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

ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

Last post 08-24-2007, 6:23 PM by tricia. 30 replies.
Page 2 of 3 (31 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  06-21-2007, 11:10 PM 24749 in reply to 24738

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    fairyfaye:

    what then is the best case scenario for u.s. politics in light of the current situations ??

    Hmmm. Ken Wilber for President?

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  06-22-2007, 2:08 AM 24753 in reply to 24701

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland


    don,

    i'm a little slow in replying--i see the thread has already moved on. this is the third time i've looked at KW's april '03 message on the war in iraq. i saw it when it first came out and again last september (cf. the yahoo group integral_portland.com). i seem to want to forget what it says, e.g. about blair, and then later imagine these are my own thoughts--not sure why.

    the chief difference in our views seems to be what we consider reliable sources. who were the 'credible voices' claiming saddam could in no way be a threat?

    it's somewhat like the current situation with regard to global warming. 'the news hour' did a story tonight on 'state climatologist' george taylor, a professor at oregon state. he says there is not good, scientific evidence that humanity is causing global warming. governor kulongoski is up in arms about this and is taking action to publicize he doesn't speak officially for the state government. who should we believe? for science, the scientist, for politics, the politician, i would suggest.

    ralph

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-22-2007, 1:38 PM 24770 in reply to 24753

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    Hi Ralph,

    The George Taylor thing is interesting. I just read the transcript here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/northwest_06-21.html. He raises some important points highlighting the uncertainty in the current science around global warming. But you know, he is meteorologist by training, not a climatologist. And you also know that the vast majority of climatologists agree that global warming is real, right? So who would you say are the experts Kulongoski and other politicians should be listening to when making public policy? (Really, I don’t mean to be ironic. Who should we listen to?)

    (There is uncertainty in the science of global warming, and I think it is a shame to hear that scientists scoff at Taylor’s ideas, as was stated in the News Hour report. I wonder to what degree that word “scoff” is a journalist’s embellishment. I don’t know the science well enough to judge to what degree the consensus has addressed Taylor’s points, but they don’t seem to be addressed in the public discourse. That’s too bad. There is a set of statistical odds that describe the risk, and various possible causes and outcomes. I think it might actually help everyone get together if the odds were on the table, for all to see.)

    In a way you illustrated my point with the example of George Taylor. Here is a guy speaking up from outside the consensus saying hey, wait a minute, look at this. He’s a trained scientist with a long standing interest in climatology and he doesn’t seem to be a crack pot. Scientific integrity demands that his ideas be seriously considered. Political integrity demands that the results be made part of the public discourse.  

    Similarly, in the time leading up to the Iraq war, there were experts calling into question everything the administration was putting forth as justification for it. Credentialed people, with direct access to the facts, people with no political agendas or ulterior motives, people who were most definitely not crack pots. The question I have been asking is why weren’t these experts heard and/or taken seriously by our elected leaders?

    Hindsight is 20/20, but I’m taking it as a given that the facts have proven those unheard experts right. (Maybe I shouldn’t make that assumption, in you’re view?) The point of my questioning isn’t to find fault (there is enough to go around, everyone should be admitting it, on both sides of the isle) but to understand how we as a nation got ourselves (not to mention Iraq) into this mess. It’s a nightmare, don’t you think?

    Take care,

    Don.

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  06-22-2007, 10:45 PM 24789 in reply to 24770

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    don:
    The point of my questioning isn’t to find fault (there is enough to go around, everyone should be admitting it, on both sides of the isle) but to understand how we as a nation got ourselves (not to mention Iraq) into this mess. It’s a nightmare, don’t you think?


    don, i completely agree, even if i don't always walk my talk. KW, i think, has said on one of the IN interviews that, as i understand it, even he can't see through all the opinionating about global warming. in this case i trust i-i board member michael crichton, who looked into this extensively for his novel 'state of fear' and came to the conclusion, as i understand it, that this is almost all hype, something that scientists inevitably are going to be embarrassed about. by the same token, i think taylor would better serve our state by forgoing the title of 'state climatologist', which has a certain political ring to it, especially when he pubicizes his views.

    i've not followed what kulongoski is doing, but his linking up with the governors of washington, california, arizona and new mexico sounds promising, especially given the disarray of our federal government. 'the news hour's judy woodruff interviewed arnold schwarzenegger tonight. what a surprise! he sounded amazingly integral, using words like inclusion and inclusive, saying how he wanted the republican party to provide a bigger umbrellas that would include not only the right, but embracing even some left of center, that he could sometimes disagree with republicans as well as democrats.

    evidently he was forced to rethink his tough stance towards democrats when he was coming up for reelection in a largely democratic 'caleefornia' that wasn't at all happy with what he had been doing, and failing to do, and he did it in a creative manner that suggests to me it has triggered 2nd tier consciousness and values in him.

    they showed him on stage with NYC mayor michael blumberg and LA mayor villaraigosa. they're all sounding at least a bit more integral than federal politicians. they have essentially a positive message. rather than lambast federal government, they're going ahead and doing the things it seems unable or unwilling to do.

    schwarzenegger explained that sometimes state and local governments can go ahead where the federal government seems unable to, and if their experiment works, then it's easier for the nation as a whole to adopt it. again, this sounds integral to me: it's not a question of whether federal or state or local should take the lead, but that each do what it can according to the circumstances, acknowledging, of course, the powers vested in each of them by the u.s. constitution and the respective state constitutions.

    air pollution, for example, is primarily an urban problem, so it makes sense for cities and densely populated states to take the initiative on something that simply isn't that much of a rural problem. as taylor intimated, global warming is not that big a problem in rural areas. of course, if you stack 7 million people together, consuming energy like typical u.s. americans, as is the case in NYC, then you're going to get an increase in temperature, as well as polluted air.

    back to iraq: i think karl rove, in particular, knew the republican administration could walk right over the divided, spineless democrats. they were planning to go into iraq before bush was even elected, evidently, and 9/11 actually delayed their going ahead with this. recall their consternation that if they delayed anymore, for the u.n. inspection teams, for example, troops might get caught up in the desert storms and heat that follow winter in those parts. and a similar, albeit multilateral, action against the taliban had been surprisingly successful.

    i feel, too, it's a nightmare. general petraeus has said counterinsurgencies typically take about 10 years, but i don't think this is a typical situation, far from it. still, we really can't walk away from this the way we did in vietnam, even though that's what more and more want to do.

    oh! fairyfaye and martine, arnold said caleefornia is also working with other countries and, yes!, canadian provinces.

    ralph

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-23-2007, 11:32 AM 24805 in reply to 24770

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland


    hi don,

    your posts have been really stimulating. some more thoughts:

    i failed to convey, i'm afraid, how 2nd tier schwarzenegger sounded and looked to me. he clearly has a new republican party in mind. keep in mind that his wife is a member of the kennedy clan, a former, national newsperson (?) and a very smart woman. he may have sounded orange to us because he was combating unhealthy green in caleefornia, whereas he was in the process of going beyond green. just a hunch.

    i hope i'm not becoming obsessive about KW. my feeling about this is that i want to learn as much as i possibly can from him while our finite beings are still alive and functioning. in ancient times there were disciples of the great teachers. i'm not sure what the present day equivalent of that would be, but that's what i have in mind.

    in part, i think he's sort of an oracle of boulder for us--something like the ancient oracle of delphi. we're perplexed about what to do about iraq and terrorism and culture wars, and he gives us a cryptic answer that leaves us wondering what we should do, but if we meditate on it sufficiently, we achieve a much better view of things than we previously had.

    take care,

    ralph


    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  06-23-2007, 11:30 PM 24819 in reply to 24805

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    Hi Ralph,

    I've always liked Schwarzenegger, on screen as well as the political persona. Of course, not living in Ca. I don't follow his politics very closely. I do know that he made a rather remarkable about face not too long ago where he changed from a kind of go it alone, fix everything himself approach to a more cooperative, working with the Legislature approach, which earned him a lot of good will in Ca., pretty much over night. Whether that indicates second tier I don't know, but I do think it indicates an ability to learn from mistakes and change, not something you often see in politicians. That, and maybe he started listening to his wife Smile [:)]

    Ken Wilber is a hero of mine. That doesn't mean I deify him. I hope that isn't what you mean by "oracle of bolder." Personally, I am pretty sure that there is never going to be a single individual who has all the answers to all the world's problems. No savior going to come along and fix everything. That is a mythic-magic idea anyway, and when the world's center of gravity moves beyond mythic-magic perhaps then the world will seriously start to take responsibility for its own doings. 

    The way I see it, Ken's mission is to help move that progress along as much as possible. That means first and foremost helping as many as possible to move up to second tier, because second tier is where the hierarchy becomes visible, and you have to be able to see it to help it. My mission, then, and yours, if we should accept it, is to embrace our own greatness, our own best 2 percent, so that we too can live as freely functioning human beings with second tier awakening, compassionately helping to move the spiral up, instead of holding it down.

    [Wow, I suprised myself with that one.]

    Take care,

    Don.

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  06-24-2007, 8:31 AM 24829 in reply to 24819

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland


    don,

    i really appreciate your thoughtful response. i realized myself i had gone, in some ways, too far in the last message. but i do feel the 'i-i community' needs to go further than it has in the recent past. with regard to KW, the evidence is convincing, at least for me, that he's coming from a 'better' kosmic address than anyone else i'm aware of. i'm very confident about that, so it makes sense to act on that basis. and, if i'm wrong, then this is a good way to find out, but it's held up for some time now.

    part of the difficulty here is that i'm bucking the prevailing post/modern culture we inevitably find ourselves in, assuming we haven't retreated to some traditional sanctuary. i frequently find myself questioning something he's said or done. afterall, he is controversial, even though most people aren't even aware of him, so it doesn't show up as much as it might, like, say, mel gibson. and that's perfectly normal and ok, as long as i keep in mind his kosmic address. unfortunately, post/modernism encourages us, empowers us, to believe that my kosmic address is just as good as anyone else's. in a certain, infinite sense, i think that's actually right, but, in the world we live in, for the most part it's horribly wrong. and once we get to 2nd tier, we should know that, and live according'y, i feel.

    and it works both ways. if we're at 2nd tier, then we know that those at 1st tier, which is something like 98% of the population, simply can't see what we see, so we have a certain responibility towards them, and i have to admit that i let myself get so annoyed with them that i've never gotten around to delineating what that responsibility might be. actually, i'm more than annoyed: i'm for the most part powerless, which i now recognize as a mistake. we don't want 1st tier telling 2nd tier what to do.

    i probably over stepped in my praise of arnold, but it was the best explanation i could come up with for the 'presence' he manifested in the interview with judy woodruff. orange or green couldn't do that, imo. maybe he was in a higher, altered state. :) it's good to keep in mind that it's all quadrants, and the two mayors he was with also seem to be breaking out of the usual molds. unlike the democrats, they're not spending their time criticizing the bush administration, nor congress, for that matter. they're using what power they have to do something about it, and they're talking in an unmistakably new way, imo. of course, for this to stick the federal government, sooner or later, has to get the message. i think some of the presidential candidates are bright enough to get this. it's going to be interesting to see which of them schwarzenegger, blumberg and villlaraigosa, a republican, an independent and a democrat, i believe, endorse! the thoughts of an armchair amateur.

    don:
    My mission, then, and yours, if we should accept it, is to embrace our own greatness, our own best 2 percent, so that we too can live as freely functioning human beings with second tier awakening, compassionately helping to move the spiral up, instead of holding it down.

    [Wow, I suprised myself with that one.]
    i like that.

    ralph

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  06-24-2007, 11:25 AM 24839 in reply to 24819

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    Hey just a quick note.  Schwarzenegger came into California big on alternative energy and i think he took a lot of hits for that stance.  There was alot of slander out there about his Nazi connections and stuff like that.  I havent been paying as much attention as i should. I just remember remember hearing that he wanted to explore alternative energy, and that issue seemed to get buried in slander.

    One thing, he is big on physical fitness, like John Kennedy was, so that is a big plus.  Because of him, we have a stretch program implemented at our workplace to help with stress injuries. It seems he is filtering his ideas in slowly. We have alot of diversity in the workplace and the training seemed to be the usual tirade of "white man did all this damage to the world" which was quite alarming to me. I think balance is coming back in, however.  Still, first tier is already making day to day living a truly scarey place to be at times.

    I take Ken to be the final say on him, not because i think he is an Icon (well maybe,)but because he seems to be both divinely inspired and also as he says, he has done his homework. I do listen to him, and trust him completely at this point.

    How bad can Schwarzenegger be when he has zen buried in his name?  Huh?  Cosmos playing with us?

     

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  06-27-2007, 5:26 PM 24930 in reply to 24789

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    ralphweidner:
    oh! fairyfaye and martine, arnold said caleefornia is also working with other countries and, yes!, canadian provinces. ralph

    Yes, Schwarzenegger works with canadian provinces. We are in 2007; all countries, or almost, works with others.  It's not a proof to be at second tier.  Even at a green level.  I hope for all of us that he is truly reforming the republican party.  He has a rare quality, he is able to reach people on both sides.

    Don, you said that persons with an Amber center of gravity cannot lead successfully a complex country like United States. The countries at a green level center of gravity are less populous countries.  Maybe, it is feasible to Arnold because he leads California not United States. 

    Martine

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-01-2007, 1:37 PM 25098 in reply to 24930

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    hi martine,

    i'm wanting to try out my rudimentary french on your nomme de plume:  JE SUIS est Chez Moi?

    concerning latitudes and altitudes, not to speak of unhappiness, i recommend looking at the paper by susanne cook-greuter, for which there is a link in the thread by that name.  table 3 has got me in a tizzy.  i've always looked at my country as the best hope for a better world, so to speak.  i've tended to look at europe, which i haven't even visited in over forty years, as 'over the hill', so to speak.  i'm now wondering if i-i shouldn't, maybe, relocate to london and keep, say, a branch office in boulder.Confused [*-)]

    i certainly have no proof that arnold's at 2nd tier, only a hope.  if he were, though, i can't imagine him having the problem with the turquoise 'greatness shadow' (talked about in the ch.6 concall with arthur), and would greatly help all of us working to get to turquoise to better avoid that shadow. 



    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-01-2007, 5:13 PM 25103 in reply to 25098

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    Hi Ralph and all,

    I found that very interesting to link those readings with the current events.  I say for years that we (in our green Quebec) need to care our Blue.  It is our Blue centered Canadian Prime Minister, mister Harper, who is caring Quebec in recognizing the french nature as a nation.  It is surprising to see our population a good proportion centered at a green level to be cared by a Blue Prime Minister.  Don't you find?  And being the leader of a large percentage of population at green and orange change surely the decisions of a leader if he wants to stay the leader. 

    The best hope for a better world is in each country.  Each one has to contribute with its own qualities.  In United States, like in Canada, the pressure comes from above.  Arnold will make a difference with his focus on environment.  Lately, I listened to analysts on the international situation.  All the partners of G8 has changed.  Only Bush and Poutine remains as dinosaurs for few times.  The population of those countries long for another direction and another kind of leadership.  The turquoise leadership won't be necessarilly in politics but doing the pressure from above.  They should develop solid links with India and China.  In few times, the map of power will be completely different. 

    Martine

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-02-2007, 4:42 AM 25122 in reply to 25103

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland


    hi martine,

    we don't seem to be hearing very much about canada here in the u.s. i took a look at what wikipedia has to say about your PM, stephen harper. the impression i get is that he is an orange rather than a blue conservative. and couldn't his support for nation status for (french) quebec be a sign of green values?

    i think president bush is already becoming an anomaly. KW has joked how he would have been a forward looking president three centuries ago. schwarzenegger compared him to the pre-democratic hapsburg rulers of austria, where he comes from. unless orange and green get into some kind of civil war, i don't see how blue/amber can hope to ever get someone as favorable to them as bush has been, because it's been a disaster.

    i've heard reports about cameron, the conservative party leader in the uk, which suggest he is green, and now schwarzenegger is sounding 2nd tier to me, at least. so i wouldn't be surprised if harper turns out to be orange/green, although i guess you're saying you would be.

    i happen to like obama, i guess because he represents for me an opportunity for a new beginning. but conservative pundits also like him, which makes me wonder if they don't see him as more beatable than hillary clinton, the other most likely candidate at this point. pundits also like to say my country is not yet ready to elect a woman president. how do they know? beats me.
    it's true she has a high negative rating, but didn't bush also?

    hillary and her friend bill know a helluva lot more about getting elected president than any of the other candidates, democrat or republican. they're well aware of the sort of weaknesses KW has pointed out in the democratic party. if anyone can overcome them, it's them. hillary has a reputation as a flaming liberal, but, in fact, she appears to me to be pursuing something like 'the third way' (both conservative and liberal) bill did twelve years earlier. that, imo, is what sends fear into republican hearts.

    the point of all this? i think hillary can unite the democratic party around a largely liberal, but significantly conservative program that would peel away at least a red state or two from the republicans, while continuing to hold onto all the blue states, a program that most of my country could unite behind and support, even if they didn't vote for her, except, of course, the minority who hate her.

    anyway, that's my hunch, and likely as not i'm wrong. isn't that what makes politics interesting?


    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-02-2007, 11:19 AM 25137 in reply to 25122

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    All that conversation give me to question different things.

    In politics, there is a lot of strategy to gain the power.  It's probably the fact in each country in the world.  How can we differenciate between the values of a leader or said more largely the center of gravity of this person and his talks and his actions?  After all, he (the leader) represents a party.  He doesn't speak only in his name.  

    Your point of view on our Prime Minister, mister Harper, invited me to look closer again.  Over my "instinctual" (?) first reaction of quebecer which associate easily Harper to Bush.  To gain the power, mister Harper needs quebecer electors so he has to give different things important for them and susceptible to influence the vote.  The support for nation status is one of them. Can we associate the action which is, I agree with you, from the green level possibly, with a personal green value level?  I have some doubts.  I perceive it more like a cognitive line at green level, but a, maybe orange personal level center of gravity. So, the action (at green level) comes from an intent at orange level. 

    I'am really interested to hear more about this cause I feel a lot of confusion in my superficial analyze of personalities.  If it's hard for ourself to know where we are exactly, I guess it's really harder to find the level of another one.  But in the same time, those people play a very important role in the world and it seems helpful to have a better understanding of their views. 

    From the outside, Obama seems to represent a change for United States more than Hillary who was already at White House. 

    Martine

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-02-2007, 11:11 PM 25161 in reply to 25137

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland


    i thought you put all this very well, martine. one of the reasons there's such a wide diversity of opinion about politics, i believe, is because none of us really knows. in my case, maybe because i realize this, i'm constantly changing my mind. lately i've been feeling that hillary has as good a chance as anyone to get elected and that it would be, all in all, good for my country and the world. i'm afraid obama, who i've always liked, is too much the new kid on the block--in a tough neighborhood. also, my impression is that barack's wife would be much happier if she could see more of him than is in anyway possible as long as the presidency is on his mind. in contrast, i don't think there's anything that thrills bill more than the possibility he may end up again in the white house. did you happen to see hillary and bill in their spoof on tony soprano and his wife? i think this suggests that they can work together very effectively both on the campaign trail and, if it happens, in the white house.

    i was coming of age when JFK emerged out of the lack-luster 50's to become the first catholic president of the u.s. martin luther king jr., civil rights and RFK followed soon after. we haven't had anything quite like that since, but we could, i hope.
    i may, of course, be looking at schwarzenegger, harper, etc. through rose-colored glasses, and your skepticism is more appropriate.

    au voir,

    ralph



    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  07-03-2007, 12:04 PM 25183 in reply to 25161

    Re: ken & stu part2 escaping flatland

    The title of the thread is about escaping flatland.  Doing that, I believe the multicolored glasses are the best.  I trust the life and it's not rose-colored glasses.  It's unfair of myself if I tag someone with a colour and I have, really, really, really, to care about not doing that.  You helped me in that with mister Harper, the Blue one Smile [:)]

    For Hillary and Bill, to be in White House would not be the same thing the second time.  We can suppose, they would have a better agenda.  It would be less tragical and more fun and response-able.  I'll continue to keep an eye on your country, how could I do otherly?  After all, I live in this small country above, the one who interest no one.  Smile [:)]

    Martine

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
Page 2 of 3 (31 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 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