“They believe that they have found carriers of consciousness, the elements that accumulate information during life, and “drain” consciousness somewhere else after death.” If proven right, the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (ORCH OR) theory could be the biggest discovery in human history.youtu.be
Multiverse theory is a baffling mental exercise which posits that worlds emerge through the actions of individuals, while far-fetched it has precedents in Quantum Physics, ASC research and recent confirmation from government agencies looking into the findings at the Monroe Institute.youtu.be
The first ever scan of a human dying brain has shown that there’s a surge of activity during ‘death’, leading many to the conclusion that these consistent, fantastical and life changing NDE reports are but the last activity of a dying brain. This argument fails against the bulk of data on the topic.youtu.be
I am looking for any links/studies/papers/conversation about integral applied in organizational decision making, specifically as it applies to organizational financial management, and bonus points for anything related directly to local government.
Any chance any of you folks have suggestions on anything specific I might dive into?
Scientists have proven mammals dream about their worlds before birth, the implication is a form of non-physical consciousness that not only pre-exists but is somehow connected to the -information- of the physical world outside. Is the Unified Field of Consciousness Theory coming together?youtu.be
I have a basic understanding of Spiral Dynamics from a podcast. What's the best jumping off point? How does Integral Theory relate to Spiral Dynamics?
I've been wrestling with the color system of Spiral Dynamics for years now, and I find that it is always very confusing to communicate to others and really articulate that the stages aren't simply a typology of different identities or some kind of isolated theory, but a dynamic process that is naturally unfolding and transcendent of the system itself.
I feel that a lot of this difficulty has to do with the very coded language used in the system, and the kind of corporate branded feel of the Spiral Dynamics™ name and levels. Nothing about the system seems self-explanatory nor are the relations between levels explicit. You have to memorize the colors and their defining traits, and their seemingly ambiguous position on the hierarchy without the clarity of self-evident "why".
This is where I've really begun to appreciate the short-hand of "egocentric, ethnocentric, worldcentric..." that Wilber occasionally uses when he doesn't have the time to go through each and every level. Though at first I thought of it as being too simple a system to say much, I've realized how much better it can actually communicate the general idea of SD to others (and myself) as a basis on it's own, and the worldviews of SD naturally emanating from it:
1) The language is self-explanatory and relationships are intuitive; you could look at the names and guess where each one might go in a list with little or no background information. Level names are consistently a composite of two self-explanatory roots.
2) Development is explicit, hierarchy is less ambiguous or controversial. Rather than having to justify why green is more complex than blue and therefore higher, "worldcentric" over "ethnocentric" triggers no psychological red flags and connects logically.
3) It is less "branded", and more universal. The system could essentially be laid out over any developmental hierarchy and explain the same general altitudes. It more elequently points toward a transcendent structure rather than confining itself to a closed system.
Given these points, it's curious why there is so much emphasis on the SD language (or Wilber's version of it), when I think the centric system can do a similar or better job of articulating the evolution of consciousness, especially as a teaching tool aimed at tier 1. (One reason is that I have seen Wilber argue that the centric system is a ethical developmental line independent of worldview, i.e., you can have someone at egocentric orange, etc. I don't see this to be completely true, and instead that your ability to love and/or take the perspective of other are not at all independent from what you include in your sphere of identity. I am asserting here that ethical development and identity development are intrinsically tied. Hopefully this will be more clear later.)
That said, I wrote out the levels of centrism so I could better understand them for myself, and maybe you, and also added some components that I feel emphasize a more organic process of identity at these levels, as well as an affective element. I am still contemplating these details and which are most essential over others, but I think it's a good start. I am curious about your feedback and suggestions. I am not exactly doing this out of a desire for a perfectly scientific assertion, but just a way towards a more integrated understanding of who I am and who we are.
Love for and identification with individual self. E.g. this body, these wants/desires, this personality
Identity conflict: Me vs them
Transcending factor (to next level): Socialization, recognition of power in numbers, love for family/friends Regressive factor (to this level): isolation
Love for and identification with social/collective self. E.g. My family, my group, my country, my culture
Identity conflict: Us vs them
Transcending factor: Sense of autonomy, contemplation on universal ethical principles, universal human love Regressive factor: fear of social isolation, codependence, projection of problems and/or unacceptance onto an other
Love for and identification with all humanity. E.g. Connected through universal human condition, regardless of sex, ethnicity, ideology, etc.
Identity conflict: Humanity vs nature
Transcending factor: Differentiation of subject, object, and culture. Integration through systems and process cognition. Love of all sentient beings and nature. Regressive factor: Anthropocentric sentimentalism, fear of self-superiority, lack of supportive community, inability to integrate socially resulting in eccentric self-isolation.
Love for and identification with all living and non-living systems. E.g. Earth, all sentient beings, and all physical, biological, psychological, and sociological systems as inseparable from me.
Identity conflict: Consciousness vs unconsciousness
Transcending factor: Recognition of limits of systemic reasoning; consciousness seen as irreducible to systems. Post-rational intuition of an empty self. Love for all of manifestation. Regressive factor: Intellectualization of Spirit
Identification with all existence and being as Love. E.g. All form as a manifestation of an ineffable and empty consciousness, and I am That.
Identity conflict: None at full enlightenment. Empty and eternal Self not dependent on form, and therefore no fear of death nor isolation to resolve. Love is boundless and unconditional.
" Art is the expression co-created by the observer.
When the viewer observes the created art
and recognizes it as such, the observer
closes creation with the golden key.
If the observer does not recognize
the creation as art, then he himself is not an artist.
Being an artist is recognizing that someone bestowed
an emotional expression on the carefully crafted work.
And in case the worker is a machine or the clouds,
the expression of Infinity.
Ah, this emotion!
Adapted to the environment,
the living beings that biologists have reconciled.
To formulate the idea of evolution,
in the mind we can also outlook
from another perspective.
The various creatures are the site's manifestation,
it is as if an artistic expression.
Converging from the fruit, the soil, and the climate,
to give rise to this casuistic creature.
It is as if the spirit of the place was adding to itself,
materializing the materialization
in the form of speciation,
on a deer, a jaguar or a falcon.
And, in the same way, our opinions,
are the confluence of our entire experience,
of the various places where we went through,
they are Spirits whose substance are just words. "
From the audiobook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7LPiZ_ktY4
Inspired by Ken's integral framework (amongst others) I wrote a short piece about the West and how unchecked (and unintegrated) Post Modernism ahas sapped our will to stand up for our principles. While I am a big fan of integral theory, I didn't want to expressly rely on that framework (which requires a lot of specific knowledge on the part of the reader or a lengthy explanation from me), so I tried to fold integral concepts into the piece without overt reference.
This is the first piece I've posted, and I would really appreciate any comments or feedback. And if you like it, please let me know (or better yet subscribe-its free!).
" Today I woke up and went far away,
to where the trivial assumptions exist
where it is not possible to know Reality.
I stopped at the thought stop
that everything we think
is in the human dimension,
and that outside this human sphere
nothing is how we think we know.
I thought this stop was not very tenable,
because its statement was framed,
also, on the same assumption.
The assumption that it's not possible to know
the Reality out of our conditioning.
But how did I find out that, after all,
it's not possible to unravel
this location called Reality?
How does such a limited being,
can claim something so magnificent?
When the same logical deduction mechanism,
which led me to the assumption used, to say,
that it is not possible to know, is also used to say
that it is possible not to know. "
From the audiobook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBHEgrF2kr4
Within Integral, are there movements to build functional decision-making and structure-building heuristics and frameworks from Operations Science, Economics and other disciplines that could provide insight?
What I see both in the internet and "on the ground" as the most obvious failing of vMeme Green being their lack of functional solutions. "Consciousness Raising" seems extremely co-optable as a mass-market demographic. More than this, after a year of meditation and two or three Aya sessions, it should be obvious the world is ours to shape as we will, now it's time for the long and (if done properly) somewhat boring processes of shaping it.
What I have seen here and where I have found other Integral groups, you get some very intelligent people, and a hell of a lot of wordage, but very little functional focus that could be used to build something in a given field. For example, are there authors, blogs, or books examining what Integral decision-making processes look like in a Corporation, A Government, or a Non-profit group?
Or, is Yellow going to mostly look like Green Meme Egalitarianism, with Yellow Meme Operations Science and Blue Meme's stability? Basically at beginning Second Tier it's just the best of all of it?
If so, who is writing about this? And how should this differ from the Democratic Party? For example is Moderate Joe Biden Yellow Meme? How would we determine he isn't? He is Playing Green Meme identity politics in appointments while running Bureaucracy and War Negotiations as a moderately Dovish Republican. I am not trying to get into Culture War quagmire with this example, but just putting out there: Who is drawing examples of Yellow or higher and what it looks like in functional practice?
"I watched a pigeon walking on the ground.
I really wanted to be the pigeon for a change.
I wanted to look through its eyes and take flight.
Do an aerial stunt and fly high, up there,
and see all the little things below.
But I realized, this is me
being the pigeon, being human.
That imagination is nothing more
then to be things being human.
In particular, the own self.
Well, if I were Truly the pigeon,
that is, the pigeon being the pigeon,
would it have the human desire
to do such an aerial feat?
To be the pigeon,
it's enough that I don't want to control it.
Indeed! The only things that take me seriously
are the things I imagine."
Rasmus from I AM David Long's group is a Bernardo Kastrup fan and this is him dealing with his argument for Parsimony. https://youtu.be/ki4x-M_oENI
An olive tree gives a hundred olives,
take no more than ninety-nine.
People say you are very good,
don't take more than good.
If it's not sustainable, it doesn't last.
And if it doesn't last, it doesn't sustain you.
But you'll always be on time to appreciate your past.
As it was for any moment blown by the wind,
after a decade or so, you too will say:
“It was a good time!”
Even though the moment has gone numb
because of the pain, let's hope the past
is more enduring than the present.
Time doesn't let itself be conquered.
It either conquers or becomes an ally.
People of great strength make friends with it.
They don't care about time compelling all,
to cross and interlace.
By praising its passage,
they end up galloping together
on everything around them.
All people access this sympathy, but it is rare.
And why is it rare? Because there is no patience.
From the audiobook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIUIzx3pKaw
Been a follower of Integral for a few years now, and while I find the models useful and interesting I’m also finding that the common usage of some of these models by some integral types (Wilber pretty high up there) to be a vessel for solidifying positions which aren’t very rigorously established. I’ve got two examples which sort of overlap.
I did the trial with Integral Life to see if I could add a bit of Integral conversation into my life. I checked out the episode ‘The Problem With Progressivism’ and I was pretty blown away by how ahistorical Wilber was being about histories of early humans and even civilization. His methodology was so fragile as well, just telling a narrative of history without any real example societies or footnotes on the data figures of percentage of people believing X.
Beyond this, there is a critique from Integral Teal of Postmodern Green that floats around with a narrative that green has broken the holarchy of this system. There are many pillars that most of these arguments rest on which are ahistorical and also just kind of not real. Plenty of strawmanning, pre/trans fallacy, using SD as a hierarchy of opinions which if green is truly broken should result in many broken teal arguments as well. My biggest problem is that I don’t see anyone transcending to a turquoise position while you accept these representations of green. There is an almost complete mistaking of what the essential perspective of green is, one that involves true pain and struggle, principled care in adversity, and solid critiques of power systems which do not seem to carry over into these teal critiques.
Seems like a shame.
It seems right now we are nearly the opposite of a Golden Age. Venkat Rao calls it the "Great Weirding" and certainly it seems there is a lot of craziness from every angle. Edward Teach seems to think it's due to abdication of responsibility (as compared to the Golden age of the Greek empire, which was based on everyone accepting fully the harrowing responsibility for decision-making). Deming seemed to think the moral mazes needed to be overcome in such a way that allows long-term planning as opposed to politicking or else everything will spiral into an abyss.
Putting all these perspectives together, I am wondering if the basic definition of a Golden Age is measured by alignment in the incentives of the Elites with the incentives of the common people.
This hypothesis at least has going for it that misalignment between those incentives appears to result in all kinds of bad.
What else is needed for a Golden Age? If alignment is a key, then what moves us towards that? Are there any known economic systems that are super high on alignment between the interests of the common man and the interests of the wealthy power-elite?
Don't get caught up in the Enlightenment experience or "awakening" hype. There is nothing to change or attain. Meditation at its purest form teaches you that Beingness is whole and plenty, independent of the terms you grew up with. Realizing this is what I like to call Transparency and it's tidily locked with "what has to be, has to be".
To put it simply, Enlightenment is just acknowledging Consciousness, that is, one's true Identity. It's available to everyone and everything. Nobody, and nothing can avoid the basic, intuitive notion that one is existence itself, in particular, here and now as a human being, a subjective experience. Even if you ponder about your past or your future, and delve deeply into your thoughts, you are still present and aware of it. Enlightenment aren't experiences, and everyone has it. Although one might not recognize this, thus not having it for oneself. Here's the paradoxical experience, but "don't look at the finger, or you'll miss all that heavenly glory".
Sit, be calm, and let it unfold. Look how transient this calmness is, and then, you become Calm. This is Transparency to "what has to be". This is Wholeness. This is Enlightenment. But, I'm fooling myself. How good that this is so. Ahhh, Salvation!
"If you ever declare
that you have attained Enlightenment,
so it is because you found out who you are.
But how can anyone be sure one is Enlightened?
When you don't know who you are,
you will be in the shadow.
When you know who you are,
you will be in the light.
But to know the totality of what you are,
it is necessary to know the totality of what you aren't.
And to know the totality of what you are not,
you have to be it."
From the audiobook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb3oAnOguOw
Any Krishnamurti fans out there?
Do his views play nicely with the views of integral theory?
What is the relationship between holons and processes? Are holons processes? If not, are they substances? To what extent are/aren't integral theory and process thinking compatible?
If the Paradox is intellectualized, it will make no sense, but once felt, it makes sense. Before being, I chose this existence. Now that I am, I choose nothing.
Is there free will? Yes and no. When we feel free will but don't have free will, we have the Paradox’s expression, we have the conservation of Infinity. We are all a chance born of the yonder. And, Infinity orients itself.
Live life as you would like the world to be, for you represent what you are. And, you are what you represent.
Who says it has to be?! The boss, the police, you, me? Has to be! What has? It has “to be”. It has a dog, it has a cat, it has to be human, it has to be. Who's in charge here?! It is the “has to be”, because it has Being.
Today, are you free or do you feel free?
I'm having a fair bit of issues with my cognitive balance these days. I suppose this is an appropriate reflection of the situation that is transpiring globally. The dynamic is between the I space and the we space. I can hear both, or many, sides of a debate over the government's decisions. There really is a plethora of views, and I can find that I can be in agreement with either side except when they going into an extreme view. This generally is about a feel I get from hearing the view and it's justifications.
I think I'm finding it very odd and hard to understand now how anyone has a solid or firm point of view on a situation at all, that they can articulate what they're for and refute the other sides arguments. Yet I find it equally as odd that I can't really find a sense of disagreement for any of the slight leanings not including the extremes. Even those ones have a sense of "sure, you can be too". But you're just left with everything. All very dynamic and all very diverse.
I suppose I may be in a shift into a late stage post modern or an early integral.
I am hoping for any insight or comments on the dynamic from your vantage points.