RE: [kenwilber-275] What are young adults thinking about money and value?

From: Doug
Sent on: Sunday, October 31, 2010 11:44 AM

I didn���t see the main issue as the relative merits of judgment vs. non-judgment. As Beate points out, we make thousands of these each day. The question is what sorts of judgments promote growth, wholeness, and are just more damn effective. That���s the Prime Directive.

 

To solve the problems all of us face today requires making more judgments with more nuance. As Margo points out Spirit is higher ��� and higher Spirit makes more and more discernments possible and brings more and more into consciousness. ����To bring more in and exclude less it gets more ���complex���, has to add on some rooms.

 

If integral = ��increasing (inner and outer) growth + wholeness + effectiveness, then simple ad hoc judgments of worldviews and development just don���t get the job done. Will they be made? Sure. Are they useful, not often. Perhaps as a shorthand as Harley points out. As a way to dismiss others way of being ��� never.

 

Integral community

-          Make all the judgments you want. Share how you came to your judgment. Wilber says the Constitution is Teal, Beck says Orange. Please offer some explanation.

-          Explain why views such as those represented in video or limiting or problematic. Offer a better alternative. Explain slowly, use small words.

-          Get clear about your Function, Purpose, and Context. Form will then follow.

 

Doug

 

P.S. And let���s keep hoping Troy and Beate keep stirring the pot.

 

 

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Beate
Sent: Saturday, October 30,[masked]:35 PM
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [kenwilber-275] What are young adults thinking about money and value?

 

Harley,

 

I do think it is important to make distinctions. 

And while I agree with the basic idea of "not judging", and you have elaborated on this earlier very beautifully, I also thing that quite often judging is exactly what is called for.

 

And I want to use the actual word "judging", and not something like "discerning", or "making a distinction", as I had wanted to do originally. Because "judging" does not have this harsh or negative connotation to me, even though it could, and that is what I am trying to point to. "Judging" as a word is neutral, like money. What it is depends on the person using it, and also the person receiving it, or someone observing.  Judging can be completely non-punitive. Non-judgmental, so to speak.

 

I "judge" every morning what kind of weather we have, to determine whether I need a coat or jacket, sandals or shoes. I "judge"whether I'm hungry enough to eat, or whether I have enough money to buy something. I "judge" whether or not a stranger appears trustworthy, and whether situations are safe. 

 

We also all seem to exercising judgement  whether to place a particular content here on this list or not. We might be in disagreement with each other on this at times, but this "judgement" is something that we actually seem to be all engaging  in, as we should.

 

Life is complex, and opposites can both be true. "Not judging" is perfect and necessary, and so is "judging". It all depends on the situation, the person doing it, the person or situation being judged, the timing, previous history, the intent, and probably many more factors. 

 

Non-judgmentally,

 

Beate

 

 


From: Harley <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Fri, October 29,[masked]:13:15 AM
Subject: Re: [kenwilber-275] What are young adults thinking about money and value?

Ding! Ding! Ding!    And in this corner, weighing in at five-thousand pounds, Doug the Man Manley!

Laughing out loud... Thanks, Doug!

What I hear you saying is, STOP labeling! For one, few are skilled at it and two, there's not much use for it!

Right on... from what I have seen, the main value of labeling is for healing, either self or supporting others. And many times the labeling is not conscious. The other day I was studying up again on the spiral dynamics colors, and I learned a lot. The gist is that it looks to me like one is at whatever stage (color) where the shadow side of that stage creates the ceiling of awareness in that person. Doing my work of experiencing God from the 2nd person is [in-part] the light side of blue, for example. But, I'm not at that stage because the shadow sides of it aren't very present. Only by compassion for self and education and experience did I shed light on the my shadow side of blue, and why I feel compassion for those hovering in blue-shadow. Why compassion? Because, generally, I feel more of the sadness within their being for the beauty and life they do not feel and see within themselves, s(S)elf-denial, the defense/pain/trauma reasons they built the filters, etc. than I do anger for why they don't feel it, i.e. angry that they're "blue". Also, I know the real-life disturbances growth entails - yeah, I'm going to slam your head against the wall, and I get that you may get a concussion, internal bleeding, your relationships change, you feel lost and hopeless, may lose your job, etc. but AFTER all this you'll be more integral. If one lacks compassion for others in growth/development then one only lives in illusion of self growth. Development is eternally painful, and when you have it you're less primed to push others off the cliff. I digress...

Back to levels: it is important to note that the more enlightened one gets the more one will see the blue in a turquoise person, just because one sees orange in someone doesn't mean they are orange. Again, Doug's point is to just stop labeling so much. Yes. My point is that we naturally label, and using the I-see-blue-in-turquoise is a quick mental tool to stop labeling and listen. It may not be a turquoise person, but that's not the point. The point is to remind oneself of the lack of skill in labeling and unless you're in a place of healing or supporting or self-care [get out of a bad situation for example], etc. then just stop. =) Another tool is to see the part within you that you don't like in whatever you're judging; this is almost without exception what is REALLY going on, even if you're "right" about what you are judging outside yourself.  ALL THIS IS HARD!! I am working with this a hundred times a day. Seriously. =)

I agree with Doug about how big this shows up in integral. I personally see labeling [from Integral community] as a parabolic curve. It's useful at first [awareness of what is, framework, architecture, where we're all at], hits a peak, and then descends downward fast while slinging over-simplistic models for change at the macro world. [judgment here?   Smiling.    In part yes. In part, still working on this in me. Mostly, healthy critique for support, growth, and healing.]

I don't think the video is integral or not integral. I don't feel thinking of it as one or the other is a healthy approach. Watching it I felt both inspiration and was a little embarrassed at points for it's idealistic and oversimplified nature, like a was listening to a school boy talking about the bright future. It's cute and inspiring, but not very practical for anything beyond inspiration. If it was meant to be inspiring or support-group-love in nature, then I'm a big fan. If it was meant as a rough draft template of creating integral systems, then I have many critiques and find it more dangerous than productive. My sense is it was to inspire hope and excitement that people are ready for new ways of living, thinking, feeling. And thank you Troy for being that guy who offers the vision of hope.

Thank you again, Doug for the main points: Ease up on the labeling; there isn't much use for most people most of the time; question "why" we label, what we get out of it, what we secretly want from it.  Generally, I think a major reason is resistance to accepting, loving, sensing, and being compassionate of oneself; a sentence summarizing a dissertation. Think about it.

And thank you Doug for mediating a difficult topic. We all have a lot great things to offer and we all unconsciously offer our "issues" too. I love that the group celebrates what each other offers while holding ourselves and each other accountable within the hands of compassion. Thank you Beate for always plugging this reminder into the group!

Much love,
Harley

 


 

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Doug <[address removed]> wrote:

A few comments come to mind. First, some thinkers like Fuhs and Stein have made the point that development cannot be determined by the content of what someone says but only by the sophistication of how it is said. And this can only be reliably determined by sophisticated testing procedures. Conclusion: you and I aren���t up to the task. See ���Think You Understand Development��� at Integral Life for details. Even more to the point, there���s almost no practical reason to make such a judgment.

 

Or as Fuhs put it: ���It is neither skillful nor compassionate to make simple, ad hoc assessments of development.��� We���ve all done it.

 

Memes or developmental levels are not determined by the content of what we say or write. As Beck says ���It���s not what we think ; it���s how we think.���

 

In my experience, things and people in particular are so richly textured, complex and ultimately beautiful that reducing anything to a developmental level or center of gravity is a farce.. Fuhs and Stein put it this way: ���Why are we making this judgment and for what purpose?��� In a truly evolutionary perspective, form follows function.

 

Rarely is a center of gravity judgment practically useful. And to make one, one must make many other judgments to accurately  determine the average.

 

Yes, such can probably be calculated but the averaging process results in loss of understanding, not increased understanding..  Averaging the price of all the items in a store doesn���t help me decide whether I want to shop there. And it tells me almost nothing about the store. I would learn a lot more by looking inside for five minutes.

 

It���s necessary to use tools like Spiral Dynamics to understand people and things. That requires us to carefully observe. Don Beck is fond of saying it���s not the color of the meme, it���s the dynamics between them. He emphasizes looking at the whole rainbow of an individual, not the center of gravity. And even that analysis tells us nothing about an individual���s skills.

 

If you like analogies between consciousness and physical world, most fields of science use something called a Spectrum Analyzer to understand energy. When they really want to understand something, they look at it across the energy spectrum.

 

It���s good that Beate and Troy have put this issue on the table even though it���s painful.. It���s almost always in the air and is a very practical problem. How is it possible to use tools like Spiral Dynamics without demeaning others? How can there be clear value judgments without loss of compassion? What���s the balance between associating with like minded people vs. the diversity of conflicting perspectives? Form follows function.

 

Doug

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Beate
Sent: Wednesday, October 27,[masked]:45 PM


To: [address removed]

Subject: Re: [kenwilber-275] What are young adults thinking about money and value?

 

Troy and Mark,

 

I'm not trying to "reject" Green. The integral community in the past often  h a s  rejected green, and so it is very understandable that people would interpret me in this way. That's an unfortunate legacy that we have to deal with.

 

But this is what I think:

The "best" value meme is the one that is most appropriate for a given situation, or for specific "Life Conditions". I tend to think that Green very often  i s  the most appropriate response to the life conditions that we are facing these days. The current life conditions - the disasters created by Orange - are calling for a Green response. There is a lot of work to do, and Green thinkers would be the natural agents for this. 

 

Large numbers of  Green thinkers have been around for only three for four decades. That is not a very long time, and I wouldn't be surprised if  Green is only now getting ready to do its work. Green is  v e r y  needed, and there is much work that needs to be done.

 

I believe that the integral movement made a big mistake when it turned the term "Green" into an insult. However, I can also see a reason for why they did it: 

Integral is also very needed today, called forth by different aspects of the life conditions. 

But, compared to Green, Integral is at a significant disadvantage: Very small numbers of people are ready to move into Integral thinking. 

 

As a movement, it is basically premature, in my own opinion, because Green would have to grow to still larger numbers, before a large enough portion of them would be "done" with Green and be able to move to Integral  c o l l e c t i v e l y.  Unless one is able to pull together whole groups of integral people, one cannot have integral culture, or  a collective container which would be able to support individuals in being integral, and thereby to facilitate further integral development of the individual members of the collective.

 

So I don't mean to "reject" Green, but I  d o  mean to protect Integral occasionally. Without this protection, I'm afraid, it will simply be absorbed and assimilated by its environment, by whatever value thinking makes up the environment at any given point in time. Quite often that environment would be Green. Which might be a natural course of events at this point in history. But if one believes those who say that we really do  n e e d  Integral, then one needs to look at how one can help this little premature baby to survive and grow.

 

The integral movement in the past has tried to do this by shaming Green and by not allowing open discussions. I have felt for quite some time that this has been a problematic course of action. 

But I also can really see why they did this. Because the dilemma remains: There are not enough people who are truly integral in their thinking, and it is very hard to form groups with a majority of integral thinkers. And the  value meme thinking of the majority determines the value meme thinking of the discussion. If one then completely opens the discussions, the discussions will end up being Green, more often than not, even though people might  t h i n k  the discussions are being integral. 

 

Now, these could be very good discussions, discussions worth having, discussions that enrich everyone who participates. 

But, integral? Very often not. 

If the integral emergence would be natural, and not premature, this would not be a problem. Groups with integral majorities would form easily, and the discussions would be integral in a natural way.

 

Then, what can be done? - The only answer  I have been able to see so far is to sometimes just label something as Green, or as Integral. Off course, as long as people hear that as "bad"(Green) versus "good"(Integral), I'm not accomplishing what I am trying to accomplish.

 

Maybe, as time goes on, I will learn to be more skilled at doing this, so people don't hear what they currently hear when I say that. 

Maybe also, what is needed is some kind of "rehabilitation" of Green. So that we will all be proud to be Green, and proud of our Green thoughts and ideas. 

But then it would also be  necessary to really learn to distinguish between Green and Integral, because they are both specific answers and responses to specific life conditions. 

 

 

Beate

 

 


From: Troy Wiley <[address removed]>


To: [address removed]

Sent: Wed, October 27,[masked]:53:54 PM
Subject: Re: [kenwilber-275] What are young adults thinking about money and value?

 

Actually I think I see all the quadrants being addressed in the take-away points and the film. Aren't concepts like "the commons", transparency, integrity, symbiotic relationships all embraced by the integral community? And haven't we discussed previously that there are a significant number of people whom seem to embody yellow systemic thinking/being while not necessarily being aware of integral philosophy or spiral dynamics? 

 

I think it's quite refreshing that a bunch of young hipsters have the audacity to think they can change our economic systems, instead of a bunch of stuffy, bow-tie wearing, Keynesian economic professors (no offense if you are one) stuck in the paradigm of "business as usual". Do I even need to cite Einstein's famous quote about solving problems from the same level of consciousness that created them?

 

Do we really want to transcend and "reject" green? That doesn't sound very integral.

 

 

 

 

On Oct 27, 2010, at 8:52 AM, MS wrote:

 


I haven't had the time to watch the video yet, so forgive me if I assume more about it than is accurate.

But I believe that that the key point of this message has to do with what "young people" are thinking about money and economics.

The perspective that an old-timer like myself has about the culture and the economy is formed by my views of the often conflicting values of blue, orange, and green, simultaneously promoting different agendas within this mixed Western society. Meanwhile, regardless of any of the mythic or pluralistic ideas that are discussed or even tested, the heavyweight majority orange economic-political machinery continues with 'business as usual', primarily in strategic manners where the division between the "haves" and the "have nots" continues to grow each day.

But my unscientific assessment of the current young-adult generation is that they're a lot less naive and altruistic, so sometimes overly cynical as well. I don't quite know where to classify that generation on the spiral, though I don't detect that a large portion subscribes to Wilber's Integral worldview. Sometimes, I believe that the battles of the blue and orange, not to mention the parts of green that seem disconnected from reality, will just need to eventually die off so that the young generation can arrange their inherited world in a new way.

What that will look like, I'm not quite sure. Will it be a fresh, more reality-based green that society can embrace and make true? Will they naturally advance to Tier II and repaint the world with Integral brush strokes? Or will severe climate changes and/or economic failures result in a beige survivalist mode of living? Who knows?

But for the present time, I sense that we still have a window of opportunity to actualize an Integral approach that doesn't get caught on advocating any particular development stage over another, but rather works with all existing stages to support the positive elements of each, and that even includes green.

It's certainly a challenging time.

Mark



Beate wrote:

Troy,

 

I think if anything could be made to work without money, on a fairly large scale, for an extended period of time, with nobody taking advantage of anybody else, one would, at the very least, need a group of highly developed individuals to pull it off.

They would have to be at least at the green level of development.

 

So what would one do with all the other people who are at lower levels of development?

Integral thinking is aware of the layering of developmental levels, and of how different things are possible at different levels of development. But I have to say that even at green, I very much doubt that the level of altruism would be high enough. 

 

Green has very wonderful motivations, and  might still come up with some great ideas. And who knows what good comes out of anything?

 

But since we are calling ourselves Denver Integral, to avoid confusion about who and what we are, I feel it is necessary to point out when something is not exactly integral.

 

Beate

 

 


From: Troy Wiley <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Tue, October 26,[masked]:19:31 PM
Subject: [kenwilber-275] What are young adults thinking about money and value?

An inspiring new video project just came out which shows that many people all over the world are having discussions about new meanings of wealth and abundance.

 

The Future of Money - http://vimeo.com/16025167

 

Here's some take-away points from the video that are so refreshing in today's world of money and economics:

 

  • Trust 
  • Shared values
  • Integrity
  • Local Currency
  • Transparency
  • What could replace money
  • Discussing crazy ideas without being fired
  • Different currency models should be free to compete against each other to serve different purposes
  • Gift exchange and the commons
  • Symbiotic relationships
  • Currency innovation 
  • New operating systems

 

This is emergence.

 

Troy





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Troy Wiley ([address removed]) from Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group.
To learn more about Troy Wiley, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Beate ([address removed]) from Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group.
To learn more about Beate, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]







--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])

This message was sent by MS ([address removed]) from Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group.
To learn more about MS, visit his/her member profile


To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Troy Wiley ([address removed]) from Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group.
To learn more about Troy Wiley, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Beate ([address removed]) from Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group.
To learn more about Beate, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])

This message was sent by Doug ([address removed]) from Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group.
To learn more about Doug, visit his/her member profile


To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Harley ([address removed]) from Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group.
To learn more about Harley, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Beate ([address removed]) from Denver Integral and Ken Wilber Meetup Group.
To learn more about Beate, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy