Categories
2016 April

The World Is Still Becoming One

“I just received the following note from one of our Inner Circle members.  Below the note is my response.”


The biggest political challenge of the 21st century will not be terrorism. It will be borders.

 

http://www.theglobalist.com/world-borders-terrorism-global-politics/

 

Interesting piece. It may not become an „integral“ world in the wilberian sense, but it definitely is becoming one. Walking through the old touristy part of my town, I watch the many Chinese, Indian, Arab tourists who stroll through the sites holding their smartphones in front of them, dressed fashionably – obviously better off people from elsewhere. I chat with young refugee girls from Eritrea that are housed in our municipality. They know how to look flashy in a western sense and they know how to handle a smart phone. An African friend of mine from Togo lives in Lomé and works there as the Representative of the Swiss Red Cross. He was over here for consultations. His wife is a trader and wanted him to go and see third hand cars that can be exported to Togo. I accompanied him to parts of my city, I have never been where Arabs deal with old cars not suitable for our roads. My friend noted on the growing numbers of Africans (often with white girl friends) around these places looking for deals. Neighbours of mine let out their flat to a Malaysian family for year of which the mother got a grant at the university hospital. They themselves are semi-retired and working in Timor on some project. etc., etc. You can all add on your own stories from your part of the planet.

 

Mark


Mike’s response:

I’ve been giving a lot of thought to integral lately and I plan to update you soon on my thoughts.

mike

 

9 replies on “The World Is Still Becoming One”

I look forward to that Mike, and in the meantime this reminds me of Kegan’s book from 1994, In Over Our Heads, which talked about the problems of business, governments and the planet, which were becoming more complex and integrated, in a world of mostly other-directed and a few self-authored adults. Not sufficient self-authored and self-transformed to manage this complexity. Mark’s article he shared seemed to be implying something similar. Our inside no longer reflects outside. Will this integrated world pull us into more integrated perspectives in order to dance with it, or will we continue to try and dumb it down, so we can continue to dance the two-step?

Maybe a teaser before the main course?

Look folks…

INTEGRAL IS AN ILLUSION!

Graves said SGD is an OPEN system, so at each level of solution, it forms new–more complex–problems.

There is an idea in integral:

That you can reach the boundaries of the whole by applying integral theory.

It even uses terms like “comprehensive.”

There is NO COMPREHENSIVE in infinite, there is only NEXT.

So if you want a name for it to use, call it NEXT THEORY, to keep from falling into these “integral” traps.

Using Wilber’s theory can be helpful, and not forgetting all the theories that constitute it is also helpful, but impractical for most.

I’ve included in my notes before a graphic of the curves of the e5:

image1.PNG

Please note that it’s a graph to simulate the slope of the change in each e5 component.

Also note the widening gaps between core (our epigenetic core) which is changing “geologically” and content and context which have now gone “non-linear.”

CONDITIONS will reach non-linear at the point of “singularity” where change no longer is a variable but a constant!

This singularity is coming faster than we are!

ANYONE who pretends to be able to manage in this space is delusional, so playing the ladder game for the largest part of society is ludicrous and will yield more negative than positive results.

This SAME metamistake largely at FS-GREEN that we can give x, y or z and people can be where we are is an illusion!

AND THIS ENTIRE NATION-BUILDING apparatus is flawed.

Here’s why:

People outside of the 1-5% MUST assimilate culture over “generation” because of the mechanics required in crystallizing capability or intelligence if you like.

FLUID INTELLIGENCE is not enough for the 95% to navigate shifting cultural norms in a non-linear fashion.

Therefore ANY ATTEMPT (SGD gets this one best of all, and has support from any STAGE THEORY POSTULATE, you do not skip levels!) to move a person or culture non-linearly without (caveat) 100% structure (loss of freedoms, e.g. prisons) will result in developmental chaos of varying forms, NOT ALL BAD.

The inherent notion in integral theory from Wilber which is largely lost on those that use it, is that all problem space is “bounded” and then the theory is applied because there are no unbounded brains.

THERE IS ALWAYS A BOUNDARY CREATED BY OUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND.

All problem space is unbounded, solve one, get two more. It is the illusion that you can bound problems that even has us thinking about being able to solve in a comprehensive (ludicrous!) way.

Ok, so what to do?

Question:

“Will this integrated world pull us into more integrated perspectives in order to dance with it, or will we continue to try and dumb it down, so we can continue to dance the two-step?” – Brian

Answer:

Yes

It depends.

As I have taught coaches for almost 3 decades, it depends.

Depends on what?

DYNAMICS: BRLSCVS

BIAS
ROLE
LEVEL
STYLE
CAPABILITY
VALUES
SYSTEM

There is no single path, even the universe itself which is attempting to model the reality of infinity has most likely “multiple occurring incidences” of reality, and in the quantum field, it’s not until we “observe” that we create probabilities.

Our old paradigm of “MASTERING CHANGE” is frankly? BULLSHIT or BS.

It was and is based on the arrogance of an ego-centric form of human life which is designed for survival of desire.

Absent desire?

Non-duality, but none of us are going to live there, and there is no daily bread there in which to live, so let’s honor the field, but not go there!

There is a field and someday we will all go there…but not yet.

Those conclude my comments on non-duality.

I am reminded of my visits to Istanbul and the whirling dervishes….

While I can’t process to be original @F-L-O-W, the answers to how we transition out of BS are enumerated in the book and theory.

If you ask me the fastest way with the least amount of negative impact, it’s to immediately forget integral because it’s good brings with it the illusion of good which is far more dangerous–at this point–than forgetting it.

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE PEOPLE and let them change on their own, their is plenty of change going on, we don’t need to do more.

If you’re going to insist on change then use BRLSCVS. Design change according to their needs, NOT YOURS, NOT BS, and certainly not a composite model where no exemplars exist such as in the beauty of BLANK SLATE!

“People have a right to be who they are.” And “people can’t be until they are.” – Dr. Clare W. Graves

Most of us are looking for what we need to do to change the world!

Yet, the world is you.

Change you first.

If we did that, the world would change.

I want to do another installment to get you from here to there, but I need to leave myself a segue.

In order to live together, we need rules of engagement, because we can’t all live in isolated enclaves although that remains a probability.

These rules of engagement are tricky because they are largely the result of might…in all forms.

If you look at what GRAVES intended at A’N’ — his notation for SGD – GT – Yellow, it was a mirror of man’s individual goal of survival at AN – SGD – AN – Beige, which means to me, a transcendent form of societal survival.

This is now the question and I believe this was misnamed in the process of translation and should not be referred to as integral (FS-GREEN) because based on my diatribe above, INTEGRAL is not the best way to survive as a society, it is to DISINTEGRATE what FS-GREEN has tried to see together with BS in the lead.

DISINTEGRATION is a natural process, recognizing the limitations of innateness.

Values of integration will always be preferred by some but they are not “right action” for anyone other than FS-GREEN Aspirants.

Anymore than materialism, bureaucracy, emperialism, tribalism, or survivalism are “right action” for all.

It’s not WRONG, as FS-GREEN would make it so in PC, for me not to like, want to live with, or work with someone “different” than me. If it is, then my freedom of choice–guaranteed by that same FS-GREEN stipulation is not RIGHT!

I want to leave a hanging chad here…

mike

Thank you, Mike, for this teaser! It’ a good summary of what you have been saying for a while. I look forward to the main course.

Our old paradigm of “MASTERING CHANGE” is frankly? BULLSHIT or BS.

I found the article interesting because it’s an observation of the disintegration of some of our social reference points that we take for granted: Nation, borders, jurisdiction, control, standards. Changes are affecting our daily lives. We haven’t the understanding to make sense of it and restore our respective orderly worlds. There is this desperate call „we must do something“, „where must we go“… „Integral“ is of no help here , I fully agree.

In order to live together, we need rules of engagement, because we can’t all live in isolated enclaves although that remains a probability.

These rules of engagement are tricky because they are largely the result of might…in all forms.

Mark

It’s my best guess and frankly it’s going to get worse…a lot worse.

Here’s quick story:

Family super poor. Boy studying criminology decides to sell drugs one time because other family members stranded in bad situation…his first time the idiot sells to undercover, goes to jail, the older sister steals money from a fiduciary account and attempts to hide it to get him out of jail before case filed and prison…now she will have to face the music….

The hienz dilemmas say the moral complexity of this family is low, currently they all support a brother in military academy….

But my point?

Complexity is part of the conditional equation of morality. People pushed hard who would never cross a line are faced with these lines on a much more regular basis, and thus “subject to increasing complexity” as part of the problem.

Anyone want to donate money to keep the MyPAL out of prison?

mike

If that’s the teaser, just imagine the main course!

I’ll go back and read this more carefully, but first a question about the graphic. Is the Y-axis “CORE TIME”? Or is it “TIME” with a flat curve called “CORE?” I’m guessing the former, since both words are in all caps and the curve labels are not. But wanted to ask anyway.

Alicia Parr

Mike calls them the 6 reciprocal C’s:

core
culture
code
condition
context
content

on the axis of complexity and time. Complexity of Content is growing exponentially, Core (genes) hardly changes. It’s one my favorites in Mike’s theory!

Mark

It’s my best guess and frankly it’s going to get worse…a lot worse.

Here’s quick story:

Family super poor. Boy studying criminology decides to sell drugs one time because other family members stranded in bad situation…his first time the idiot sells to undercover, goes to jail, the older sister steals money from a fiduciary account and attempts to hide it to get him out of jail before case filed and prison…now she will have to face the music….

The hienz dilemmas say the moral complexity of this family is low, currently they all support a brother in military academy….

But my point?

Complexity is part of the conditional equation of morality. People pushed hard who would never cross a line are faced with these lines on a much more regular basis, and thus “subject to increasing complexity” as part of the problem.

Anyone want to donate money to keep the MyPAL out of prison?

mike

ELAPSED TIME MAYBE;)

The idea is to demonstrate that as complexity increases over time, content is changing fastest, and along with that dragging context, where conditions create “code” but code and culture can’t change at the rate of content and context and they have now gone NON-Linear!

I suspect that while these are drawn symmetrically, they are in fact fits and starts and asymmetrical in nature.

But maybe you get the underlying point about dissipative systems:

Energetically open, organizationally closed…

Human can’t live in unbounded systems hence a dissipative structure because as the prior system solves problems in an infinite interaction space (think quantum field where everything is connected) partial solutions (all problems and solutions are “partial” NEVER INTEGRAL–it’s a bad name Wilber, sorry:)..creates even more complex problems!

It never ends = infinity!

THERE NEVER IS SUCH A THING AS INTEGRAL in the sense they mean it, there is no COMPREHENSIVE in infinity!

I have ALWAYS said that INTEGRAL is sophisticated blue (laterally complex) as co-opted by FS-GREEN and most FAUX-GREEN because of the immune response to orange, which is playing out largely now.

Any time you bound reality and call it comprehensive, you have a very naive view of the “world.”

And if you FAIL to grok that pursuit of ALTITUDE is chasing your tail, you can’t possibly be discussing ANYTHING REMOTELY related to 2nd Tier!

Yes there are valuable elements in the theory, but theory of everything speaks to the humor in it all;)

In order to solve the problems we have created we MUST CHANGE the fundamental assumptions UNDER WHICH they emerged!

And not worry about whether “your ladder is against the right wall” but that you are thinking a ladder is even relevant! It’s hardly the tool we need and the true irony is in the fact that we have trained all of society to fall in the ladder line because that’s what’s natural–in the perception–of the ego!

DISRUPTING this paradigm is going to come one person at a time and not done broad edict or politik.

And soon I have enough context for the real rant coming soon;)

mike

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *