I see yesterday that on the KW blog, there was reposted a commentary about the war in Iraq - the piece originally dates from 2003.

I thought it would be useful - for myself at least - to critique this piece. Note - this is going to get long, as I've spent some time in the analysis below:

So here goes -

First off, it is interesting to note that the post contains two separate issues - and conflates them, to a degree - the attack on 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. The connecting tissue for this conflation is this post is ABOUT Iraq, yet posted on 9/11.

Beginning - this post starts with quoting earlier writings about 9/11, "Deconstructing the World Trade Center" - this quote is from soon after the 9/11 attacks I believe:

Here starts the simplification of the various Spiral Dynamics colors:

A: no, but just remember: if you are green, you are against the war. but if you are against the war, you are not necessarily green. there are second-tier reasons not to go to war. but there are also second-tier reasons to go to war. green doesn't have a choice--it won't go. second tier has a choice, so weigh the evidence carefully. second tier might indeed recommend war, it might not. but you can check and see if you are "merely" green by asking under what conditions you would recommend war. if you can't think of any, ahem, welcome to green. still, the issue is enormously complicated, even through integral lens, so again, weigh the evidence carefully.

the problem with this discussion at large is that it is entirely first-tier. blue says bomb the hell out of the evil ones; orange says, okay, but hurry, because it's hurting the stock market; green says, no way, let's be loving. first tier has such a hard time seeing big pictures, so it moves around within the partial value structures that define it. this is a discussion that i have stayed out of since doing WTC essay. it's just a big first-tier food fight.

Dangers of Abstraction and Generalization:

One of the major dangers in any of these type of assumptions, is of course pigeonholing various reactions to invading Iraq, as being of ONE type of person, with ONE type of value. And then using this particular generalization about that person (that person is green, that person is blue, that person is orange), to basically dismiss the judgement arrived at - when the judgement arrived at, may be on different grounds than is reflected in the pigeonholing of someone as of THIS level, or THAT level.

One example, is the conflating of the wars in Afghanistan, and the one in Iraq. Different groups thought differently, about these two wars - and did so at the time Ken was quoting those - but these are conflated in the above view.

I also don't believe that the major camps against going into Iraq actually FIT into the values schema that Spiral Dynamics lays out. Examples - the moderate and thoughtful left favored the Afghanistan conflict, while not favoring the Iraq conflict. The "liberals hawks" who favored the war in Iraq - are they blue? green? orange?
Same thing with isolationist conservatives. They HATED going into Iraq. "Freedom Agenda? What are you talking about??"

I would think that the conservative isolationists are either blue or orange, right? So the sweeping statements that orange or blue would be FOR Iraq, is simply an inaccurate statement.

Ken then switches the post to an imagining of a "2nd tier government", or World Federation.

This particular exposition is interesting, and makes some good points, if it is a bit utopian and naive.

Back to the Iraq question, comes up:

This would mean, for example, that America is allowed to despise Iraq (in the privacy of its own Left-Hand, national, cultural space). America is not, however, allowed to attack Iraq (in the Right-Hand, public, international commons).

Saying that in a World Federation, neither action would be allowed. These views are actually very similar to the views of the Liberal Hawks, who bought into the notion of (supposedly) a liberal universal set of values that NECESSARILY meant that Iraq "should" be attacked because of the unique horribleness of Saddam Hussein (on which all of us agree, I think.) The difference in the main being that without the backing of the World Federation, the U.S. would not be allowed to launch the 2nd Iraq War.

Again (and is sometimes the case with Wilber's extensive generalizations), this sweeping generalization is not accurate - and definitely not completely reality-based.

Humans Rights Watch, Amnesty, etc - these organizations DID - loudly and fiercely - protest the gassing of the Kurds when it happened. From a Ken Roth article:

There were times in the past when the killing was so intense that humanitarian intervention would have been justified—for example, during the 1988 Anfal genocide, in which the Iraqi government slaughtered some 100,000 Kurds. Indeed, Human Rights Watch, though still in its infancy and not yet working in the Middle East in 1988, did advocate a form of military intervention in 1991 after we had begun addressing Iraq. As Iraqi Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein’s brutal repression of the post-Gulf War uprising were stranded and dying in harsh winter weather on Turkey’s mountainous border, we advocated the creation of a no-fly zone in northern Iraq so they could return home without facing renewed genocide. There were other moments of intense killing as well, such as the suppression of the uprisings in 1991. But on the eve of the latest Iraq war, no one contends that the Iraqi government was engaged in killing of anywhere near this magnitude, or had been for some time. “Better late than never” is not a justification for humanitarian intervention, which should be countenanced only to stop mass murder, not to punish its perpetrators, desirable as punishment is in such circumstances.

HRW is one of the premiere organizations that have a hefty amount of "green" point of view - one of the premiere ones, actually - and yet there ARE times when HRW sanctions force.

Again, an unfortunate, and inaccurate generalization.

Ken makes a sincere pleas for an integral view in world affairs, and finds the current movements lacking. I agree with this plea.

But the points are not helped by what is essentially false generalizations of the actual actors and movements in question. There is a lot of "on the one hand, but on the OTHER hand" to analysis like this, that fails in its quest to be accurately descriptive, as 'levels of responsibility' are not accurately addressed - only this "equal blame" analysis, which is not useful in creating a "reality-based" analysis. What isn't taken into account:

a. All the various actors (Al-Queda, native tribal groups in Iraq, Bush and crew, various other conservative positions, other liberal positions, etc)
b. Any power and resource analysis (what can ACTUALLY be done, given the relative power and regional allegiances?)
c. Analysis regarding economic issues - such as oil, "who profits?", etc.


Where does that leave us now?

Well, considering that the current Iraq is, unfortunately, nearly completely beyond redemption, and also:

a. A war that we now know was sold by various lies.
b. A war that was (and is) used incredibly cynically and politically by the Bush administration.
c. A war used to erode basic INTEGRAL - or 2nd tier - rights, both abroad and at home in the USA.
d. A war used to institutionalize more firmly a corporate plutocracy - I don't believe this is really in the interest of INTEGRAL, or 2nd tier values.
e. A war used to undermine a political system of transparency, and leave actions of government beyond public scrutiny. Again, I do not believe this is in the value of 2nd tier.

Of course - maybe I'm wrong - maybe 2nd tier values embrace the erosion of personal rights, embrace a corporate plutocracy, and embrace a lack of transparency in government.

From what I understoon of 2nd tier, I didn't think so...

Given this - I have to ask - what does 2nd tier really mean? If it doesn't mean STANDING for integral values? Condemning the evil Al-Queda for both their actual violence, and their vision of a much lower value tier, while at the same time noticing the erosion of integral values in one's backyard?

Does not this mean standing FOR those values, even in the political scene? (Or in this case, commentary on the political scene?)

My assumption is that this particular post was not put up by Ken, but instead posted by "cwd", for the thought that something should be said about 9/11 since it is the five year anniversary. Nevertheless, I would say - since the situation has changed so much in the last three years, why hasn't Ken been willing to speak to the CURRENT situation, when he was willing to speak previously? Is this part of 2nd tier?

Perhaps not. I've often thought that Ramana Maharshi had the correct view. When people asked him anything political, he was not the LEAST interested. "Attend what you came here for", for those who visited his ashram.

The other example of course, is Ghandi, who lived his values on the political stage.

The million dollar question is this: Is 2nd tier engaged with the world, or not? If so, to what degree?

My other cynical suspicion - but this is probably 99.5 percent projection - is that Ken is unwilling to revisit this issue - and the likely criticism of the current administration, as this may affect the financial situation of Integral Institute, or bring unwanted heat from possible sponsors. ("cui bono?" or "who profits?". Just as ideally we would want to turn the world into stable democracies, but the red level - the power - doesn't exist to do so, so the U.S. doesn't - it may be simply unwise for Ken to re-engage this, because the requisite power to address the issue is lacking)

But again, that is probably a projection that only exists in my own head.

The more important question, I suppose, to bring it back is, does 2nd tier mean participation or withdrawal - through analysis or recommendations, or expertise - with the world stage?

C4 had mentioned something about how he stayed out of politics in the Phillipines - WAY too corrupt, or something like that. (I can't find that post of his, so I will revise this sentence if my memory is incorrect, or if provided with the link to that post.).

I throw this question out to other integral bloggers. What are your thoughts on 2nd tier values? To participate, or to ignore business or political issues that are destructive of 2nd tier values?



Note:  Also posted at Integral Practice blog

If 2nd tier makes any sense, then the question is raised - what are integral values, as opposed, or differentiated, from regular values?

It's a very important idea to adhere - to varying degrees - to a sense of internal values, and live one's life by those values.

I would argue we are doing that all the time anyway - the Atman Project right? - whether it is following desires, attempting to get a good job, looking for love, or explicitly looking for the Divine. (Or explicitly "dropping" looking for the Divine.)

I didn't get any feedback the other day on this question, so I thought I would post it again - separate from the analysis of a Ken Wilber post. Tuff Ghost makes the valid point that the values of 2nd Tier might not be noticeably differernt from the ordinary run of values.

However, I want to run this thought experiment. What ARE some integral values? So, But I will look at it, by coming up with mine!

Integral Value One: Recognizing that there are a multiplicity of values, of which MANY - but NOT all - have some implicit and explicit truth. and value.

The quest for God has value, the quest for scientific truth has value, the quest for integration has value, the quest for creative expression has value, and the quest for a better social order has value, and the quest for harmonious, deep, interpersonal relationships has value.

Integral Value Two: Say Yes To Meaning

or find and create meaning in how you live.

Whether you find meaning in your creative work, in your family, or in your God, or in simply resting in PEACE - find a YES, for your pursuit, internally, and for life. "He not busy being born is busy dying", for a wonderful quote by a famous singer.

Of course, this can be pretty difficult for those with traumatic experiences, either in childhood or some time in life. (It doesn't help to tell a suicidal person "have a nice day", as an example.) In this case of course, get help.

Integral Value Three: Contribute Back to the Larger Community, to Life.

There has been enough of boomerism, narcissism, etc. An integral person recognized the value of others, the value of a larger community, and gives back TO this community. I would say the basis of this for myself, is recognition and space for the Divine - but integral can proceed for agnostics as well, in the commitment to LIFE. On a profound level, THERE IS NO SEPARATION.

Integral Value Four: Practical Balancing.

Or "The Golden Mean"
Or "The Middle Way".

This isn't an absolute, of course - at any moment you may be called on to sacrifice for one of the above three values (children, community, country, a 3 year religious retreat), and that of course overrides balancing one's life. But finding the right balance, as a general rule, is a value of integral.

This particular value becomes very important for those of us who have analytical tendencies. What are the social structures that most promotes the above values? What type of goverments promote both stability, freedom, a sound and dynamic economic base, individual experimentations and creativity, and appropriate sharing of resources among all? How to create an environment for individuals to be challenged, but not overwhelmed?

Just because I can, I place all science, social science, economics, etc, in this particular realm...

Integral Value Five: The Now, Forward Movement, and Acceptance

Someone needs to make this particular value more pithy (any takers for a better expression?), but here is what I mean.

Acceptance for the moment. And for yourself, and others. THIS moment, now, pregnant with all possibilities, is as it is.
Moving forward - in this moment, this perfect moment, there is still movement. Move forward actively with what NEEDS to be done, and what you are called to do: building, fixing, loving, caring, participating, creating, opposing when necessary, defending when you must. But hold it lightly, (when possible) at peace in this moment.


Now that I read this over, some of this sounds a bit hokey. But that's okay. I am a regular guy of limited means, and this is what I got!

Those of you who are smarter, more productive, more inspiring...

Why don't YOU take your stab?

What are integral values to YOU?

(Also posted at Integral Practice)

I'm continuing this series on integral values - even though this is a rumination of one.

One of the most urgent issues in the United States, is the issue of health care. At one last count, there exists 46.6 million, or 15.9 percent, of citizens who do not have access to health care.

The article I point to above, shows that even of those who attempt to access private health, 9 out of 10 do not choose to - because of course, expense, not getting full coverage, all the exceptions for previous conditions, etc.


How would lack of health care, in such a rich nation, be viewed through the lens of integral values?

When a nation becomes wealthy enough, every nationa - EXCEPT the United States - has chosen universal health care.

And you can see why -

a. Practicality - health care is either crisis, or is fairly unnecessry. At any one time, 90% of people don't need health care. They just need to be taken care of when accidents happen, when they fall sick, and as old age approaches.

Given this, a shared pool of risk, is always the smartest way to go. And of course, a nation is a very large pool.

There are also a lot of savings in billing, dual coverage, fights with care provider, etc, that make private insurance simply impractical and expensive. This is borne out also, in the fact that the United States pays more per person than any other country, but in terms of overall health, is less healthy than the average person in other countries.

Ths particular analysis, looks at INTEGRAL cities - in some sense incorporating "green" values, into looking at how to build "resilient" cities, and then creates an "Urban Bill of Rights", that attempts to stand in for integral values.

Here is the Urban Bill of Rights:

The Urban Bill of Rights

1. The right to see significant greenery, the sky, and the sun from within one’s home.

2. The right to natural cross ventilation in one’s home.

3. The right to enjoy peace and quiet within one’s home with windows open.

4. The right to sleep at night without excessive artificial ambient light.

5. The right to be free in one’s neighborhood from pollution of air, water, soil, and plant life.

6. The right to be free from undesirable local environmental change caused by poor urban design, such as wind, shadow and noise canyons, excess heat caused by overpaving, etc.

7. The right to adequate space for storage, hobbies, and other personal activities in and around each dwelling unit, including play space for children in family housing.

8. The right to mobility, regardless of income. If automobile use is discouraged by prohibitive pricing, public transit must be adequate and low cost.

9. The right to parking space for each household.

10. The right of convenient access, on foot if possible, to basic daily needs, such as good quality food at reasonable prices, daily household and medical supplies, laundry facilities, etc.

11. The right of convenient access, by foot, private vehicle, or transit, to places of employment.

12. The right of equal access to the commons and to taxpayer-funded and other public facilities, such as government buildings, libraries, museums, bridges, and roadways.

13. The right of access within walking distance to nature, recreation, outdoor exercise, and discovery, including parks, open space, and areas inhabited by wildlife.

14. The right to equal and adequate police, fire, and emergency services, which shall not be infringed on the basis of income or neighborhood character.

15. The right to participate in and guide, through equitable, representative, democratic processes, land use decisions that affect oneself, one’s neighborhood, and one’s community."

So this is one communities attempt to be integral, which takes in a whole host of individual, environmental, social concerns, while keeping the eye on longterm practical survivability of a community.

Too pie in the sky?



Also posted at Integral Practice

I haven't mentioned Zaadz for awhile - but I am really liking the feature zPages and zBooks.

There are two reasons why:

a.  The tag implementation.  C4 I'm sure has explained this better than I can, but think of it as a graphical representation of what is most popular.  But implemented as a tag cloud, you don't only see the "top results", you see a whole "sky" of results, with the popularity being instantly visually recognizable.  (And since the tag cloud is a visual medium, immediately you perceive EACH tag in it's popularity.)

This in itself is a Wisdom of the Crowds implementation. as users tag what they like.  In addition however, you also get favorites -what people like, and reviews. What is favorite, what is top in currently reading, and the reviews, are all USER-CREATED content.  This means there are three levels of wisdom of the crowds here.

Same thing with zPages.  You start with a tag cloud, indicating the greater number of events, based on a particular tag.  This will indicate a tag you like, or that is frequently used.

In addition, once you click on the tag - say "life coaching" - you then are brought to a listing of people, businesses, that exist in YOUR area.

AND, these businesses are reviewed by users - with a scale, and with personal review.

Of course, the biggest to-do is for people to TAG and RATE people and businesses that you either LOVE or HATE. (And there must be a place for hate, right?)

Funny enough, there is a "Hollis Polk"  - psychic, spiritual counselor, life coaching, etc - that has three reviews on Zaadz right now, all positive.  Now three isn't a lot - friends could be bum-rushing the system with three - but, the reviews are glowing, and at this point, it is one of the more numerous reviews in San Francisco.

I hope more people begin utilizing this.  If you have a great group of 10000 people consistently utilizing, tagging, rating, and reviewing practices, books, people and places, that have improved their own life - well, the cream of the crop rises to the top, without effort.

I wanted something LIKE this - as you can see in this post - that post is from a year and a half ago - but the visual tag cloud implementation, and the different ways that one rates, is better than my initial contemplation!

At any rate, you will see me tagging up a storm over on Zaadz.  I'll keep you informed of how it is going.

Cross-posted at Integral Practice.

Per has a good initial analysis here.

Here is the Amazon link.



cross-posted at Integral Practice

Check out this release by those "hippies greens" at Deutche Bank Research. (Warning - PDF file).

The note introduces these various measures of well-being:

GDP - Gross Domestic Product
Economic Well-Being
Living Conditions
Happiness

With a cool graphic to go with it all!

When I see stuff like this coming from one of the premier banks in the world, I know we are making progress with an integral world view.


Cross-posted from Integral Practice.