Thanks wmersy, great post as well. (Also, re: losing a post -if you sign in and then hit the back button twice your post will still be there and you can then just hit "post.")

I really think we can go very far with this question of "what are you defending?"  (or any variation of that)

The more I have thought about it, the more it has become clear that most of the supposed "blues" that are so frightening when they talk about guns and their right to have them and so forth . . . are just talking blue, while they are really red-egocentric. (And just not in a poverty, oppressed type situation, where that does often arise as the primary or ultimate concern.)

Or even better talking, sometimes even worldcentric language, when the entire thing is egocentric.

Take the extremist militia groups or the Terry Nichol's and his brother and the like (TN, implicated in Oklahoma City bombing in 1995). If you listen to their language what they are really interested in "defending" is just themselves. I mean, if you are afraid of a "world government" well son, we got other options for you here in the grand ol' USA. You can vote. You can organize peaceful protests to let your voice be heard. Print flyers, put up a commercial on the TV and radio. You can gather all your friends and form advocacy groups and lobby and so forth. And, you can run for office yourself. Explain to us why it is in the better interest of "All of Us" or "Each of Us" not to get involved in a "world government." It is just not necessary, nor even practical for you to . . . go out an' get yer gun . . . (It's so immature. As if that's going to help anyway!)

Clearly in these cases there is racism, but that does not necessarily equate with ethnocentrisim as such. These people are just out to "defend" themselves from things they personally are afraid of, and which, it might be added, really do have nothing to do with a worldcentric, moral-stage 5, unity out of diversity governance system that does not discriminate against race, sex, color or creed.

If you listen to Mr. "Cold Dead Hands!" there . . . he's all freaking ego. He talks patriotic but if you listen . . . the USA is his possession. Interviewed in his house he says "Yes. I have guns all over. . . . So bad guys beware." I mean, clearly this is someone extremely paranoid about "bad guys" attacking HIM. He doesn't give a crap about anyone else, and you can hear it in his words, voice, emotions . . .and I think really get somewhere if you ask "What are you trying to defend?" He is a defender of himself and his possessions . . . and nothing else.

Also, what is really scary to me is, who exactly you are deeming "bad guys?" To an egocentric level, that is anyone that is a threat to my ego . . . If it is a pathological ego, that threat is just about anyone . . .

And it also bespeaks pathology. Ethnocentric pathology is actually a little less scary. Or is there give and take there-ethnocentric pathology is not as "hot and red" but it is 10 times more powerful. It's just that, it seems like there might be much more of a chance of reasoning with a group of already organized people than one egocentric maniac with boatload of artillery and guns (and perhaps his buddies). Pathology and hate with a gun is always scary though.

But I do think there was another clue about blue being "you" or second person oriented. A healthy blue, I think, if you think about it, is more than happy to hand such things over to a higher power. (And this also bespeaks the pacer of transformation Ken mentioned; it is absolutely true.) The government, the police, an army. And then, if called upon "to serve" may see it as duty to do so. Whereas, these people, while talking blue (or worldcentric Bill of Rights language), wants this power for themselves. As Yotam said, the I.

All for now.

Unbelievably great timing! It's right there in the latest chapter of Integral Spirituality (The Conveyor Belt). Amber beliefs with red self. (So, blue beliefs with red, egocentric self.) This was the consistent psychograph -the pattern that connects-that resulted when Ken investigated for The Many Faces of Terrorism.

Amber beliefs with red self.

yschachter:

I agree with Tim that people working from Red values and self-sense should probably not be allowed to have guns. The "more education...becoming more integrally informed" answer seems to be "Well, let's just educate those people, help them be integrally informed, and then it's fine if they have guns because they won't misuse them." That seems a bit less practical, in the short term, than some measure to prevent certain people from having guns. I think that gay couples should be able to marry, and some other folks don't. One answer might be "let's educate those people so they're okay with gay marriage." I think that would be swell, but in the mean time, let's legalize gay marriage asap, too. So it's a question of what do we integrally informed people do practically at the same time as we're trying to Integrally inform more people, too?

i hope you're talking about "unhealthy" red.  otherwise this appears to me an elevationist position. there are so-called greenies who blow up new housing developments, and the day is not far off when yellow valued persons may engage in violence.  was george washington a terrorist? turns out his side "won" and we get to write the history books the way we want to see reality.

is this just the "red" coming out of green, or out of orange . . . well, the red can come out of yellow or turquiose or . . .

another aspect is do we take a permissive or a preventative stance while we decide about gun control. it's inconsistent to take a preventative stance with regard to guns and a permissive stance with regard to gay marriage.

btw, how does libertarianism fit into this (gov't should stay out of the gun ownership issue). there is such a thing as 2nd tier libertarian, no?

later,

gene

Just a quick note on the lower levels/stages/stations etc.

As we would move into a more Kosmocenric world, whenever the center of gravity goes up, and as it is happening, there are just some things with regard to the naturally arising tendecnies (and culturally conditioned) of the lower levels that you're just going to have to say "tuff" to. i.e. no, this is not allowed.

That's the negative way of saying it, or the negative reality. The "no" reality.

But there is a positive one too, and it is displayed everyday in our children and in ourselves when we were children. The way that secretly leads us into the Romantic View. Basically, the earlier stages are transformed. Their basic and naturally arising tendencies arise and form, but how those things manifest, express themselves and in what context and so forth, is transformed. And "no's" can be changed to "yes's."

(I know I have been "hard" on the lower stages and the lower stages in children for the last couple weeks or so but that has simply been to attempt to drive home a point -or basically, sharpen a healthier attitude against the Romantic View which has much more danger in it than good.)

Anyway, as a simple example, a couple of years ago, our older children (7, 8) came to us and asked "Mommy, can black people marry white people?" We said "Yes." Their response, the naturally arising ethnocentric response, was "That's not right."

"Why not?" we asked

"Becasue, it's just . . . weird."

"Why?"

"Well, just becasue they should be with people like them."

All of this was spoken and asked with an innocent smile (truly. innocent). Naturally arising. MLK was correct about being "taught to hate" (or conditioned, even just by circumstances) but that shouldn't be misinterpreted as "taught to be ethnocentric"-it arises naturally. But all of this points to Ken's "pacer of transformation" mentioned above.

We basically explained that it was indeed "okay" for black people and white people to marry, pointed to living examples . . . and . . . they accepted it. Whether or not the ethnocentric impulse will remain or does still remain for a time . . . it's expression has now been transformed or given a pacer of transformation. (One of the reasons, if not the reason, parental "center of gravity" is so important -and it is also important to share that center of gravity with them.) By a "yes." Yes, it's alright. (And even a little bit of an idea that the question was silly to ask . . . not intentional really, but children do feel sometimes "awkward" that their truths have been challenged by parents/adults.)

To a more grown up ethnocentric, now days, we really and simply say "tuff." Tuff. You can not order the universe with this view of yours. Keep it? Fine. Push it on others? Tuff. Pacer of transformation.

So too, I think with the eventually reality and acceptence of gay marriage. It really is a civil rights issue.

Does the tendency against it naturally arise? Yes. (Or maybe even, just perhaps. Without going into an exploration here.) But we can say "tuff." You can not order the universe with this view.

And, a little later, the same happened with our children. We did wait a bit. But evnetually the subject came up and . . . "Okay, Mom and Dad. If that's how the world is ordered I guess I need to start looking at it differently."

Anyway, somehow, it does seem it eventually has to be the same, to some extent with LL technology, including guns -even if only some sorts -as has already happened -right? Ban of AK47s. Did that happen?

We do it with drugs. Right now a whole line of regular cold and caugh medicine is now gradually being taken out of easy access to the lower stages (or any) who abuse them. But that would be LL. LR is all about framing a pacer of transformation and a healthier world for all.

All for now.

thanks for joining the discussion, wmersy.

later,

gen

coppersun:

i hope you're talking about "unhealthy" red.  otherwise this appears to me an elevationist position.

Well, I was thinking of people who are thinking Redly about how they'll use their gun, without a higher level mitigating that. Even healthy Red, untempered by Blue and higher, can lead to a gun fight or whatnot. But certainly when people are acting Redly in support of Green or other ideals, it's still inappropriate, in my mind, for them to have guns. I'm just saying we should have legislation preventing that even as we wait for the center of mass to rise to second tier.