I Am an Elitist.


I would like to thank Brian's comment (below) for his many agreements for commonality in perspectives.  However, to achieve this, I was forced to bracket off many highly questionable and loaded term using quotation marks ("..") to indicate that while I am basically in agreement with the statements below (given enough translation (in brackets [..]) and qualifications with my relatively more "elitist" perspective to make exceptions for myself whenever necessary), this user takes no responsibility for Brian's personal choice of terms in quotation marks (".."), which are not opinions shared by this person.  Conversely, the brackets ([..]) denote my translations and commentary so are likely to not reflect the opinion of Brian, but are offered for sake of commonality in perspectives or lack thereof.


Commonalities in perspectives:

  1. President Obama is supporting what "I" want [that is, President Obama, generally speaking, is supportive of meaningful policy action to address anthropogenic global climate change (albeit more passively by way of congressional approval and administrative appointments than proactively by executive order or dictatorial-style)];
  2. "Quality-controlled" and "quantisized" [sic] scientific advisors [e.g., carefully screened and highly-qualified leading scientific advisors] have been appointed into the cabinet;
  3. "Quality-controlled" and "quantisized" [sic] independent climate scientists [that is to say, carefully-screened, peer-reviewed, and highly-qualified, leading, and independent mainstream climate scientists] are being heard by the administration [after 8 years of scientific suppression];
  4. Brian wishes that "the other side" of the "Global" story "could" be told, too [that is to say, even after 8 years of
    "the other side" being told as a story and setting U.S. political agenda, Brian wishes that "no policy" action could continue to be told and sold, that the "Power Elite" may be exposed and that exotic new physics and other fringe and out-of-mainstream scientific arguments could be told to the American public, which he believes would overturn the mainstream scientific consensus on human-caused global warming)
  5. I am an elitist (e.g., I believe in value hierarchies (degrees of quality) and agree with the scientific consensus on global climate change);
  6. If you see suffering as happening from without [exclusively], your [sic] in a subtle reduction pattern;
  7. If you see suffering as an issue of human consciousness, then the idea of "you and nature and Nature can get to NATURE" "can" [may] solve the [climate change] problem [the source of suffering can be internal, external, or both--but not just "one" at the exclusion of the "other" (as this is first tier mental-rational either/or exclusionary thinking).]
  8. There is not an integral science [e.g., science is inherently an objective quadrant understanding of empirical right-hand knowledge and data (as it should be, without which it loses its objectivity and becomes subjective and degrades into a pseudo-science instead), yet can be integrated into an overall Integral framework];
  9. Plasma Cosmology is excluded from Integral Ecology [as it should be, as it is not an essential methodology to be considered for the study of an Integral ecology];
  10. A big weakness in Teal is that it can screen, evaluate, and often diagnose a disease but isn't [necessarily] able to provide  effective prescriptives, solutions, or cures;
  11. The domains of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful [and all manifest phenomena] arise out of an ever-present origin [pre-temporal, pre-spatial, undifferentiated wholeness, which is ever-present];
  12. Integral can separate phenomena into domains but does not have the logic to know how they interrelate or work together [that is to say, Integral does not yet have the logic of God to understand how all events and different parts since the Time of Eternity prior to the Creation and on up to the present moment in time interrelate, interact, and work together.];
  13. Integral can separate phenomena into domains but does not have the logic to know how they interrelate or work together [that is to say, Integral Ecology's treatment of climate change appears to be an exercise of pigeon-holing items onto an Integral map for the mere sake of categorization or for forwarding some counter-philosophy to deep ecology or other forms of environmentalism and calling it an "integral ecology," with no real solutions.  An integral map isn't necessarily "Integral" in and of itself; it's what you do with the maps and tools of Integral that makes the approach "Integral."  However, since most at orange or green are predominantly spatially-oriented and categorical in nature, such tools can actually reinforce first-tier formulaic solutions based on the compartmentalizing of knowledge into various categorical systems which differentiate, but don't necessarily inform nor form an integrum when they are used inappropriately, understood inadequately, or are used as a formula to replace the actual knowledge of the methodologies that they are representing or mapping.  Anyone at orange and above, after all, can read Ken Wilber and take from it whatever they can, and can furthermore read and understand the basic skeletal structure of the quadrants.  So it's not the quadrants or tools themselves that are "Integral" but how these tools and maps are arationally utilized to assist in forming an integrum or perception of the whole that is Integral.]
  14. Integral turquoise and third teir [sic] are solution makers and "everyone else is a bunch of adolescent whiners" [that is to say, Brian thinks that he is third tier and a solution maker, but not an adolescent whiner].
  15. Integral Ecology is a big let-down. [I haven't read the entire book to offer a perspective on that but thus far, in terms of its Integral analysis of climate change, it certainly is.]

Lack of shared commonalities:

  1. Obama is going with what "I" want. Its [sic] a go. "I" win. [Hold up, Kemosabe.  "I" didn't "win" anything.   Climate change legislation is not a game (unless it's Russian Roulette).  In which case a bet for meaningful policy action can be said to mean that the whole world "wins." Conversely, a bet for ineffective or no policy action is very likely to mean that the whole world "loses."  Thus far, the world is "losing" in large measure due to no policy action in the United States, whose cooperation as a player (or lack thereof) in this global game of Russian Roulette may determine the outcome of this "game" for everyone by opting out as a player or by playing noncommittally as a mere symbolic gesture or as token player and setting bad examples for developing countries.  As it stands, United States is the only developed country remaining in the world that is still opting out.  At any rate, it's not up to Obama but more so up to Congress, who rely on their respective constituents from their states and localities to influence their vote on policies to pass meaningful legislation.  No policy on climate change legislation has yet to be passed, although the EPA announced that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.  This serves as a "warning" to put on the labels of greenhouse emissions (like cigarette packaging) but is not necessarily enforceable as a ban on smoking or fossil-fuel burning and consumption.  So not exactly legislation, regulation, or a ban on rising CO2 and other human, agricultural, or industrial greenhouse gases.];
  2. I am an "eco-fascist" for the "global elite" and I sound like a "control freak" to Brian. [note: Brian evidently has issues with authority and control and appears to be in constant fear of control by the so-called "Global elite."  This is more a psychological issue than an ecological one so is beyond the scope of this commentary, although I do admit that I'm an elitist (so sue me).  An elitist is anyone who appreciates superior quality and value over mediocrity or numeric quantity and acknowledges the existence of value hierarchies.  "Global elite," as used by Brian, is in reference to a dominator hierarchy and is an imagined conspiracy theory in some people's heads.  "Eco-fascist" and "control freak" are likewise in reference to dominator hierarchies.  More often, they are a part of a larger conspiracy imagined by the far right.  Generally speaking, those who use such terms do not understand the difference between value hierarchies and dominator hierarchies.   As such they subscribe to mediocrity and conspiracy theories: so I do not share Brian's philosophy in that senseIf the person is Integral and still uses the term "eco-fascist," s/he acknowledges value hierarchies but is more interested in ecology from a social science, ideological, MGM, cultural, historical, or philosophical standpoint than from the perspective of present-day global ecological concerns, i.e. global climate change.]
  3. "Quality-controlled" and "quantisized" [sic] scientists and scientific advisors have been appointed into the cabinet and/or heard [there are no "quality-controlled" or "quantized" humans, which suggests that these scientists are mass-produced products of consumption from factories or are otherwise mindless automata that are under the control and command of an imagined dominator hierarchy, i.e., "Power Elite" or "Global Elite"];
  4. An Integral ecology must have also an integral economy and an integral politics. [Not true: just a meaningful way to apply Ken Wilber's (and other significant integral theorists') important contributions and tools to an Integral ecology in a manner that addresses climate change solutions and other ecological concerns meaningfully.  That is to say, it is focused on solutions for present-day global ecological concerns.  This means embracing other methodologies as well, including climate science, economy, and politics--which do not necessarily in and of themselves require being at the stage of Integral for an Integral ecologist to integrate these first-tier methodologies meaningfully into an Integral ecology. ]



Brian wrote,

From my perspective you have nothing to worry about. Obama is going with what you want. Its a go. You win. Your qualified, quantisized, quality controlled, scientists are being heard and policy being inacted. I wish the other side of the global story could be told too. I feel the same way that you do about Integral ecology but in relation to geo politics and history.

Your a great eco fascist for the global elite. You won't have to worry about us climate wacks because the elite like your story or you like theirs. You sound like a control freak. Control being the fire for the dialectical mind. This deals with self identity. Do you identify the source of suffering as a event happening to us or suffering is caused by a identity crisis that deals with the foundations of the relative mind. If you see suffering as happening from without your in a subtle reduction pattern and if you see it as an issue of human consciuosness then the idea of you and nature and Nature can get to NATURE which can solve the problem.

How many Integral people are trully Integral Science? None. They do not have a true integral science. My claim is that plasma cosmology is the science for zone 6.

You are pointing out a big weakness in teal integral. It honors the dialectical methologies in each field and points out its partiness and then uses dialectics to balance the conflict between quadrants. How the big three of I/We/It  Good/True/Beautiful domains interelate requires a logic that can deal with time in its eternity or ever present origin. Or trialectics. Not just a seperation into domains but  knowing how they work together. Integral so far has diferentiated the zones but does not have a logic that works in all of them, just respecting the work of the dialecticians in each field. Thus they point out the partialness without showing a SOLUTION. They(Integral teal) know how to make a really good party, but don't make it pick sides. Middle ground is the mantra of teal.

For Integral to actually look at climat change like you want they would also need to have Integral Economics, Integral Politics, not just the bringing everyone to the party but checking to see if the methologies are the methologies they think each field is doing. And like Integral Ecology, Integral Economics and Politcs is very far from being complete. Integral lacks specific knowledge to be effective. Integral turquoise and third teir are solution makers everyone else is a bunch of adolescent whiners. I hope the let down of Integral ecology can serve you to become a problem solver and not a problem promoter