What does it feel like to be Integral, and what are we doing?

Warning: Jargon.

Originally, this was a reply to a question on Open Source Integral, "What does it feel like to be Integral?" It deals with the question, as well as with what Integral is and what it's doing, also touching upon Ken Wilber's role in "integral." It's slightly modified.

To answer the question directly, integral probably feels different a little bit to everybody going through it, though I'd suspect there are quite a few similarities. There's an openness to experience, much less resistance (and so anxiety) to life and what's around, but the only real way I can say it is that I feel much more like myself: less like I have to act, and so much more willingly an actor, because it's fun. Maybe in short it's just that: simply more myself. I believe that's probably true for most, though what you've got to grow into and what blocks you need to remove are certainly different for everyone. A large part of the transition into integral for me has been allowing myself to open up to my emotions (though I would not say that's true for everyone,) and so life has become fuller; again, I feel like I'm more me more of the time now, and noticeably, joyfully so. Along with that there's the openness mentioned: all this richness and open emotion flows in and out. I'm much more aware and accepting of it, and much lest graspy or resistant to it-- that is, this fullness is equally a wonderful emptiness--there's an embracing and simultaneous awareness of what the mind would consider exclusionary opposites, for example, a grounded solidity in the midst of hundred-cycle-per-second change. When I do get anxious over something, or feel a tension in my body (1,000 times a day) I'm aware of it very quickly, and can note where it's coming from internally/externally, largely releasing it. There's also, for me, a marked sense of autonomy that comes from the release of anxiety about personal agency, along with a greater comfort in actually relinquishing any control over to the second by second rhythms of the world.

Other than that, I have to lightly disagree with a slightly dismissive tone in this thread [at OSI] in regards to Wilber. I do not worship Ken Wilber, though perhaps I used to, when I was jealous of him for the first couple of years after I'd read him for the first time. (Haven't we all been?) I'd love to have come up with AQAL, but actually coming into an integral level of being, rather than merely intellectualizing it, that's just not there anymore. I'm myself, and so better at that than KW could ever be, and joyous about it, because we're the same thing, and what's in store for me is just who I am. How could anyone else do it? Still, I feel much of the conversation here is bashing on or devaluing Wilber without a real appreciation. I certainly don't think that you have to understand Wilber to be integral (or even have ever heard of him) but you have to at least wrestle with him until you can definitively say where he goes awry. Some of the comments expressing a common sentiment against certain aspects of Wilber's variety of integral I think Wilber would whole-heartedly agree with, because he makes them explicit himself. They're not missing from his theory, they're in it.

In any case, I sympathize with the orignal poster, who mentions that a large awkwardness with the theory is the clunkiness and large amount of jargon. The language problem reminds me of my students here in China. In order to become comfortable speaking English they've got to learn a whole deal of commands and other 'class-functional' words just so we're using as little Chinese as possible (like, "what does that word mean,") that are usually more complex than their English level. There's so much to learn before you even get to really using it for yourself, and so i would suggest that the third-personness of the original poster's previous integral experience was because he hadn't gotten to the point where he'd internalized it, and that the yearning to do so from a personal standpoint likely shows that he's growing much more wholly into an integral awareness/living. It was third-person because 'not-you,' not because of any weakness in the theory (of course third-person,) but because he was still acclimating to the a gigantic instruction manual, so to speak. Anyone at an integral level of consciousness ought to recognize much of KW's work without having to talk and debate so much about it. I did much the same thing as he did, but never quite despaired about it. Now I see it as my intellectual understanding (where I could arrange and understand all that outside of me) helped to pull me up into an overall integral level of consciousness, beyond my simple verbal/rational mind.

In addition, there are quite a few areas where the main stream of Integral theory needs some retuning, in the very least as far as presentation is concerned. For example, the word "evolution." Evolution means reorganization of self in order to adapt to a changing environment, and so technically, yes, the higher up the spiral you go, the more evolved you are. Human evolution is taking place not only at the physical level, but at the mental level, and faster. Of course, for "8s," who are supposed to be tuned into how their actions are taken at each level, this word can't possibly be the right one. Talk about someone as being more evolved and you turn off most of the "lower tier," not just the greens. It's elitist in the worst way. This, of course, is only an apparent elitism-- the word as it's used within the integral culture is not a judgment of overall worth, but fitness, but try telling that to someone you're calling "less evolved." Is there a solution to this? I usually say people "with" a level 8 consciousness rather than "who have," but still. "Higher/lower," or "later/earlier," you're still going to run into the problem. In the trajectory of the universe, you see a clear trend towards systems of greater complexity which become better and better able to replicate and then improve themselves over time, from the primordial soup to humans, and then within the human mind. So how to say this without offending? This is what we're doing now, trying to figure out a way to pass this knowledge down the spiral in the best and most helpful way possible to facilitate further growth. But I also find that many integralists have a far less than humble attitude, and watching them speak about "higher levels" and this and that, one gets the sense that they are making overall value judgments, and are PROUD of it, which I think would be a mistake, something that may turn off quite a number of people who would otherwise be helped greatly. There's a technical term for the professors in college who lord their superiority of knowledge over their students rather than give them a patient, friendly hand: assholes.

But what would integral be without Wilber? Along with the above idea of a bottom-to-top development certainly anything that could legitimately be called integral has to deal with the four quadrants, that is, that every 'thing' that exists has four aspects, which are epiphenomenal, and yet separable. Why? I have spent years tracking this down, and the shortest answer is that reality is contradictory, that is, since the mind cannot grasp reality in thought, what is real will always seem to be contradictory, because the mind can't follow both logical conclusions. Too quickly because it's a different discussion and because you all likely know what I mean anyway: zero, one, and infinity are all actually three different conceptual ways of looking at the same thing, which is existence, consciousness. Try to think about one absolutely without the others: it doesn't work. A world of oneness without second would be a void with no differentiation, but even here the concepts collapse: that void would be infinite, that is, the void (0) of oneness (1) would still be infinite. Similarly, everything has an inside and an outside reality that are different and yet entirely the same, a plurality and individuality that are separable and inseparable. Ask "yes, but where's the last (ultimate) oneness," or "where's the lowest denominator," and you're thinking, and you'll never quite get it like that. The lack of any possible logical end in itself points to the truth in this. Without zero, no one, without inside, no out, without plurals, no singulars.

Similarly, I see a great difficulty in any integralism without the concession that reality is non-dual. It seems the very foundation of integral thought and life. The looseness and freedom and wonderful bursting emptiness of integral life comes with the experiential knowledge that the categories are only artificial approximations, and that every line drawn is only another way of illuminating the great unity, of which you are both a part and the whole.

So where are these complaints coming from, really?
What is Integral? What are we doing here?

Integral Theory (and the Integral Life) I think, is directed towards health, wholeness. That's the endgame, right? Integral Theory is a sort of map, a map of our species and our thought, but ultimately it only has use as a tool for our growth, as individuals and as a kind. That is, it is the first attempt at what the conveyor belt to a realized culture that Wilber sometimes talks about might look like. I feel as if many people here are critical of Wilber merely because it's the first time the whole map has been put together, and so, for lack of detail, their home isn't on it.

But there's rejection here where there could be shivering excitement. There's plenty of inference here about integral life beyond or outside Wilber, but I haven't really seen any thing concrete mentioned. We want to know what you're doing! If there's something missing, go live it! We're on the frontier, yeah? We're on the frontier of manifested consciousness as far as we can tell, so be pioneers! Wilber's model seems sparse only if you aren't filling in the gaps with your own engaged life. Of course there's so much to be done without him: he's only one person! His ILP box set perhaps seems like a poor representation of the possibilities of the integral life, but it's not meant to be definitive, it's meant to be suggestive, and that's made explicit. You have to engage with your own life to find the best ways to exercise and challenge yourself in every facet. How? Well, here's one example, the box set, (which I don't and haven't used) play around with it. (play)

The integral wave of consciousness is in its first stage as a mass phenomenon (not just isolated individuals), which means that you and I are determining what it is and means concretely and not just in the abstract, right now, but also means that 1- a lot of people are just coming into it from green and 2- b/c of this we're only starting in a large way to paint integral over structures which come from much earlier forms of consciousness. Hell, even the level-five worldview is still just opening over much of the world. Every person/culture that goes through it leaves their paw print. I feel like Wilber is being criticized for both not making the map more lush and interesting when he can only illuminate the views from his integral life and provide a larger framework, and also for laying the groundwork too thoroughly, as if telling you that when you're in college you'll have a great time, take a number of classes, be there for most likely between three and five years, meet plenty of interesting people, grow greatly personally and intellectually, etc. etc. preempts anything fun you'll actually do. We're all growing into greater recognitions of what reality is. That growth will be one-hundred percent personal, though the recognition is eternal. We may not have named this world, but it's ours for the making.

But that world will be colored within this framework, at least as long as it takes to start to flesh the higher levels out, when we can see where the holes are. The truth, I feel, is that if we are to succeed in getting through the problems the world is facing today, we're doing it through Wilber's influence or we're not doing it at all.

So what are we doing? We've lived in a valley all our human life, sending explorers up and over the mountains occasionally, but not caring as a species (or needing, or able) to go see it. Wilber was not the first out there, but he was the first to come back and explain to a large group of us just what was to be gained outside of our valley and how to do it, and how some of the major explorers did it before us. In any case, we're the first sizable chunk of the population to have camped in the gigantic and fertile plain on the other side. So what do we do? Not a rhetorical question. Let's get some answers.

For me, at this point, I am trying to explicate to my understanding what integral is and means, both within the community, and to the rest of the world. I believe that we are in a transition period in the movement, between when the news really got out with Wilber and when there will be a core and sizable group of people at an integral level, and that it's crucial to get to the next stage: having a fair number of people with influence, or power, or authority, operating and creating at an integral level of consciousness before too long. Much of what I do on this blog is aimed at using real life examples to illuminate integral theory and promote, flesh out, and examine integral thinking. I am also doing the internal work necessary: rounding off my weaknesses and fears, augmenting my natural talents, meditating, etc. etc.

One thing I think very important is to have the language debate. Is there a way to discuss this in depth in terms more intuitive, or is there a point at which you just simply have to explain the theory (I've gotten this down to about a five minute spiel that works pretty well) outright? Unfortunately many people here, rejecting the language, reject the theory, it seems.

How do we keep this alive? Keep it going? I think it will have it's own natural momentum, whether here on the web or somewhere else, or (most likely) with no real centralized base, but spread all over the place. But the most important thing is that you bring your energy to it, of course. You don't have to write ten pages, but keep up with others, offer pointers or criticisms, and take it out to the world. Engage.

One more minor point off another comment: I agree that some of Beck's (and Wilber's) takes on the spiral are off-putting and need adjustment, but "second-tier" is certainly not bogus. There is a huge gap (I call it usually the existential gap) between the realization that the world is without inherent meaning (green 6) and that that's a good thing (Yellow/Teal 7.) Second tier consciousness, while characterized by many things, is rooted in the knowledge that we are both the subject and the object, and I don't think this is something that, on a tactile (and so effective) level, anyone on a six and lower can quite get. It is a leap.

Thinking Integral (Response to Shaman Sun)

I just read this piece the other day on a blog called Shaman Sun.

It's basically evaluating the totemic role Ken Wilber and AQAL play within "Integral Theory." Wilber's work has been criticized for several different things, some of them raised in this article, including, mostly, 1- it is too complicated, 2- it is too simplistic, and 3- it confuses the map with the territory, that is, it pretends itself to be life, and not merely representative of it.

I will try to defend his approach, as I see each of these arguments as perhaps not groundless, but at least misguided.

For number one, I have to admit I find it frustrating trying to explain all of the jargon involved in integral theory, but have been able to work out a five-minute version. Much of what I'm trying to do is explain this way of looking at reality simply, trying to get people to grasp some of it. Of course, to really get into it, some of the terminology is unavoidable; that is, it's there for a reason: it's certainly possible to explain, say, the difference between someone with a pre-conventional and post-conventional level of consciousness, and even why they may be confused by someone with a conventional level of consciousness, all without using spiral dynamic nomenclature, but to do the roundabout over and over again in every article or post or conversation is a real pain in the ass. I also suspect that any academic theory has much the same problem, which is what makes professors often such boring people outside of the classroom. Just kidding.

It is difficult to get to the meat and bones of an academic theory because the complexity is fairly high. However, just as with any theoretical "step-up," say, from pre-calculus to calculus, where there are a necessary group of skills/ terminologies to be mastered at the lower level in order to manipulate them at the higher one, once the terms are familiar, and what they stand for internalized as experiential knowledge, they are no longer so daunting. Certainly I am not the only Integral Student to see levels and lines and stages and states everywhere I look every day. BUT NOT LITERALLY (complaint number three.) I actually do think that for the complexity of our world, Wilber's model presents a remarkably simple, and yet accurate theory. Which brings us to-----

Number two- it's too simplistic. "With all the complexity in the world, all the randomness and messiness and infinite variety, how could a model ever get it right?" I actually think what Wilber's theory does so brilliantly is make room for all of the mess. It doesn't include it all, that would truly be too complex, but it makes room for it. It took me until the release of "Integral Ecology" to see a practical example of what Wilber talks about when he says that so much more research is needed, and that the AQAL framework can be applied to different areas of research, the operative word being "framework." AQAL itself may not be so messy, but it's just the outline. Integral Ecology (which, disclosure, I have only read a summary of and listened to an hour-long talk about between one of the authors and Wilber) takes that framework and then tries to see the messy study of ecology through it (there are over two hundred different "ecologies.") If it succeeds, it does what any good framework does: takes all that messiness and gives you a method of relating all the different pieces together in a (post?) logical way.

As for complaint number three, "but this isn't the world!" (closely related to the above) it seems to come from a relativistic standpoint used to making this objection against any system of thought. I am, however, still brought to near-confusion when I hear it, since Wilber says so clearly and directly that this map, and any map, is just a map, and enjoins the interested to personal practice beyond intellectualizing and philosophizing. It seems to me to be a keystone of the theory: enter into your own life to see, as it must be experienced. Along with the above, that's where the messiness comes in. Nobody is a level five. No society is at some particular level. It's all fluid. Another connected keystone is that reality is non-dual, and so, just as with the messiness above, it must be remembered that a) all of this applies to you and can be realized directly and b) all of the lines are, if not arbitrary, somewhat artificial. It is, in other-words, built-in to the theory.

Why has this been missed? Perhaps because explicating the framework itself has been Wilber's intention, and that this labor is so large that little room is left to mention the above, though it is slipped in quite often. If it takes five thousand words for a discussion that's the bulk of the chapter, and then there's one twenty word sentence in the chapter saying, "oh yeah, don't forget, this is only a map, you've got to observe how it actually fuctions in real life."

As for Manuel DeLanda, I must conceed ignorance of his work. It sounds interesting and it's certainly integral, but what do we mean by that word? AQAL is comprehensive. It is an integral theory in that it tries to tie everything together. But, there is another way to use the word "integral," and that is, "at the first stage of second-tier thought (Yellow/Teal in Spiral Dynamics SDi.)" DeLanda seems to be a lower-right quadrant (that is, based on the external nature/behavior of groups of people (or whatever holon you're looking at)) theory coming from the stage seven (integral) level of human consciousness. It is in this a way a huge improvement over previous views assuming the coherancy/individuality of holons, but is not integral in the broadest sense.

I do agree that the postmodernists come as a reaction against, a call that the Emperor's got no clothes, something important and necessary before you actually consider what the Emperor looks like naked, and that they had less to offer in this respect.

And no, Wilber doesn't exactly detail the relationships between every thing, other than to say that "it's all actually the same thing," but this is the key insight. Without this, there'd be no question of detailing, investigating, and discovering all of the details, because there'd be no one looking, and nowhere to hang them. Certainly Shamansun's call at the end for "a more dynamic theory of social science [to] emerge in the 21st century, one that is more analogous to the messiness [of] biological evolution," is to be heeded. But the theories that emerge, and continue to emerge, will be within the general framework established by Wilber, at least until it's fleshed out enough for us all to see what's there, and what's missing.

On "Enlightenment Therapy" in the Times.

As soon as I saw the title, Enlightenment Therapy, I knew I was going to blog about it, I just didn't realize it'd take a few days to digest, or that it would be so personal. After all, it's about the marriage of Freud and the Buddha; what integral blogger could resist?

Reading the article, though, there were a few things that hit home, and I put it down to think it over. Again, this is a fairly personal post, just a warning.

There are two main characters in the story, The zen master/ patient, and the zen student/ therapist. Their names are Lou Nordstrom and Jeffrey Rubin, respectively.

The first hint that this might be a challenging piece for me was '“The agonizing absence of internal unity made me suicidal,”' I've never been suicidal, but boy do I know some about the agonizing absence of internal unity. I always feel torn. Only rarely do I get a glimpse of something I'm finding other people take for granted. I have a sense of self, of course, of being a separate being (I am human,) but rarely do I ever know just exactly what it is I want. It turns out that Mr. Nordstrom and I share quite a few personality traits, and the further I read the more I became worried that I was falling into the same trap that Nordstrom had.

'He sought to protect himself against the trauma of further abandonment by pre-emptively abandoning himself. If he wasn’t there in the first place, he wasn’t in a position to be cast away. The Zen concept of no-self was like a powerful form of immunity.' Unfortunately, I have not spelled out yet my working theory of mind, so bits and pieces will have to be explained as I come to them. In any case, I do the same thing. The drama in one's mind is created by oneself,* and so while I was never physically abandoned by my parents, I have always been terrified of abandonment, rejection, separation, call it what you will. The solution? Effacing myself, preemptively abandoning, rejecting, separating. Afraid that the world would reject the "real" me, I just don't speak up, giving no opportunity for what I want so badly, to be accepted, valued, heard. Again, psychological drama.

'“The Zen experience of forgetting the self was very natural to me,” he told me last fall. “I had already been engaged in forgetting and abandoning the self in my childhood, which was filled with the fear of how unreal things seemed...I always had some deeper sense that I wasn’t really there, that my life and my marriages didn’t seem real...I began to realize this feeling of invisibility wasn’t just a peculiar experience but was maybe the central theme of my life.' Again, check, and check.

'...that subconsciously I want the depth of my suffering to be witnessed by someone. I want to be seen for what a strange fellow I am. As a young guy I got off on the sense of being different. There was some arrogance and elitism in it. The positive spin of the surreal nature of my childhood was that there must have been some special destiny for me. To give up tenure, to become a monk, I embraced an aggrandized narrative.' While some of the words I'd use are different, the feeling, again, is the same, "embracing an aggrandized narrative." There's the desire to be noticed and accepted as being different, because special.

“Re-entry is difficult,” Nordstrom admitted. “I feel I’m going to be blindsided — that I’m being set up. The record suggests that’s what tends to happen to me.” [That is, entering life emotionally is just begging to be hurt.]

“Do you hear your language?”

“Yeah.”

“That’s what tends to happen to me.”

“What do you hear — that I sound like a victim?”

“There’s no agency in there — to see that is to open to the possibility of feeling less the victim in your life.” [Perhaps why I'm overly drawn to the opposite archetype, like James Bond. The ultimate anti-victim. There's more than this though, there's also the fear of agency, the fear of my own ability to do things.]

“I know this intellectually. I’ve had this sense of being a victim, a marked man for a long time — marked for bad things and marked for great things.” [I have never felt marked for bad things, though I certainly have always felt marked for great things. Reading this, though, makes me realize that yes, actually, I have always felt fated to meet some wretched tragic end. In my fears, by bloody violent murder at the hands of a random stranger, or by plane crash, mostly. Of course, the one must have its reciprocal. Silly me not to have connected them.]

“I wonder if that isn’t a compensatory fantasy which hides a deeper pain. It’s not that ‘I was horrifically abandoned, unconscionably neglected,’ it’s ‘I have a special destiny.’ ”[This is harder for me because, again, I was never abandoned, I just feel that way. I suppose it's the same narrative, though: I have been overlooked and ignored, but everyone will see in the end how big of a mistake that was when I turn out to be the best Baseball Player / Doctor / Author / Musician / Artist / etc. etc. (fill in fantasy of the year. Some, of course, are fairly outdated.)]

“Yes,” Nordstrom said. “As a boy I consciously constructed this idea that I’m in a situation that makes no sense whatsoever. The only meaning I can glean from it is that there may be some kind of completely different life in store for me. There will be a compensation. I am owed.” [So, for this life to make sense, there has to be a surprise ending. The narrative itself assumes the legitimacy of the ego's drama. They are epiphenomenal, sides of the same coin, or cube. 'I was hurt, but if I bear this hurt, endure it, in the end I'll get my reward.' Notice the words "consciously constructed." Without the original slieght, though, the narrative makes no sense, and one's life has been wasted. The older and older one gets, the more rests on this false narrative. Quite a lot in here, one of these days I'll get that theory of the mind up.]

“What comes to mind with ‘owed’?”

“I’m entitled. That feeling got me through high school. It’s why I excelled at sports and studies.”
[Opposite for me. It's what caused me to coast through on abilities without any work, because I didn't have to. I'm me, after all, and in the end, oh you'll see.]
“It also killed you.”

The thought hung in the air.

“Why do you think I say that?” the psychoanalyst said.

“Because it’s true?”

“No, because it’s led to a passive detached relation to your own life. It’s robbed you of your human birthright. It’s like you are waiting for Godot. It keeps you in a virtual life. Do you get that? Do you feel that emotion?” [This is where the similarity really battered me. Just around the bend is the miracle that's going to change my life. It's something I'll stumble on, not work for. I've always been this way (until recently, more later.) There's always something hidden up the road, past a bend, that is, it's never something I'm concerned with at the moment, of course, that's going to super-duper change my life.]

'“I don’t know why I constantly deprive or deny myself positive experiences,” Nordstrom said after a while. “There is a perverse self-destructiveness. It’s like the theme from the movie ‘The Pawnbroker’: if my life is in good shape, then my history makes no sense. . . . When I broke my hip the first time, before I fell, I thought, Don’t move, turn on a light, then I thought, Screw it, and I fell.”' Again, the narrative (history in Nordstrom's words) has to be true, because if it's not, one's life makes no sense. If one's life is miserable, the narrative, and the ego it reinforces, makes perfect sense.

'“Stay with that ‘screw it’ voice: are you saying nothing that happens to you that’s good is going to make a difference?”

“There is something I know that I really want that I’m never really going to get. It may be mother. It may be mother.”

“Maybe your pessimistic stance is a defense against that shattering realization. Maybe you see your life as a Faustian bargain: I will not have hope demolish the hope that one day what I want will come.”

“My least favorite word in the English language is ‘hope.’ ”

“And in the meantime you’re knee-deep in it!”'

The ego is a mesh of paradox, that's why it survives so well. Tackle it one way, well, it wasn't ever like that anyway. Nordstrom rejects hope of ever getting what he really wants, because to get it would negate the hope that is that final reward. Hating hope is the surest sign of how dependant you are on it.

Reading this article threw me out of whack, to say the least. Was I fooling myself? Was I only trying to do in a more aggressive and radical way exactly what I was trying to cure myself of? Sitting on this a few days, I've reaffirmed what I've been doing, though this article was certainly a wakeup call. Perhaps because I was born later, perhaps because my childhood was not traumatic, but I'm not running away from life into meditation. Far from it. The further I've gotten along in my self-directed course of growth, the richer and fuller my life has become, the more I've taken responsibility for my life and its direction, the more active I've been able to be to pursue and complete real, practical goals, and the happier and more emotionally engaged I've been. I have not been doing what Nordstrom did, quite the non-opposite. Rather than throw myself into meditation as a solution, or rely only on analytical accounts of the mind, I've been practicing meditation to give me more energy and insight into the ego so that as I heal it I can return more mindfully to meditation, and so on and so forth.

Of course, the basic structure of my ego remains, and I haven't fully reconciled its contradictions in health. I'm thankful that this article revealed this to me, and I'm thankful to you as well, whoever is reading. Even if nobody, getting all of this onto (electronic) paper is extremely helpful. It's real.

'Rubin was convinced that “the marriage of Buddha and Freud” would benefit both disciplines. “When you combine the best of Buddhism and psychoanalysis,” he told me one day last winter, “you get a full-spectrum view of human nature focused on both health and spiritual potential as well as on the psychological forces we struggle with and the obstacles we unconsciously put in our way.”'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*That is, while you can always draw external correlations to prove your fears, a different person would draw different correlations from the same external conditions. Beaten by a mother, one child develops to fear abandonment, another to fear loss of control, and both point back to the same event.

NWO or Decentralization?

As often, a thoughtful piece in the Times by David Brooks. (For those of you who might be wondering, no, the Times is not the only thing I read online, I just happen to be getting out from under a huge backlog from my Chinese test, and since I do read the Times everyday, I often find things in it to write about.)

He's talking about centralization vs. decentralization of power in globalism with the swine flu as background. As I said, it's a good piece, though I have a couple of issues with it.

Firstly,
'we don’t face a single concentrated threat. We face a series of decentralized, transnational threats: jihadi terrorism, a global financial crisis, global warming, energy scarcity, nuclear proliferation and, as we’re reminded today, possible health pandemics like swine flu.'

This I disagree with fairly wholeheartedly. With the exception of the swine flu, each of these problems could be argued as one multi-headed problem. The very problem is that the current global power structure doesn't work. But that's minor.

The major issue I have with the article is that it opposes these two arrangements of power, decentralization and centralization, as if we have to choose one of them. Brooks, to his credit, chooses decentralization. I agree with him on this as strongly as I disagree about the multifarious nature of the world's problem. Power must be localized, as local as possible, that is to say, the individual and his or her person-to-person connections must be in charge. If not, as Brooks says, '...If the response [to the swine flue] were coordinated by a global agency, those local officials would not be so empowered. Power would be wielded by officials from nations that are far away and emotionally aloof from ground zero. The institution would have to poll its members, negotiate internal differences and proceed, as all multinationals do, at the pace of the most recalcitrant stragglers.'

These person-to-person connections must of course operate under the rule of law, or you'd get rampant corruption. But Brooks' example of a photo of New York City Health Department officials is a reminder at the opposite side of the spectrum of why localism works, or why the U.S. won out over the highly-centralized U.S.S.R. 'The photo is the very image of a focused, local response. People are wearing polo shirts and casual wear — intensely concentrating on the concrete incidents in their own backyard.'

What's to argue with?

There's got to be somewhere the buck stops. You need a Constitution and a Bill of Rights guaranteed by a Federal Government with power for there to be a civil rights movement, for example. Without one overarching power, there will never be perfect peace. This power must be aggressively limited to allow an open society to develop, but it also must exist to settle differences and set directives for the world's countries.

In fact, for local power to be as powerful as it can be, there needs to be some centralization of power. If, say, Europe does hold back on its vaccines, the U.S. would need some more. But there's a reason we don't have as many, and for the U.S. to put resources towards something it wouldn't need without the artificiality of national borders, and that's a waste.

Brooks writes about centralization as if it means soviet-style planning. But without centralization we'll end up a loose confederacy unable to tackle any of our increasingly global issues.

The Future of Social Media: The Open Web

Good blog post here about the future of the web and social media.

It's interesting for a few reasons, even though it's mostly directed at large companies. What I find most interesting is the potential for this kind of interface to lead to a much more open society, something identified here as "Transparency." This has been on my mind recently with this post at the Far Eastern Economic Review, about the near impossibility of producing "hard news" in China. Anyone who has been following China knows of its burgeoning and noisy online community, however. Could direct person to person reporting overcome the collusion of the government and industry? I'm optimistic.

In any case, the potential for this kind of application to create smart-mobs is huge.

Why practice? Flourishing/ Stretching

Had a hard time naming this post, but it's an idea that's been conking around in my head for a while, kicked into focus by an article I just read called The Fine, The Good, and the Meaningful, in The Philosopher's Magazine, via a blog I read called Integral Options Cafe.

Basically: since everything is in a constant state of flux (that is, every thing,) each thing is either growing, or dying. If you take "thing" to mean, say, "My French Language Aptitude," then it's easy to see that either one is practicing their French, or slowly losing it (something I can attest to personally.) There is no "constant state," only a continual balance. Following this, unless one is getting better and better, actively practicing, one will get worse, even with practice. That is, it's not enough to just practice, one needs to continually practice just outside of their level of comfort, in something I call "The Quick of Practice."

In a bodily sense, this is why I feel to be truly content as a person one must exercise their body and their bodily awareness. The body is made to move. Let it. Harness it, be aware of it, and you will become happier and happier. The body is like the soil for the tomato plant in the passage below. With a really unhappy body it's much harder to be happy emotionally. The good news is that once you've started paying attention to the body instead of a neutral resting state you begin to feel a subtle happy playfulness throughout it anytime a stronger feeling (like pain, or sadness, or joy) isn't present (and even sometimes as a discernible background if they are.)

As far as one's life goes, unless one pushes against one's limits, however you want to think of that, one is floating through life without living. Part of the point of the article, and something that I agree with, is that the idea of human life, the goal if you will, is to flower. This doesn't by any means denigrate the majority of people who never truly flower, or people who have yet to, it is merely to say that nobody goes to Washington D.C. in the summer to watch the Japanese Cherry trees photosynthesize.

And, of course (something I am overly aware of teaching here in China) this continual pushing of limits can't literally be continual. A wave must draw back and forth to wear a cliff away. The body needs rest, like a peak needs a trough. Balance. Push out a little too far, heal. Healed, you're able to push out a little further.

So, then, why practice? In a certain way, there are two phases to human life: socialization, or the mostly mandated period of learning before adulthood when one picks up, consciously and not, the rules and skills valued by their society, and post-socialization, when one is an adult. In this second period the opportunity exists to continue self-directed growth, though many do not. But adulthood is not a plateau. You either grow, or die (a maxim of evolution?) With evidence recently that intelligence is flexible and can be increased, even speaking only of one's brain power the case is clear for practice. While children have the most energy and time to study any number of skills, the paradox is that it is not until one has become a self-realized adult that one can really begin to push the boundaries of who one is and what one can do. Practice, in adulthood, becomes not merely the acquisition of skills, but the conscious engagement with life itself.

The below is from the article.
'Flourishing is a biological term, which etymologically connotes flowering – that is to say the healthy, vigorous unfolding of the capacities peculiar to each species. For a tomato plant, flourishing is quite simply its production of strong leaves and shoots, and then its coming to maturity and bearing rich and succulent fruits. But what are the fruits of human life?

The Lotus Eaters are contented enough – but, as it slowly dawns on Odysseus (or Ulysses), there’s something disquieting about them – they never do anything, just loll around eating the lotus (perhaps the ancient Greek equivalent of reaching for the valium). The moral drawn by Homer, and Tennyson, is that the truly happy life must be one where we are stretched. '

Controlling/Managing the Chinese people?

I'm a little late on this due to my 24-hour weekend working cycle, but if you hadn't heard about Jackie Chan's recent remarks in China: here's a short debate in the Times about it.

There's a mini-debate in Chinese watching circles about whether or not the word he used would best be translated as "managing," rather than "controlling." The word under discussion, "Guan," (“管”) , usually does mean "managing" but this seems fairly unimportant given the context of insulting Hong Kong and Taiwan for being "chaotic" while speaking to an audience including high-level Central Party members. Certianly the essence was "China needs Authoritarianism."

Much of what I found interesting, as often happens with China blogs on the NYTimes, were the comments. Without getting too much into it, There seem to be two sides of the debate, a sure way to miss the meat of the argument entirely: Chan is a moron (or is in it for the money) and Chinese people yearn to be free, or Chan is right, Chinese people have been successful under the control of the Central Party, and would fall apart if not. Unfortunately, of course, little attention is paid to the arguments themselves, and more is paid to ad-hominem attacks on people writing. Basically, everyone in the comments is either rabidly pro-China, or anti-Chinese government. Notice also the conflation here: most of the pro-Chinas take any criticism of the government by foreigners (in public, published places) as being anti-China, as in the country (something the government actively inculcates), even though among themselves, and in private, they are often quite critical of the government.

All of this friction, for an integral thinker, should point to competing vMemes, through even the debate about whether Chan was cynically only doing this for CCP approval. So what's the deal here? Anyone watching China knows the friction created is largely between the up-and-coming 5s in the country and the authoritarian 4s. Moreso than in most cases, the power of the 4s has been used to help foster in some respects the emergence of the 5s as a powerful new class, and for this often the new capitalists in China are the most vocally in favor of the government. Nonetheless, there are plenty of 5s in the country that see right through this, and Gordon Chang is right when he says that voices of online protesters and self-organized groups to aid victims of the BeiChuan earthquake last year to help the survivors before even the governement did displays the yearning and capability for a more open society.

The biggest mistake in all of this whole thing is locating this with something inherantly "chinese." Chan's words "we chinese" make it seem as if there's some sort of essence in the Chinese people that makes them incapable of democracy (something Beijing promotes against reality and the benefit of its own people) and will always do so.

Of course, some of what he's saying is correct. China is still mostly at an authoritarian 4 level, and much of the country is still at a 2. Creating a "one-person, one-vote" system would be likely disasterous at this point, as one of the commenters notes, drawing comparisons with some African countries, and south-east asian. Democracy is not the cure of all ails. However, it ought to be clear that it is the only successful way to run a fully modern country is through a representative democracy. Even if you cannot establish democracy at the highest levels of government, at the local level it ought to be implemented, something which will give the populace experience with it for later down the road. Of course, for all its unintentional help, the CCP is rabidly anti-democratic, which is to say the small concessions made to democracy in village elections are unlikely to be expanded.

The word "chaos" is also interesting. Here, Chan notes the 4s fear of chaos/anarchy, one made stronger by chinese memories of the cultural revolution. Will China ever be able to embrace the kind of "chaos" Chan finds in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and become stronger as a result, or will the party simply not be able to let go this far? Much of the question of whether or not China will be able to fully transform itself into a modern country rests on this. Control only goes so far.