your shining throbbing intelligence along lines aplenty. And so on. I wanted to reconnect and feel good. I value that. And I've taken a step towards that. It's my clear intention to expect nothing of this ilk from you in return, brother. Thanks for stimulating many growthful things in me and in we. I'm in over my head, her, now, and usually, and this is my less than perfect and complete reset button. Bonne chance. ambo

---

Ambo Suno

Dear S.   I will have to belong to the grunge group in this plan.   I want to have the discipline you speak of and I recognize the result of such discipline.  However, there are so many areas that I would like to excell in that take disclipline and I have to pick and choose.   So as I am where I am for the moment and if anyone is interested they can always ask me to try and say something a different way (as you have suggested and I think you have done in responding to my Posts.)   And sometimes I feel challenged to think deeper and try to write more clearly.   There are areas in my life that are disciplined.   However since what we are doing here is trying to communicate and the Road Rules have been set up as guidelines.  I do not want to call my group the Grunge group.   That will take some thought.   That is insidious as a a Name. LOL  So it seems to me, as has been suggested, is that Naming different threads accd. to needs was a real great idea and suits different interests.   A Debate Thread could be Named or whatever.  Arthur spent many hours with what he felt would work to  help iron out other ideas that had much merit for some.  Sort of the same idea as a newspaper having an Editorial Page with ideas and big words (sometimes) and News Pages that are written for a seventh grade level so that majority of population can understand.   I learned that in journal ism in college.  And magazines have sections and books have chapters etc. Many have not responded to the pictures thread or the poetry thread etc.  And as I told you before , it would take a lot of time that I do not have and have not had because of some of my other disciplines that come from beliefs, values and how to live the best I can with the potential I have and as MySelf.   I cannot play an instrument or sing a song unless I stand real close to someone else.  And I could not live without my CDs'  I could but you get the picture.   What you are proposing come very close to music, maybe as close depending on the speaker/writer.  I love what you like,  and I really really really want to communicate as clearly  as I can.  For my family, as a legacy. And with others for "We" space.

One grandson woke up from a dead sleep once   and ask, "Mom does GrandPattye really have her clients get down on all fours and howl like a wolf.?'  The answer is NO.   I said that perhaps it would be a good thing if we could be like wolves and get down on all fours and howl at the moon .  Actually I have been in a workshop where we were ask to set up a space under the Big Tent  and we were assigned our roles.

I was on a trapeze with two others and so we jumped off of chairs and ran across the room as if we were walking a rope to jump up on another chair.  Their were caged lions and dancing girls  and the whole thing.  It became pretty hysterical, funny, stress reducing bonding and more.   STill,  I wanted Daniel to have the straight story about the wolves and what I said so that other things I said might be something they needed someday after I am gone.  My own father left a treasure trove of pointing out instructions.   So why not have two more threads  about your favorite Issues,and then go after it with hearts content.   I am sure that I add insidious comments just to try to get on a subject that I might have a chance with (even tho my motives are not always the same and I mean well.  And anyone can respond to that and I do not take it personally since there is not time for that anymore.  And I know someone else may get the connection or see something they might want.  I don't know it but I cannot waste time knowing I did not say things as well as I wanted to.  

I have something that Kerry wrote that I put in my journal.  He can become very poetic when it strikes him and he did that once and said in poetry what I was thinking about saying another way.  Synchronicity.  I do agree with much of what you write- and know what I do that you feel is not necessary.   I just have to learn to break bad habits and I also have to own what I intuit and decide what to do with all that.  And try to learn more.     I was impressed with your statement about  new zone #2 issue that arthur  did and reference a perspective from an interior one into an exterior one.

I am not sure that I can ever do that on paper or even voice that.   But the big picture is clear for me without knowing all the details.  And curiosity about the details makes me want to save more study for a later time.   And there are plenty of people wh o are not going to even read these long pieces.   Thanks for all of your time.  Pattye

"Among the great things which are to be found among us, the Being of Nothingness is the greatest"   Leonardo Da Vinci       From  The Lilttle Zen Companion

Really enjoyed your lists of (that's a good thing).

Ambo:

I agree with you - disciplined offerings are only appropriate when participants agree upon that method.

I do want to emphasize though - just as a nuclear bomb results from fission or fusion in a very focused way and the wonders of the Internet result from what is essentially a very tight harnessing of the powers of two single "numbers" (i.e. 1 and 0) and making electrons dance in sequence instead of carving the 1 and 0 over and over with an axe in stone, Integral inquiry can benefit enormously from focused and discplined harnessing of ideas.

The key is agreement and not forcing anyone to do anything. But just as there is a moral right to ask someone to be quiet when a group is praying, so to there is a moral right to ask someone to not violate the "rules" when entering an inquiry where those are in operation.

The problem I have seen over and over about "zone" substitutions is this - the initial zone is framed by someone who organically finds value in that frame. When the frame is switched or the level is raised 2 or more steps removed, it essentially does violence to the "garden" or "frame" that was originally presented. And as I have mentioned, zone substitutions, and level shifting, often leads to a type of musicial chairs where nothing of value results.

Charles has suggested that transrational benefits are gained from open ended inquiry. I have found this to be true, very rarely, but sometimes, in face to face communication on an issue. But on line, I almost never find it happening. I can recognized love and tenderness and creativity and inspired flights of flourishing aesthetics, and I don't see them adding anywhere near the value that focus and adherence to basic rules add. What I do find over and over is the dialogical equivalent of stepping on the heel of someone else's shoe as they are walking. It can be funny or clever, but we still have to put our shoe back on and resume the journey down the trail.

 

Shalk -

"Integral inquiry can benefit enormously from focused and discplined harnessing of ideas."

I concur.

"But just as there is a moral right to ask someone to be quiet when a group is praying, so to there is a moral right to ask someone to not violate the "rules" when entering an inquiry where those are in operation."

At a glance, this seems 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' to me

"The problem I have seen over and over about "zone" substitutions is this - the initial zone is framed by someone who organically finds value in that frame. When the frame is switched or the level is raised 2 or more steps removed, it essentially does violence [italics ambo's] to the "garden" or "frame" that was originally presented."

Yes, and "violence" could be too strong and presumptive a statement for me.

"And as I have mentioned, zone substitutions, and level shifting, often leads to a type of musicial chairs where nothing of value results."

Agreed.

"I can recognized love and tenderness and creativity and inspired flights of flourishing aesthetics, and I don't see them adding anywhere near the value that focus and adherence to basic rules add."

I follow and can nod to your values here - personally, I feel/think a bit more, 'yes', 'no', 'maybe', depends.

"What I do find over and over is the dialogical equivalent of stepping on the heel of someone else's shoe as they are walking. It can be funny or clever, but we still have to put our shoe back on and resume the journey down the trail."

Fun and visualizable example - I have felt my tennie being snapped off my heal for who knows really what reasons or motives - various probably.

I want to acknowledge more your big understanding of this stuff and of how many good, concise descriptions you have made of these potentially distracting and derailing, as you have put it, dynamics. I have appreciated and often agreed with your characterizations of using personal perceptions/interpretations of another's interior instead of sticking with the logic of the topic and the challenge, and it's effects and abusive feel. It is often used as an attack on credibility and other besmerchings. I have done this in defensive/aggressive ways. I actually have marveled a bit at your grasp and articulation of these dynamics through your direct descriptions and multiple analogies; imo, you have really laid it out well.

---

Ambo Suno

Ambo:

(my responses are red)

"But just as there is a moral right to ask someone to be quiet when a group is praying, so to there is a moral right to ask someone to not violate the "rules" when entering an inquiry where those are in operation."

At a glance, this seems 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' to me

Why do you hesitate to allow someone to ask someone to abide by certain principles that are designed to promote inquiry? Not demand or force, but ask.

And remember, the rules are not applied to every discussion. Only those where there has been agreement.

"The problem I have seen over and over about "zone" substitutions is this - the initial zone is framed by someone who organically finds value in that frame. When the frame is switched or the level is raised 2 or more steps removed, it essentially does violence [italics ambo's] to the "garden" or "frame" that was originally presented."

Yes, and "violence" could be too strong and presumptive a statement for me.

OK, if I respond to this by saying "your medications seem to be acting up again" for example, haven't I essentially done violence to the frame of the inquiry by now hijacking it and turning it onto you? Violence involves improperly intruding on a boundary. The boundary in this case is the set of principles that are designed to ensure that comments are respectful, relevant, focused, helpful, don't waste time, don't confuse the issues, etc.


"I can recognized love and tenderness and creativity and inspired flights of flourishing aesthetics, and I don't see them adding anywhere near the value that focus and adherence to basic rules add."

I follow and can nod to your values here - personally, I feel/think a bit more, 'yes', 'no', 'maybe', depends.

The rules are not asking you to not feel/think. They are asking you to ultimately make your statements relevant and useful to the topic of inquiry. I3 does not say you cannot feel, or hope, or type while dancing, or make love while typing, or find your answers in non-dual states, etc. It simply asks that the offerings "on their face" be relevant and useful to others and remain within the scope of what is being discussed.

I want to acknowledge more your big understanding of this stuff and of how many good, concise descriptions you have made of these potentially distracting and derailing, as you have put it, dynamics. I have appreciated and often agreed with your characterizations of using personal perceptions/interpretations of another's interior instead of sticking with the logic of the topic and the challenge, and it's effects and abusive feel. It is often used as an attack on credibility and other besmerchings. I have done this in defensive/aggressive ways. I actually have marveled a bit at your grasp and articulation of these dynamics through your direct descriptions and multiple analogies; imo, you have really laid it out well.

I appreciate your kind words. And the fact that you can acknowledge acknowledgement of the point is very helpful. By the way, as I mentioned to Charles, we are largely demonstrating through our very dialogue here adherence to the very I3 rules that are proposed.

As for my understanding and grasp, etc. please remember that this is the kind of "turn of the frame" that the rules discourage. Here I know you are making a compliment and I will take it that way. But I also want to point out that when we start to apply the I3 rules, we will almost instinctively refrain from commenting on the commentator.

The reason this is so important is that we all have an enormous interest in protecting our "name" and "image." If you say 10 relevant things about topic A and then end by saying "oh, and by the way, how did you become such a brilliant guy?" the response invariably will be a discussion of how I became such a brilliant guy.

Remember the phrase given by Tom Wolfe, the author, to the 70s? He called them the "Me Decade." Every event ultimately was framed to "talk about me." This tendency seeps into our discourse very quietly but powerfully.

By the way, "rules" can be an off-putting terms. It suggests we are bound. But let's remember we are talking about aspirational rules. Our tacit agreement to be sincere with each other is the only judge in most cases.