Comments on: An Integral Politic, Part 1

By: On The Failing’s Of Integral’s Political Analysis (Briefly) « Integral Psychosis

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:03:15 +0000

[...] heels of my own inclinations (some of which I’ve tried to flesh out in past posts such as my An Integral Politic I, II, and III) and spurred much further thanks to some of Colin’s great questions and [...]

By: An Integral Politic, Part 3 « Integral Psychosis

An Integral Politic, Part 3 « Integral Psychosis — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:44:41 +0000

[...] Part 1 of this exploration, I noted a few of my main concerns and disagreements with the standard stab of [...]

By: An Integral Politic, Part 2 « Integral Psychosis

An Integral Politic, Part 2 « Integral Psychosis — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:36:46 +0000

[...] 2, 2008 in Global, Politics, Theory Tags: Integral Theory Earlier I outlined a bit of what my problems are with the standard line of what an “integral politic” [...]

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:30:44 +0000

I am currently revising a treatment of integral politics (micropolitics actually) that addresses many of your concerns here. Look for it in the December volume of the Integral Review. (barring catastrophe that is.)

Daniel Gustav Anderson

By: wdh3

wdh3 — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:00:56 +0000

Hi Corey, thanks for stopping over. I hope to be able to answer many (if not all) of these questions over then next few days- as I get the time I’ll continue this response/exploration of integral politics.
Briefly though, I most certainly do agree that the founding fathers of the U.S. were modern orange elitists in a time of Amber domination. And, at the time, that document was quite revolutionary (in one sense of the term) and certainly a tremendous leap forward for both the political ideals of this country as well as the world over. However, the U.S. Constitution (as well as the political, social, and personal/spiritual development of the drafters themselves) is in no way “perfect” or “integral” (i.e., Teal Altitude or higher). So I’m not looking to throw away that contribution, nor am I looking to elevate it (avoid the pre/trans fallacy). In hoping to pinpoint a more integral politic I think it’s important for us to recognize that, for all their efforts and success, the U.S. (Constitution, governmental system, values) is deeply flawed, imperfect, and limited. So pointing to their (relative) historical success may just have a relatively limited usefulness in finding the best way forward.
Again, I’ll try to expand upon what I mean over the coming week; but I really appreciate your interest and dialogue.

By: Corey W. deVos

Corey W. deVos — Tue, 27 May 2008 16:24:21 +0000

Hey, i am really glad you are challenging my written treatment of Integral Politics, and appreciate the opportunity to fill in some gaps in my own understanding of the subject.

One point that i do not quite understand–are you saying that there is no place for developmental elitism of any kind in politics? Do you agree that, when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States, they were themselves modern orange elitists, while the vast majority of the rest of the world was still at a traditional amber? In this sense, the founding fathers themselves said something along the lines of “let us enlightened minds lead you and your liberation will come.”

To me, the point is simple–the numerous crises of our world demand an integral response, which in turn demands integral leadership. For the past eight years, we have witnessed a largely mythic/traditionalist amber colonialist mindset from the American presidency. The problem is, this is obviously not the level of consciousness we want our global policies to be made from–but it is a level of consciousness that probably 60% of this country shares, which is why we have the political leaders we currently have. As Ken has mentioned many times, “one-person-one-vote” in a society that have predominantly traditional values means the banning of evolution in Kansas.

What, from your perspective, is the solution to this?

And if you believe i have somehow misapplied the Altitudes of development to political theory, how would you apply them yourself?