Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Channeling Amber

Last post 06-23-2008, 7:51 PM by schalk. 17 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (18 items)   1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  06-08-2008, 3:57 PM 54872

    Channeling Amber

    I would like to pose a challenge to anyone with an interest.

    I just received an email that contained what I believe is a very lucid and condensed picture of the Amber Republican in America today. This is the hypothetical person who, in one permutation or another, is on our streets in greater numbers than we like to believe.  

    Please don't just laugh at it. Look at it closely and help me: 1 identify from an Integral perspective what is wrong with it. 2. Specifically, what you would say to the author of this in order to get her or him to an Orange level.

     
     


    WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
    '
    My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.

    Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is
    complete.

    This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.



    Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short . The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

    The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later
    this evening.

    Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.
    THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER it'll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

    The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

    Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .

    In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home . On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.


    Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China


    I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , Germany , and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon
    ne chance, mezamies.

    I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don 't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world I love New York


    A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

    Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.


    Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.


    We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska- which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.


    It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'darn tootin.'


    Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America It is time to eliminate homelessness in America . To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys We owe you and we won't
    forget.


    To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

    God bless America .. Thank you and good night.
    '

    If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading
    it in English, thank a soldier.

    (Please forward this to at least ten friends and see what happens! Let's get this to every USA computer!)

  •  06-08-2008, 5:47 PM 54877 in reply to 54872

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Hi Schalk,

    In asking "...what you would say to the author of this in order to get her or him to an Orange level"  you seem to suggest that personal vertical transformation is open to persuasion, that someone can be convinced to transcend, that environmental factors can work the inside job of enactment. I don't know that that's the case.

    In asking "...what is wrong with it"  you seem to suggest that an Integral perspective would marginalize or pathologize the author's perspective without allowing it it's partiality of truth, although severly limited as seen from an Integral view.

    I don't understand why you called this thread Channeling Amber, unless you're refering to the possiblity to be 'blue about integral' through applying an us vs. them, tier membership ethos, including a less than healthy amber even in one's regard of amber.

    As for the pryamid email, I think it indicates as much interpersonal ego-centricity and magical fantasy base as any broad cliches of amber.

    I'm still a little surprised by your questions. Maybe you'll say more about what you're after here.

    K


    'takes all kinds.
  •  06-08-2008, 6:09 PM 54882 in reply to 54872

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Sidenote:

    I was talking to a guy I went to high school with.

    He was at a bar in Lakewoord, near Fort Lewis in WA State the other night.

    The bar is jammed. This dude came in wearing a camo jacket. He ordered a beer. A soldier with a high and tite haircut approached him and asked, "you in the Army?"

    The guy said, "no."

    The soldier then said, "take the fucking top off."

    Question to Integral participants:

    identify 10 Integral features operating in this scenario.

    Pump Primer:

    1. The jacket, in a cognitive amber level of consciousness, may only be worn by one subject to orders. To violate this bedrock rule is to violate everything that is real.

    What else?

  •  06-08-2008, 10:54 PM 54904 in reply to 54877

    Re: Channeling Amber

    K:

    Persuasion? I don't think I am suggesting you can persuade someone to grow vertically. That term is not anywhere what I am getting at.  

    Are you suggesting we should be careful not to marginalize the views and the consciousness that generates them? I am not sure I even know what marginalize means. There are not a lot of ways to marginalize anyone on a vertical development model anyway.  

    I can certainly allow and respect the consciousness that produced this within its limited domain.

    So, when someone meets me on the street and presents me with the views in the email, I can only smile and say Namaste? (While thinking to myself, I respect the partiality of this truth.)

    That's it? There is nothing useful I can say to them that will inseminate them with orange seeds?

    There are millions of Americans with real lives and real votes who resonate with a mesage like this. And there is nothing that can be said or done that helps them in any way to glimpse Orange perspectives?

    Don't worry about "Channeling Amber" - I use the term in a loose poetic sense to bring into the thread the consciousness of amber.

    Surprised by the questions? Surprised that I would ask them? Surprised that the questions are asked within the context of the email? Surprised that I would entertain the notion that something useful could be said to the author of the email. Not sure what you mean.

     

  •  06-09-2008, 12:42 AM 54909 in reply to 54904

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Hey Schalk,

    I just found something I'd wanted to refer you to. It's from a con-call with David Zietler.

    This being The Seventh %#&* Circle I gather that you're concerned with shadow here.

    David's discussion, linked above, has a few pointers re: shadow/fixation which, I'm betting, you'll appreciate.

    In my first response to you here I was accessing a memory of some of that call, so I'm glad to have dug up the reference. His emphasis (shared w/Kegan) on re-translation in particular and the points regarding hearing seem relevant to you're kick off of this discussion.

    cheers, %#$&*%  ; )

    K

    edit: finding that the link didn't link, here's the URL: http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/forums/permalink/18509/18478/ShowThread.aspx


    'takes all kinds.
  •  06-09-2008, 9:37 AM 54925 in reply to 54909

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Before I go down that road, is it possible for you to summarize the relevance of Zietler's talk to this?

    Is this relevant to my shadow fixation or the shadow fixation of the author of the email, or both or neither?

    I have complete respect for your lineage Kerry and always find your pointings to be from a high altitude. But I want to ensure that we are not examining the examiner here.

    That seems to be a trend in some quarters. "I would like to talk about X. Oh, really? Why do you really want to talk about X? Tell me about your mother first... That kind of thing." I regard it as "insidious" in the strict definition of the term - a type of "ambushing from the inside."

    What is this inside? The assumption I make that an issue can be mutually discussed from a 3rd person perspective and having it turned around to an issue that includes my 1st person perspective.  

    Isn't there some rule somewhere that questions and issues should be met at their own level of framing, rather than re-framing them to include the genealogy of why the questions and issues were even raised?

    Not saying you are doing that, am awaiting your response. But am wondering if you are doing that.

  •  06-09-2008, 10:23 PM 54988 in reply to 54904

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Schalk,

    I was unable to reconcile your 

    "That's it? There is nothing useful I can say to them that will inseminate them with orange seeds?" 

    with Zietler's "Can’t overemphasize being respectful of another’s level, not wanting to transform them. The desire indicates your distortion, contraction, projection, but realize we’re pretty much projecting a bit all the time..." and his, "Transformation is not the most important thing for the planet – healthy re-translations – e.g. translate amber fully not transform into orange."

    Also it's been difficult for me to accept the sentiments of that email as characteristic of 'American Republicans'.

    Yet, as you've asked, there aught to be ways of engaging the We with even the most rabid amber.

    David did offer some insights into the amber/orange divide, which, to me, suggest what we can keep in mind while relating to folks who might be ready to leave the black&white flat of con-op behind. 

    From the con-call:

    "Amber-exit. Highlight: competing commitments

    This person might be disgusted that they are not the same person in all contexts.

    They are seeing contradictions for the first time.

    Children (and adults) will normally try to bend reality so as to maintain their emotional investments.


    This helps the emerging Orange self gain a foothold.

    What we see here is an enduring self concept.


    Greater complexity creates an emotional charge – b/c we are pushing away from our selves.


    Sub-personalities sometimes serve to push awareness away.


    When we begin to enter a new sub-phase we start to feel disgusted with ourselves. "

     

    A means of setting up context for translation is also mentioned in the call.  i.e., "Great way to aid your transformation is to find someone who is half a stage above you (Kegan). Your higher cognition is matching their current translations. You have an opportunity to morphically resonate with them if you enter into a kind of second person phase with them. They are helping you translate from a higher perspective."

    So, it might be that we can more effectivly approach a person 'where they're at' from a (performative) close half-step away, developmentally, than from say, a complete v-meme or two away. Maybe truces in Culture War-time are more likely upheld at the close range of the engaged We than in the remote bunkers of armchair blogging, and pyramid emailing.

    The con-call addressed that too in the transformational value of being in each other's presence.

    "The self creates the psychic space to create at a higher level. How translations are made when someone is in the presence of a mentor. An energetic presence Wilber V model gives us a therapeutic way of understanding this process."

    There's certainly plenty to say which can help, and it seems that the face-to-face occasion holds the best chance for thorough communication, let alone effecting growth.

    all for now,

    K 


    'takes all kinds.
  •  06-10-2008, 12:01 AM 54992 in reply to 54988

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Kerry:

    My words are red...

    You shared: From the con-call:

    "Amber-exit. Highlight: competing commitments (yes, this is good! The labor pains are starting here.)

    This person might be disgusted that they are not the same person in all contexts. (emerging identities/unable to reconcile, I can see this)

    They are seeing contradictions for the first time. (yes, the center on their amber world view is not holding anymore...)

    Children (and adults) will normally try to bend reality so as to maintain their emotional investments. (yes, one finds that more and more tortured explanations are required to account for truth and I might add that at a point one starts hearing people just like oneself and thinking "this doesn't sound good. Is this how I sound?")

    This helps the emerging Orange self gain a foothold.

    What we see here is an enduring self concept. (yes, self begins to transcend ethno-identity)


    Greater complexity creates an emotional charge – b/c we are pushing away from our selves. (confusion and uncertainty create an emotional charge too)

    Sub-personalities sometimes serve to push awareness away.

    When we begin to enter a new sub-phase we start to feel disgusted with ourselves.

    A means of setting up context for translation is also mentioned in the call.  i.e., "Great way to aid your transformation is to find someone who is half a stage above you (Kegan). Your higher cognition is matching their current translations. You have an opportunity to morphically resonate with them if you enter into a kind of second person phase with them. They are helping you translate from a higher perspective."

    So, it might be that we can more effectivly approach a person 'where they're at' from a (performative) close half-step away, developmentally, than from say, a complete v-meme or two away. Maybe truces in Culture War-time are more likely upheld at the close range of the engaged We than in the remote bunkers of armchair blogging, and pyramid emailing.

    The con-call addressed that too in the transformational value of being in each other's presence.

    "The self creates the psychic space to create at a higher level. How translations are made when someone is in the presence of a mentor. An energetic presence Wilber V model gives us a therapeutic way of understanding this process."

    There's certainly plenty to say which can help, and it seems that the face-to-face occasion holds the best chance for thorough communication, let alone effecting growth.

    In addition to face to face events, couldn't the right views in a movie for example plant orange seeds?

    I know that the David Carradine TV series "Kung Fu" planted a lot of orange seeds in amber minds back in the 70s. The plots essentially showed a Taoist enduring narrow red and amber attacks and acting with courage and tolerance and the red and amber was shown either to be ignorant or transformed.

    In my experience, I have seen people move from very narrow amber to orange (that is, from a very ethnocentric outlook to an "open to worldcentric" without applying it in all areas. And it comes from events that, like you suggest, require them to join in a common endeavor or face to face occasion with someone outside their ethnocentric circle. They begin to realize that they have common human reactions and concerns and joys and sorrows and at some point they will hear amber like they used to be say something rude or dismissive of the group they have been rubbing shoulders with and they will defend that group against the narrow ethnocentric attack. You now have the seeds of orange.

    Fairy Faye and I were discussing how to meet an amber fundamentalist.

    Here is what I find to be a good and proper base.

    I start by remembering - everyone knows something I don't know. Like R.A. Wilson once said, "even a member of the KKK knows things about fixing a truck that I don't know."

    Show genuine interest in their views. Ask sincere questions about the terrain they inhabit.

    If it is a belief system, try to learn as much as possible about what they believe. Don't put them on with questions just for the sake of questioning, but ask bona fide questions that you really need answers to. Trust your instincts to ask the right next question. 

    The spontaneous act of framing the questions and listening and guiding the discussion will be a de facto demonstration of your level. The very act of sharing your questions will show them your level of consciousness.

    It will be apparent to them who you are. It may be the first time they have ever had an intelligent discussion with anyone about their beliefs. Your intelligence and compassion in exchanging mind and heart will be evident to them. It may cause them to wonder why you are capable of asking intelligent questions.

    At no time should you debate or dispute or argue or attack - that will simply cause them to be defensive.

    I think of the injunction above about finding the person 1/2 step up the ladder. I think that, in fact, anyone who is developed beyond amber is capable of meeting amber, showing a sincere interest in amber, and shining onto amber the intelligence and greater wisdom that resides right up the ladder next to them. Indigo and turquoise can show orange to amber. And it comes in the very self-same act of performative inquiry, without motive other than to manifest the universe as it is. One simply does what the universe wants to do and that is manifest. The nature will be self-evident.

    Thanks for some good promptings, K.

  •  06-10-2008, 10:37 AM 55007 in reply to 54872

    Re: Channeling Amber

    I identified with everything that was said in  the email. As angry and violent as it is the end result is movement to take care of ones house first. I would have nothing to say because the anger is the fuel to get those actions done. And their all good. This is about sovreighty(spelling). We all now if you do not have good boundaries in relationships then the organization of relating falls apart. This email is recognizing that the US has become unfocus by spending itself thin around the world and our internal affairs are falling apart. Bring our focus back to home and lets get it in order. All sounds good to me. Anger has its wisdom at times.
  •  06-10-2008, 12:15 PM 55013 in reply to 55007

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Innerline:

    That seems to be a common theme among the amber conservatives I know.

    Relationships need good boundaries. We need simple and clear values that endure at home. Traditional principles endure because they work.

    Values like what? When you help someone and they are grateful and thank you, you help them again. If they bite your hand, you kick them in the head.

    When WWI and WWII erupted in Europe, and the Japanese tried to take over the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (i.e. subjugate Asia in its entirety) whose sons left their homes to fight and die?

    And more specifically, who remembers this and appreciates it? Exactly how is France showing us gratitude for preventing Adolph Hitler from making it Lower Bavaria?

    The US played an enormously important role in keeping the world free from communism. Under communism, it is certain that we would not be accessing this web site right now! Where are the expressions of gratitude for that?

    And on and on.

    And every example leads to a counter example, right? Yeah? And who consumes 75% of the world's raw materials? And who is responsible for supporting dictators in Latin America? And ....

    Who helped the US fight the King of England? France did! Who gave us the Statue of Liberty? France did. On and on. You haven't appreciated me and you say I haven't appreciated you and the idiocy just goes on and on...

    The ethnocentric perspective is totally valid. And it generates equally valid arguments on both sides, from within that perspective!

    From an orange perspective, war is only justified when responding in self defense. Force is only permitted when necessary and proportional to the threat that is imminently presented!

    This rule applies across the board to everyone.

    So, the author of this e-mail is cherry-picking his historical facts, and ignoring every fact that runs counter. And he is not seeing a principle that applies to everyone.

    The key to getting amber to orange is to educate amber about facts that are presented in a worldcentric manner.

    I think there are two kinds of Republicans, in general. Amber Republicans are just uneducated - they do not know enough about history and mankind to generate the kind of doubts and elevation that get you to orange. That have bad facts or partial facts.

    Then there are business Republicans, many of whom are educated. But their education was primarily a technical one, business school, etc. They understand orange but feel that their business interests are better protected in an amber world.

    A small number of Republicans are high orange. They understand the idiocy of amber (I use the term in a literal and loving way). They fully understand the hierarchical superiority of worldcentric thinking. But they are emotionally undeveloped and this allows them to use their knowledge to exploit the amber orange green divide.

    Example: I knew this was coming and I saw the first salvo yesterday. "US and Europe concerned about nuclear proliferation in Iran." From now until November, high orange Republicans are going to prey upon our amber and red fears such that we are grateful for McCain serving as our defender.

    Amber can't come up with the labyrinthine strategies that make these Republican strategies work. It comes from cogntively developed Orange Republicans with emotionally stunted developed. They know what is right but they cannot feel it.

    Back to enthnocentrism.

    Let's look at the world and we can see that every nation is just as guilty as the other. Not Norway! Oh? The Vikings weren't bringing sunflowers down to England were they? Those Norwegians bastards still have blood on their hands!

    The Jews! Money grubbers! (Forget their contributions to science and culture). They've been stealing from us forever!

    Everyone has owned slaves and everyone has subjugated someone else and everyone does something that warrants gratitude and .... you get to the point that you see mankind everywhere instead of US man, and Mexican man, and black and yellow man...

    This is the perspective of orange. A new altitude from which this email generally would not come.

    It's not a question of is it right? The email is right. It is also partially right. And there is another equally right perspective from amber that makes this email wrong.

    And the point is - amber will forever be partially right. And it is not right to destroy the world over partial truths.

    Orange is also partially right. And when you start to look at orange absolute truths and realize "we don't even see the same world in the first place, so how can there be absolute truths?" Now you are getting to green.

    So the problem with the email is not the content. The content is right. The problem is the perspective, the way it even frames the issue. In a word - it is ignorant. Not a nice word, but in a literal sense, it is perfect.

  •  06-10-2008, 2:23 PM 55020 in reply to 55013

    Re: Channeling Amber

    On the subject of amber and war ...

    One of the realities of warfare that many people don't properly appreciate is that the US/UK/allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan adhere very closely to orange values and rules for warfare.

    The ones they are fighting adhere to red and amber values.

    Big discrepancy.

    We have very specific rules promulgated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff which set out  when you can use force, how much you can use, what targets you must avoid using force against, etc. They are called the Rules of Engagement. They generally accord with International customary law on war but also contain additional limitations that provide even greater protection than international law requires. 

    The Rules are very very specific and require massive amounts of intelligence gathering to determine the proper targets.

    A soldier or Marine on the streets of Fallujah is bound by an entire set of limiting rules that the guy planting IEDs (improvised explosive devices) does not even recognize.

    And our military commanders are extremely rigorous in training and re-training our troops on how to abide by these rules.

    And when troops violate the rules (yes, some of them slip and operate at the level of the guys planting IEDs) they are generally court-martialed fairly quickly.

    And we love to talk about it (Haditha...) without recognizing the enormous amount of discipline it takes to not throw off the shackles and fight like the enemy.  

    Pattye made reference to the "shock and awe" campaign. Sounds pretty arrogant doesn't it?

    If you know anything about military strategy, then you know that shock and awe is a specific strategy which involves using overwhelming force to cause the enemy to submit in short order, thereby preventing the senseless loss of lives over a protracted battle. Believe it or not, shock and awe is the most humanitarian strategy in war, when it succeeds. In this case, it did not succeed. We miscalculated the depth of the resistance.

    And if you have not seen it, then you cannot appreciate just how tortuous a path we go through to determine proper targets and to avoid hitting innocents or buildings that are not being used by combatants. The military prosecution of Shock and Awe is nearly the equivalent of driving down the road and trying to avoid hitting mosquitoes with your windshied. And largely succeeding at it!

    So, let's get real about what is going on.

    I was talking to a friend in Spain the other day who just came back from Iraq. Let me share the reality from the viewpoint of US/UK/allied personnel. The country is a series of sectors. It makes no sense to even talk about Iraq as a country right now. Many of them are under control. Some of them are out of control. We hear about the ones that are out of control.

    In Baghdad, it comes down to neighborhoods. Many of them are secure. Lots of them are still out of control. Control is defined as consistent manifestation of adherence to law (no killing people, no looting, etc.)

    So, the point is: what the troops are doing is very specific and focused. They have been given a mission by superior authority. The mission does not shock the conscience such that they have the moral obligation to disobey it (e.g. genocide, janjaweed commander orders to wipe out a village, etc.). And they are adhering to very solid orange values about warfare, and risking their lives while confronted with an opponent who is not playing by the same level of values. The opponent we know right now - if given a Samsonite suitcase contained a nuclear weapon, would use that weapon tomorrow. This is the discrepancy.

    And the correlation applies to the altitude of goverance as well. We are giving the people the first taste of orange governance that they have ever had in their lives! At no time in recent history has orange been so massively spread among red and amber groups as from 2003 to the present in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, we can return Afghanistan to the Taliban and Iraq to Saddam's spiritual brother, whoever he is out there. And orange elements will be gone.

    This is the true meaning of the "war."  It is an attempt to apply orange values to what is largely a red and amber population. And it is succeeding slowly. But you would never know it from what you see on TV.

    A very ethnocentric viewpoint! And so is the recognition that everyone lying dead in graves from mustard gas poisoning is a Kurd. The war is meeting the issues within their own context and introducing the next level up. A classic case of applied Integral.

     

  •  06-11-2008, 11:04 AM 55097 in reply to 55020

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Eek! Reading this thread is like taking hot and cold showers in turns. Schalk, you are riding the rodeo horse quite well in my opinion.

    I have a question: You seem to think that an orange war is somehow "better" or more humane than an amber or red war. Could you say more about that?

    Hm. While editing, I realize that this is a green argument. But since we are in 7th circle, let me play the mean green demon, or advocatus diavoli, for you. If you allow, that is.

    Best,

    witz

  •  06-11-2008, 1:15 PM 55111 in reply to 55097

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Witz:

    An excellent metaphor.

    Hot and cold showers. Male and female. Light and dark. Up and down. In and out. Conflict and peace. Yang and Yin and the eternal dance of pairs.

    Is war one of the poles? Or, is it a pathology of one healthy natural element of the dyad? I think this is a wonderful topic to explore if anyone has thoughts.  

    It is very important at this point to be clear what we are answering when we discuss whether "orange war" is more "humane" than "amber war."

    I am not going to talk about the propriety of war or the possibility of an absence of conflict in the world (gross, subtle, causal or any other plane). That is more than I can speak on intelligently.

    But let's hypothetically assume - there is armed conflict, for whatever reason and to whatever degree it is justified. Just take the fact as a fact. And God knows - it has been a fact since forever, right? And the situation is not likely to change in the immediate future. Somewhere for whatever reason, some other group will attack some other group within our lifetimes.  

    There are ways of prosecuting a war that are based upon red and amber levels of consciousness and there are ways that are based on orange consciousness.

    The issue of the "humanity of the means chosen to prosecute the war" is relevant.

    Red warfare is what you see in gang battles which essentially are free floating contests of individual survival.

    I was reading the book Monster the other day by Ray Charles' nephew who was a hard core gang banger in LA. I realized that there was a notion of belonging to a gang (amber/tribal) but even more primary was the notion that "I" as an individual am facing the world and must either be ready to kill or be killed.

    So that is red, right? Any means is appropriate as long as I end up surviving. Drive by shootings that kill innocent people are an acceptable means in gang warfare.

    Amber warfare is tribal - Hutus and Tutsis, Janjaweed, Taliban, Al Q, etc. There is greater fidelity to the commands of the tribal leader. Gang leaders do not respect and obey the orders of gang heads as much as Al Q soldiers respect and obey the orders of their superiors.

    Also, there is greater complexity in their ideology and higher order of values and emotions, but in the end, any means is still appropriate in the prosecution. That is why I feel that Al Q would use a nuclear device if they had one. No matter who it kills or how much collateral damage is inflicted.

    Orange warfare begins to factor in collateral damage and will refrain from use of force where the amount and focus of the force cannot be expected to "surgically" accomplish a "proper end" (i.e. killing the enemy without unreasonable amounts of collateral damage.) What is proper is defined by rules that are expected to be applicable to all of mankind.

    And the nature of the force is constrained by rules too. No matter how badly the enemy wants to kill us, we cannot torture the enemy. (This is the rule, please don't ask me how it is applied in the context of getting intelligence from terrorists in Guantanamo prison...)

    We cannot target an entire segment of the world's population based upon their ethnicity (Hutus killing all Tutsis....) We cannot poison wells used by the people. We must respect important cultural sites unless it is proved by compelling evidence that the enemy is taking refuge within the sites. Etc.

    So now we have a set of "rules" that govern the use of force. And the rules reflect a common understanding by nearly every civilized nation in the world, including Germany, France, the US, etc. The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1949 were specifically concerned with creating a commonly respected set of rules for the use of force and the actions in the aftermath.

    Those who violate those "rules" will be held to answer as war criminals by the world. (E.g. Milosevic, Charles Taylor, et. al. and the International Criminal Court...)

    Orange considers the perspective of those who do not deserve to be harmed. Amber and red generally do not. They are essentially more blind.

    And green? This is where it gets interesting in my opinion. Green by definition can barely accept the legitimacy of any rule that permits the infliction of force. Infliction of force by its very nature is a non-pluralist assessment that there are principles that make force appropriate. Green will of course instinctively defend itself through the use of force when the same is absolutely imminent.

    But beyond that, green will err on the side of permitting events like the World Trade Center to happen again (potentially) so as to not create a precedent that permits everyone to abide by their own rules of when force is necessary (e.g. Bush's theory of the imminence of Iraq's WMD program).

    And green is right too. There is no end to the self-serving interpretations of when force is imminent. And as the weapons grow ever more potent, the green position grows ever more compelling.

    At the same time, when orange consciousness with amber elements of identity is attacked by amber consciousness with red elements of identity it will not hesitate to meet the attack from an amber perspective using orange rules to the best it can.

    Much of the criticism of the US prosecution of the Iraq War has been that the US position does not fully accord with the orange rules that have been agreed upon. And the criticism in my opinion has been correct. Most legal scholars agree that the Bush justification for using force in Iraq is pretty thin. The imminence of the threat from the purported Iraqi WMD simply did not meet that standard that we all thought we had agreed to.

    That is the deep disgust of the world community - that Bush welshed out on an agreed upon promise to abide by an important rule.

    In Bush's mind, he knows this logically. He knows it is thin logic. And he is aware that he has slipped downward and applied amber values (screw the rules, America is under attack or at least it may be tomorrow). It does not bother him. His amber consciousness overrides his orange emergence.

    And one cannot discount the fundamentalist, Biblical (amber) element that makes the prospect of going into "Mesopotamia" even more inviting! It is in a real sense a continuaton of the Crusades. I have often referred to this event as "mythical" for that reason.

    This seems to me to accurately show what is actually going on.

    It sounds odd to say it - but we could really benefit from Integral Warfare theory. I sense that it would make sense out of a lot of the events and discussions that have surrounded this episode in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan.

     

  •  06-12-2008, 8:53 AM 55257 in reply to 55111

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Speaking of leading amber to orange and making him drink...

    This is really important news.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo

    SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) just ruled that detainees held in Guantanamo have rights under the US Constitution to challenge their detentions in US federal courts!

    Recall - the question was - how do you get amber to move to an orange perspective? Here is a four-square example of the answer. You show them how they can benefit specifically and practically from an orange perspective.

    When the detainees hear of the ruling, one of the first things that will be apparent are these:

    a. the "ruling" applies to all of them without regard to their race or religion;

    b. the "ruling" represents a binding "rule" issued by SCOTUS that even POTUS (President of the US) has to follow (at the risk of possibly being impeached - deliberate flouting of SCOTUS is a high crime);

    c. the "ruling" represents a universal application of a principle that is designed to protection everyone now matter how much they may be despised individually;

    d. the "ruling" represents affirmation of an old legal principle called "the writ of habeus corpus" which means that the government must justify to a court the propriety of holding my body or your body in any form of detention;

    e. the "ruling" WOULD NEVER BE POSSIBLE UNDER THE AMBER LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS EMPLOYED IN MOST OF THE NATIONS WHERE THE DETAINEES ARE CITIZENS

    This ruling requires moral courage (a moral principle triumphing over anger or vengeance). This single ruling will play an enormous role in "persuading" amber fundamentalists throughout the Muslim world of the value of orange consciousness. It comes from the immediate level above them and they will get a direct and personal taste of the value of universal laws as well as what is to come in  consciousness evolution.

    A great day...  

  •  06-12-2008, 10:20 AM 55269 in reply to 55257

    Re: Channeling Amber

    Subject: Racism in America

    Such an ugly subject to begin with. It is just viscerally unpleasant.

    I mentioned a long time ago - I deeply suspect that much of the support that Obama expects to be able to rely on will evaporate for a simple reason - racism. It may evaporate next week or it may evaporate within the sanctity of the voting booth in November, but it will evaporate.

    We have to be clear - racism is no longer an issue of racial superiority. Most people are not so concerned about whether their DNA is superior in some abstract sense from another.

    Racism is a practical issue. We can see very clear connections between race and power allocation.

    Today, we hear that Democrats in Mississippi and North Carolina have not yet thrown their support behind Obama. Let's assume they are white Democrats.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080612/pl_politico/11029

    "Rep. Travis Childers, elected just weeks ago in a Mississippi special election, hasn’t endorsed anyone in the presidential race yet. “We have had our head down at work, trying to get our feet on the ground up here,” said Childers’ chief of staff, Brad Morris. “The presidential politics just has not been on our mind.” 

    Is this not a patent case of total b.s.? "Not on our mind?"

    "Rep. Heath Shuler, a freshman Democrat from right-leaning North Carolina, has also been too busy to endorse."

    "Too busy doing what?"

    http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/06/07/2008-06-07_spike_lee_jabs_back_at_clint_eastwood.html

    Old white guy Clint Eastwood is now under attack from Spike Lee for failing to include blacks in a movie.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-nbafinals-notebook061108&prov=ap&type=lgns

    Old white guy Curt Schilling is attacking Kobe Bryant for not being a "leader."

    The balance of power in America is up for grabs. Will old white guys retain their grip on the tools that define culture and value or will a younger generation led by a "black" President take over the center and thereby unleash a tidal wave of cultural reckonings and redresses of old grievances?

    We can talk Integral until the cows come home but this reality of "race" defining a potential shift of cultural and economic and moral power and national identity is at the heart of our consciousness.

    And we are going to hear every code word and dissembling reference and shuffling of the feet from now until election day.

    Our national consciousness will be revolving around:

    *ethnocentric awareness in relation to foreign issues

    *ethnocentric awareness in relation to domestic power and cultural contests

    *gendercentric awareness in relation to domestic and cultural contests

    As Obama's advisor, I will tell him to address every single issue in these terms. We can think about race, and America vs. the World, and men vs. women. And we will all suffer. I promise you that I will not use my Presidency to promote remedies for past racial injustices. I will not fill my cabinet with black Americans. I will not seek to take anything away from US corporate interests. I will not seek to redefine the culture in a way that advances blacks over anyone else.

    He might even identify exactly who he will appoint in his cabinet and exactly the issues he will work to further.

    He can undercut this entire thread by being honest. He would then really be about change. And we would believe it.

    To put it simply: he has to make a binding compact with America to assure white America that his presidency will not lead to disruption in the power status quo due to racial or gender considerations.  

    A white female VP will help, of course.

     

Page 1 of 2 (18 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help