Invitation to Experience the Awareness Expanding Inquiries for Mindset Transformation [9/20]


(Durwin Foster) #1


Prior Invitation

For our next Corealizing Cosmos engagement, Jeff Quintero (@JeffreyQ1) will invite us to participate in a series of 10 inquiries that he has designed to facilitate the expansion of awareness necessary for a mindset transformation. This mindset transformation helps us assume our roles as stewards of collective consciousness evolution.

In your time zone: September 20, 2018 11:00 AM (America: Los Angeles), September 20, 2018 2:00 PM (America: New York), September 20, 2018 7:00 PM (Europe: London), September 20, 2018 8:00 PM (Europe: Berlin)September 20, 2018 12:30 PM (America: Los Angeles), September 20, 2018 3:30 PM (America: New York), September 20, 2018 8:30 PM (Europe: London), September 20, 2018 9:30 PM (Europe: Berlin)
Zoom video conference: https://zoom.us/j/995953297

We look forward to seeing you!


Background


(Jeffrey Quintero) #4

@DurwinFoster

Durwing, thanks so much for sending this invitation to the community.

Now, I would like to postpone presenting the insights so we can look back at what has emerged so far. Because, I see a way to capture an extraordinary opportunity based on our previous interactions.

Lat Sunday on, The Ken Wilber Show at Integral Life Live, Ken articulated all the key understandings I have been researching in order to show the compatibility between AQAL and the Framework we have been working on for years. Which as you know does seem to represent the 8 Zones in a Spiral Form and a different alignment sequence.



What is relevant to us here at Cosmos.coop relates to something that has been a bit frustrating for me. In the way I have not been able to communicate how the Value Co-Realizing Method and Model works.

A big miss opportunity was not answering to @Douggins question after the video conference I had with Marco. Yet I see these questions could serve me now to make a strong case for the value of what I am trying to co-realize here.

The connection between my feelings and what Ken said has to do with the idea that before we can have the capacity to understand what is being said from the perspective of a particular paradigm, we need to first adopt the paradigm. This sentiment of frustration in difficulty to reach shared understanding is something you and I had experience a few times until we remember to move into alignment and then we experience the resonance of the injunctions we are looking to enact.

The opportunity I see is that we can produce an experiment to demonstrate the necessity and validity of Integral Methodological Pluralism. The exercise will serve to demonstrate a before and after difference on capacity to come into shared understanding that occurs we there is paradigmatic alignment vs when there is not.

So, what I would like to do this Thursday 9/20 is make the case for this exercise. I would also like to invite Corey Devos to the presentation and ask him if we could have Ken’s video recording so that I can point at the understandings relevant to producing this experiment.

I hope and trust this could be a great opportunity to co-realizing a trans-cultural breakthrough! (Or else, I am going to have to be send to the crazy house :laughing:)

Thank you so much for your long and caring support!


(Durwin Foster) #5

Jeff just waking up cuz I worked late last night, but I will review all this and am happy to invite Corey. Are you ok with me sending him this that you have written here?

D


(Jeffrey Quintero) #6

@DurwinFoster yes absolutely. I will invite him directly and I believe Marco is friends with him… So may be it ought to be Marco being local to Corey who invites him ???

How do you feel about all this @madrush is it OK with you?
would you like to invite Corey yourself?


(Marco V Morelli) #7

Jeff, I feel I need a little more clarity before talking with Corey. Let me see if I understand:

  • You feel frustrated that you haven’t been able to communicate “how the Value Co-Realizing Method and Model works”;
  • Then you saw the “Ken Show” and had a “kensho” about how Integral Methodological Pluralism aligns with your model, or vice versa;
  • And so tomorrow, instead of guiding us through your “awareness expanding inquiries for mindset transformation,” you would like us to invite Corey deVos and have us watch the “Ken Show” video (if he will give us access; I assume this content is behind the paywall?) in order to “produce an experiment to demonstrate the necessity and validity of Integral Methodological Pluralism”;
  • And your are suggesting that if the participants undergo this experiment together, we will experience ‘paradigm alignment’ which will allow you to communicate the intended mindset transformation?

Is that correct?

And this relates to ‘co-realizing a path to co-realizing’ Our Goodness/Value, as we explored here: CoRealizing Cosmos: A Path to Co-Realizing “Our Goodness,” with Jeffrey Quintero [9/6] and the ‘MVP’ discussion as well as @Douggins’ follow-up questions in the @corealizers group, here?

It’s an eventful time, and exciting things are happening. I am not against this change of plans, and I generally feel favorably toward methodological experiments; I just want to make sure I understand the logic of what you are asking me to do.


(Durwin Foster) #8

If Corey is not available and/or content is behind paywall, we could invite Terri back (if she is available) ,since her model/mapping also includes the 8 zones that seem to indeed be a representation of the differentiation occurring in transition from modern to integral era. And her mapping also has a bit of this “inside then outside” feel. I am attaching a .pdf.StAGES_OFallon.pdf (3.2 MB)


(Jeffrey Quintero) #9

@madrush and @DurwinFoster , thanks for responding with an open disposition…

Marco, I see I am asking a lot. Yet, I truly see a great opportunity that could extend way beyond what we are doing here so far.

For the most part your are correct about what I am asking. Now, for the sake of keep building the case for the experiment I want us to produce, I will make some distinctions.

The work I am finally ready to bring into the world is the outcome of 25+ years of research and development mostly based on Ken’s Integral Approach.

In regards to the video I saw last Sunday… is not exactly that I “saw the “Ken Show” and had a “kensho” about how Integral Methodological Pluralism aligns with your model, or vice versa;”

It is more significant in that it shows Ken, describing in his own words, what I have recognized for a long time as the compatibility between AQAL and Holonce Framework. Therefore offering the opportunity to demonstrate such compatibility with the possibility we could engage Ken in some further research and development.

Now, the bigger opportunity I see for us ( as Cosmos.Coop) has to do with another possibility. The possibility that we could demonstrate an evolutionary path to end “The Cultural War” that is currently tearing the country and humanity as whole a part. This is also what Ken goes at length to explain in last Sundays video.

The point is that, what is needed to breakthrough the existential constraint at the core of cultural antagonism, is the same kind of communal capacity for reaching shared understandings. Which is what I want to demonstrate with the experiment I am proposing.

May be this article about what I call The Understandment Principle could begin to illustrate the direction where I am suggesting we go…

Here is the relevant paragraph from that article:

There is another way people could address differences between political parties, faiths, and cultures without discord; it is known as the “Understandment Principle.” Jeffery Quintero, founder of OurPresidency.com, coined the new word “Understandment,” which originated as part of his research on “Truth, Value, Meaning and Purpose” (2005). Quintero based the “Understandment” concept on the Integral World View as proposed by Ken Wilber of the Integral Institute. “Understandment” is characterized as level of social agreement that transcends the limits of our cultural understanding. We all have limits of understanding others around us. However, it is only through identifying our limits that we can rise above them and recognize all people share commonalities about many of “humanity’s” issues.” It is only by living the Principle of “Understandment” that we will live united, not divided.

In regards to the invitation to Corey I did not mean to invite him first and for us to watch the video as part of my presentation. What I would like to do is to present the ideas and reason for doing the experiment. Then, is we all agree , to invite Corey to engage with us in designing the experiment for maximum benefit and engagement of all the Cosmos community and may the Integral community at large.

The point about

suggesting that if the participants undergo this experiment together, we will experience ‘paradigm alignment’ which will allow you to communicate the intended mindset transformation?

What I see is not just that it will allow me to communicate the intended mindset transformation… more like the awareness expanding insights is what will enable participants to see the possibility of a new way to begin to collectively evolve

  • From where we are stuck now: The cultural war battle based on right vs wrong rational fundamentalism (absolutist fundamental rationality based on cultural idealogy)
  • To: Understandments based on most ideal possible co-realized through the conscious practice of transcendental intentionality.

Also, tomorrow I would like to reference some key shared thoughts from each of us that will illustrate we are already much more in agreement that we have been able to understand at the communal level.

Again, I really appreciate this opportunity to explore a potential cultural breakthrough. Much love for all engaged…
Kindly,
Jeff


(Durwin Foster) #10

“orthodox integral theory” might suggest that individuals may come into such an experiment with a mindset through which they will interpret the state shift afforded by the intervention, and that this mindset may not be open to as rapid a change as we might hope. Otherwise, I am totally interested in the collective intelligence development that can enable to the end of the culture wars, and have already benefited through your semantic architecture in seeing the benefit of shifting from being a “social justice warrior” to “social goodness peacemaker”. There is also potentially a strong connection here, in fact, with Richard Hames, who is happy to have us reconnect, and who has shared with my privately an outline for his world peacemaking project.


(Jeffrey Quintero) #11

I hope not be putting pressure on anyone to participate in something you may not be icline or ready to do. Yet, I know I am asking you to be the subjects of an experiment, and that may trigger some resistance. Which I totally understand.

So, here is a simple outline of the suggested experiment :

  1. We go back in our interactions to show our level of shared understanding about ; what we see and agree as possible that we could actually do, before injunctions of new paradigm were taken.
  2. Watch Ken’s video on How To Think Integrally and the Ted Talk video about DR Bruce Damer Origin of Life Theory, to observe the specific ideas and concepts I will point at.
  3. Go through the awareness expanding insights presentation and make sure these do deliver the adoption of new paradigm
  4. Re-frame our shared understanding about what is the most ideal-possible we are actually ready to co-realize

If you all agree tomorrow, then let’s also consider inviting Corey, Terry, Richard and any other integral thinkers to design this experiment. Because, it is engagement in an Integral Thinking Experiment itself, regardless of any level of cultural understanding, what we may be able to demonstrate as a way to elicit our critical-mass evolution into our next level of civilization.

Kindly,
Jeff


(Durwin Foster) #12

my intention right now is to show up tomorrow at the regular time, for whatever process you want to engage with together at that time. you might also considering sending directly to Ken, with justification for putting the zones as an unfolding spiral.


(Marco V Morelli) #13

My desire for Cosmos is to develop a healthy, stable technological platform, vibrant intellectual culture, and loving, wise community that can generate amazing works of art for the emergent visionary-spiritual (you can call it integral) civilization. We are in the business of radical creativity and collective genius. We are also a place of deep inclusion for people who sincerely want to learn and grow and support each other in this dangerous process.

I have tried to communicate explicitly the “creative urgency” I feel around this project. It is not just economic anxiety, but also existential—I only have so much time to accomplish what’s been given to me to actualize in this life. I believe your theory of value and co-realization model are of great importance, and I wish support you in bringing them into the world for the benefit of the human community.

It sounds like you still to need to perform some experiments, however, to validate the compatibility you perceive between your Holonce model and Ken Wilber’s AQAL model. Personally, I don’t feel aligned with participating in that experiment, although I encourage you to pursue it if it feels like a good move for your work. What you shared, in our first couple conversations, about your theory of value and corealization process felt like plenty to work with and enough to move forward—next we could articulate our common goals, make some agile plans, roll up our sleeves, and actually co-realize Cosmos.

At this phase, I would prefer to focus the time I have on Thursdays at 12 pm Mountain time (aka “Corealizing Cosmos”) on the process mapping which @care_save presented at our last meeting, as well as developing the most salients items from her Key Docs. I also have various priorities, which I’ve yet to put on the table, and I think her process provides a way of doing so.

Her proposal feels much closer to addressing the creative urgency I feel—especially if we can grow the community which is already taking shape, inviting them to actively help shape Cosmos through the inclusive kind of role creation you quite beautifully, I thought, described in one of our last talks. Let’s work with that concept.

I love the idea that we can open up a process, right here and now, that engages the people who are already attracted to Cosmos (incl. Infinite Conversations, Metapsychosis, A Theory of Everybody, and the other creative projects which are taking root here). I want to build on our momentum—continue to nurture our cultural soil and community garden. Therefore, I prefer to focus the time I have on the communal priorities I feel most attuned with. I wish to work directly on immediate co-realization tasks for Cosmos, such as finally getting our “compost pile” (ideas, suggestions & possibilities —> priorities) out in the open.

I would be glad to review the recording of the IMP experiment with whoever participates in it, and offer my feedback. That may be the best way for me to learn in this situation. And of course, you can use the forum to continue expanding your insights, and I will review that material too. I agree it could be possible for humanity to go beyond our culture wars, and I hope Cosmos can play a role in that evolution.

As the experiment develops, and we see the results, I would be glad to connect with Corey and whoever else gets involved. At the moment, however, I don’t feel ready to jump in. I’ll be on the Zoom tomorrow to reorient around a common agenda.


(Jeffrey Quintero) #14

I would like to find a way to transcend our misunderstandings for the sake of continuing co-realizing our shared-purpose…

Our shared-purpose:

My desire for Cosmos is to develop a healthy, stable technological platform, vibrant intellectual culture, and loving, wise community that can generate amazing works of art for the emergent visionary-spiritual (you can call it integral) civilization. We are in the business of radical creativity and collective genius. We are also a place of deep inclusion for people who sincerely want to learn and grow and support each other in this dangerous process.

Complete alignment with all of this!

I have tried to communicate explicitly the “creative urgency” I feel around this project. It is not just economic anxiety, but also existential—I only have so much time to accomplish what’s been given to me to actualize in this life.

Very important points on which I am also focused …

It is not just economic anxiety, but also existential—I only have so much time to accomplish what’s been given to me to actualize in this life.

For this I am immensely grateful and I more importantly want and need your help…

I believe your theory of value and co-realization model are of great importance, and I wish support you in bringing them into the world for the benefit of the human community.

Here is a complete misinterpretation of my intentions or desires…

It sounds like you still to need to perform some experiments, however, to validate the compatibility you perceive between your Holonce model and Ken Wilber’s AQAL model.

Personally, I don’t feel aligned with participating in that experiment, although I encourage you to pursue it if it feels like a good move for your work.

With the above interpretation I completely understand that you feel this way. My interest is not on the compatibility of the work as a way to gain credit. It is about us, what we are doing here, getting support from his credibility. I could be completely happy to publish this work as anonymous if it makes it more accessible…

Here are the bases for my frustration in not being able to communicate the reality of the CoRealizer Method and Model…

What you shared, in our first couple conversations, about your theory of value and corealization process felt like plenty to work with and enough to move forward—next we could articulate our common goals, make some agile plans, roll up our sleeves, and actually co-realize Cosmos.

Although you do have an understanding of what we have talk about… what I have shared so far is not yet sufficient to really see the much deeper and wider implications for what is actually possible. Not in the next 18 month but in the next three month. Actually possible for us to co-realize at the communal level. Communal as the Human Species not just Cosmos community. That is the big difference I would like to make the case for.

What is next seems you have made the decision about the agenda for today…

What you shared, in our first couple conversations, about your theory of value and corealization process felt like plenty to work with and enough to move forward—next we could articulate our common goals, make some agile plans, roll up our sleeves, and actually co-realize Cosmos.

It also seems you are not open to engaging on the experiment…

I would be glad to review the recording of the IMP experiment with whoever participates in it, and offer my feedback. That may be the best way for me to learn in this situation.

This would be very sad for me. Because, I can see people in these group have the communal consciousness capacity to engage at the level of human species. The reason for way I have feel it has been a blessing to find you. To feel I found my tribe, where I belong…

Please let me know if we could have a Zoom talk about this…Again, so we can find a way to transcend our misunderstandings and continuing co-realizing our shared-purpose…

Kindly,
Jeff


(Marco V Morelli) #15

Hi Jeff, I will be on the Zoom today at 12 pm MDT. If you would like to make the case for this^, let’s do it. I will admit I am skeptical about making a human species level change in 3 months, when it’s hard enough to have three or four people decide what they’re talking about on a conference call. I am not against experiments, but it was beginning to feel like this was getting too complicated and detached from the realities I most care about. We can talk about it today if that would be helpful.


(Durwin Foster) #16

and @JeffreyQ1 what I see is a difference in style for each of you, shared with full appreciation knowing you guys for several years as friends and colleagues, and owning my own style. As illustrated by this diagram on integral politics, developed by Gregory Wilpert and used again in O’Doherty’s work.dimensions_of_ideology2 . I see Jeff’s desire for a big system that designates roles for everyone to have a little bit of “socialism” in it; and i see Marco as having anarchic tendencies – which he owns and it pretty up front about. For me, I tend towards the lower-left, wanting to associate with an ideal group of idealists. Yeah, fascism pretty bad. All these partial systems, anarchism, fascism, libertarianism and socialism, are forms of quadrant absolutism, and thus are problematic. But we are certainly allowed to have a political style as long as we don’t try to make it an absolute.


(Caroline Savery) #17

Here is the comments generated in the chat sidebar of the Zoom video while it was happening. “Me” here is obviously yours truly… :wink:

From Me to Everyone: 12:20 PM
I’m interested in watching this video, Jeff–would you share the link or file, please?
that feedback loop between communal and self -actualization is so important and i love that you want to illustrate it in detail!!
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 12:22 PM
it is here, but behind paywall: https://integrallife.com/how-to-think-integrally/
not sure where to find it for free right now
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 12:47 PM
Adam Jacoby is involved in esports…he might have some interest in what a gamified selfdevelopment platform would be
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 12:57 PM
learning Kumu right now and studying the systems practice guide
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:07 PM
thanks, caroline — i’m stretching into your level of systems design work!
Kasatu working on search – David Raino and co.
From Me to Everyone: 01:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-ULbQmmF8 Level Up
From Me to Everyone: 01:29 PM
this process could generate: products, services, and/or cocreative consensual experiences (e.g. a community going out and doing something at a coordinate time and space for the sake of itself).
“the shift from outside in to inside out” discipline for community harmonics… YESSSSSS love this wording & concept for what Cosmos is hoping to potentiate with its focus on design patterns/code for social-cultural systems
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:32 PM
fearlessness :slight_smile:
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:39 PM
http://www.collectiveone.org/#/landing
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:44 PM
i think caroline did one
From Me to Everyone: 01:44 PM
Business Model Canvas
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:44 PM
how can we capture the side chat…
is that included in the recording?
From Me to Everyone: 01:46 PM
i also like the idea of using a canvas as a table of contents, that can link out/merge with key docs contents.
the chat is NOT rincluded in the video, so we’ll need to caputre it separately.
maybe i can copy and paste and put it as a comment in this IC thread?
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:46 PM
that sounds good
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:53 PM
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-jones-b1817220/?originalSubdomain=ca


(Caroline Savery) #18

@madrush @DurwinFoster @JeffreyQ1 – In lieu of a formal project management tool & space, I’ve attempted to capture tangible to-dos outcoming from our meeting. Please fill in any gaps you see! Here’s to some collective accountability :wink: a key ingredient for praxis (beyond just thought/talk) to emerge!

Next steps:

Friday 9/21: C to work on process map visual that was presented in 9/13 meeting. To send to Jeff for a later conversation about overlapping this process and the Corealizer process - and then to move into an experiment testing it, “for which we could get funding”
C+J to meet to review the business model canvas and explore the platform canvas template that J has.

Monday 9/24:
C + J to meet on Zoom (recording it too perhaps) to explore merging/transitioning content to the platform canvas.

Thursday 9/27:
M, D, J and any other members who are interested use the ritual Thursday meetup to dive into the contents of the business and/or platform model canvas. Generating lots of feedback.

The next meeting (proposed for the next Thursday one, October 4), Caroline would return (along with anyone else wanting to be involved and M, D, J) to review and engage with all the feedback, undertake collective editing/refining as appropriate, but with a real focus on gleaning notes of the most electric bits of content and ways of saying what Cosmos is all about to be plugged into outreach collateral. Next step on the horizon: developing a communications “process template” for outreach and recruitment of partners/members wrt Cosmos that is transparent, trackable, etc.

Loose ends:

  • Who is willing to promote the opportunity to engage with the model canvases on 9/27 to the members?

(Durwin Foster) #19

returning to Cosmos tomorrow, where my David Allen “Weekly review” calendar entry has been replaced by “Cosmos”!


(Jeffrey Quintero) #20

Caroline ,

Here is the link to our Zoom conversation

TIME STAMP
At min 1:38
It starts with Durwin sharing about the way he feels we can balance the values of Self-Actualization and Co-Realization

At min 1:39
Caroline articulates the point of …“what happens when the self becomes global… it dissolves…”

Then today we agree that what dissolves is the entire self but the “false self”

What I hope to show is how the CoRealizer Framework represents this way of integrating self-actualization and co-realization. By evolving our sense of self into the Holonic Self-View while including and transcending the sense of Particular Self. This shift enables a much higher communal consciousness capacity for enacting transcendental intentionality for reaching shared-understandings on what is our most ideal-possible .


(Marco V Morelli) #21

Hi everyone, I posted the video of our talk above, and also created a topic for a weekly/ongoing agenda for these meetings, which I’ve pinned at the top of the #co-op:workspace channel. Let’s use this to keep track of our progress:

https://www.infiniteconversations.com/t/corealizing-cosmos-weekly-meeting-agenda/2469

Please help me keep the information current.


Regarding our talk yesterday, I just want to say to @JeffreyQ1 that I’m sorry for belaboring the distinction between a “paradigm” and “model”—and you can use those terms however you want to. Unfortunately, in trying to explain what I was talking about, I left out another important term, which is “belief system.” I think we make slightly different cognitive commitments and engage our praxis differently depending on whether we’re working with a “model,” a “paradigm,” or a “belief system,” and my best explanation for my reaction is that I felt you are asking for one thing when you really meant another.

Wilber’s thoughts on “paradigms,” which I represented very incompletely, can be found in his (unfinished) Kosmos Trilogy, volume 2, Excerpt A: http://www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/ExcerptA_KOSMOS_2003.pdf —and is based on his reading of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where the concept of the “paradigm shift” first appears.

Here is the relevant section...

Paradigms

The way Kuhn used the term “paradigm,” of course, has been badly misunderstood by the public and by most critics and appropriators of the term, who incorrectly use it to mean some sort of theory or super theory. Fritjof Capra, Stan Grof, Duane Elgin, Richard Tarnas, Charlene Spretnak—the list is virtually endless—would say that a new holistic or ecological theory should replace the old atomistic, Newtonian-Cartesian worldview, and that would be a new paradigm. But that typically incorrect use has Kuhn exactly backward. “Paradigm,” for Kuhn, does not mean the theory or the superstructure, but the base or social practice. Paradigm is an almost exact equivalent of techno-economic base, social practice, behavioral injunction, or exemplar.

That is, a paradigm is a set of social practices and behavioral exemplars—specific types of experiments, for example, that generate a specific set of data or factual occasions. A paradigm, exemplar, or injunction brings forth, enacts, and illumines a particular set of phenomena, data, experiences, or apprehensions. (This is why my own broad theory of good science has three major strands: injunction or paradigm, enacted data or apprehensions, and confirmation/rejection. The first strand was modeled to take account of Kuhn’s important work, while setting it in a larger context of phenomenology, falsifiability, and other equally important if partial factors.)

Thus a paradigm, as Kuhn used it, might be a particular set of experiments that produce X-rays. These experiments, injunctions, or social practices (the Lower Right) becomes the models or exemplars of how good science in that field is to be done. Other scientists use and model those exemplary practices to produce (enact and bring forth) more data, phenomena, or factual occasions. And—almost exactly as in Marx (because they were both onto the AQAL nature of this thing)—around this base or paradigm (LR) grow various superstructures, theories, or worldviews (LL) that are molded and determined by the base.

Thus, for example, around an entire set of physical experiments and paradigms had grown the entire edifice of Newtonian physics theory. That is, around the LR base of technological production grew LL theories and worldviews. Or again, around the LR base of data production and injunctive paradigms (which enact and bring forth various types of data, experiences, and phenomena) grew various LL theories, superstructures, and worldviews that attempted to explain the factually enacted data. The base or paradigm helps determine the consciousness of the scientists in this regard (just as the techno-economic base helps determine the consciousness of individual in any society—although, again, for us it is an AQAL affair that does not privilege any single quadrant, level, line, or state). As we saw with Marx, the essential point is that third-person materialities have a profound effect on first- and second-person realities.

This arrangement—which is Kuhn’s “normal science”—works well as long as the data generated by the paradigm continues to fit within the prevailing worldview. The Newtonian theory, for instance, worked very well for a very long time to explain all of the data that had been generated to date. With a few exceptions… such as black body radiation. That is, as more and more sophisticated experiments were invented, new data were generated that could not in any way be explained by the old theories. Thus, the base of technological production—the new paradigm—was generating experiences that could not be accounted for by the old theories. The new base needed a new worldview, and thus science was set for yet another “revolution,” or dramatic change in worldview to account for the progressive increase in depth of the new paradigm demanding an increase in depth in a new theory.

And yes, this was scientific progress, as Kuhn made very clear (“I am a firm believer in scientific progress”), again showing his (correct, I believe) agreement with Marx in this essential regard (namely, there is a progressive Eros to the sequence, or else “revolutions” are not really revolutionary but are merely the old cyclical going nowhere).

Of course, virtually all of today’s “new paradigm” theorists—including all of the authors just mentioned, and literally hundreds of others—claimed that they had a new paradigm, when in fact they had no such thing. All they had was a new theory, not a new base, not a new set of injunctions to generate new data, not a new exemplar at all. The wildly popular version of “paradigm” had the cart before the horse, and simply presented a new theory with no new paradigms at all—that is, the “new paradigms” were entirely a boomeritis version of Kuhn’s important research (see Boomeritis, chap. 8).

Whenever a new (and real) paradigm enacts and brings forth new data, the old worldviews and theories are thrown into a crisis that can only be resolved by a progressive increase in depth to keep pace with the increase in depth in the new paradigm or techno- productive base. Whether this crisis (or paradigm clash—which means, clash between various technological forces of data production, or a clash between the types of experiments and exemplars that will be taken as producing the most significant data)—whether this crisis is resolved through overt revolution or quieter reform (see below), the results are the same: an increase in depth in both Lower Right and Lower Left (and therefore Upper Right and Upper Left for all those involved). In short, all four selection pressures in AQAL space swing into play and conspire to move Eros yet another notch forward in the Kosmic game. (This does not mean that all progress is sweetness and light; as we will see below, new progress and new pathologies often go hand in hand, but that fact in itself is not enough to deny the aspects of development that can and do represent genuine and progressive increases in depth.)

But let us immediately note that a paradigm clash is actually a small subset of a much larger and more important phenomena, so let us move forward to that larger discussion.

The reason I brought it up is because, to be honest, I see little that’s new or revolutionary in the “How to think Integrally” material—at a paradigmatic level, according to Ken’s own theory—and I also believe that how we’re enacting Cosmos is already beyond the kind of “thinking” being described by the video. I’d be glad to have a dedicated conversation on this topic and offer my criticisms in the spirit of intellectual transparency, as long as it doesn’t distract from our main agenda.

But your sudden proposal, as I understood it, that we first must do AQAL meta-theory in order to experience your promised insights triggered an “immune reaction” in me. I wouldn’t just call it an “allergy;” I believe the master intellectual framework-teacher/guru-centric paradigm (exemplified by the video) is exactly the wrong thing for Cosmos, and so my ‘system’ attacked it. Nothing personal with you. But if you offer me the experience of ‘awareness expansion’ and ‘mindset transformation,’ then I want to hear what YOU have to say…I’m interested in YOUR slice of genius—and OUR value, those who are actually showing up in Cosmos. I enjoy discussing meta-theory, and would be happy to discuss any aspect of Wilber’s integral theory in a reading group someday, but my top priority right now is co-realizing Cosmos—and WE are Cosmos. I hope that makes sense.

But what that also means is that, when you wrote above, regarding Wilber—

My interest is not on the compatibility of the work as a way to gain credit. It is about us, what we are doing here, getting support from his credibility.

—this again, is exactly the support my system rejects, because I don’t believe it’s healthy for our culture. There are many reasons for this, which it would be a huge detour to discuss. But I believe our credibility must come from the integrity of our own practices and productions—from our own ‘paradigms,’ if you will, which can reference and incorporate any number of ‘models,’ including AQAL; our belief systems and ‘ways of thinking’ are another matter.

I will refrain from further belaboring this point, but it’s an important one to me.

All that said: I loved where the conversation ended up.…so I’m glad we’re moving forward, onward, and upward. But I wanted to address my ‘resistance’ to your proposed experiment because it wasn’t coming from nowhere. I appreciate that we were able to mostly talk it through during our session together. I just a had a few loose ends to add to the discussion. Thanks for your care and attention to our process. I look forward to meeting again next week.


(Durwin Foster) #22

this is an assessment of depth, and yet, Cosmos is seemingly rejecting developmental models. So, i would say we are right on the juncture where we could go beyond the kind of thinking that Ken describes, but we haven’t done so yet, because we haven’t transcended identity politics as a collective. I’m hopeful we will make it :). I haven’t checked it out in depth yet, but I did see this book:

Integral Pluralism, by Fred Dallmayr. A possible reading club title?
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/1399

If anyone could remind me how to get that link to show up as a nice visual, I would appreciate it?!