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

INTEGRAL LAW

Last post 08-20-2007, 4:22 PM by cgnost. 65 replies.
Page 4 of 5 (66 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  01-14-2007, 8:34 AM 18213 in reply to 18121

    • cgnost is not online. Last active: 06-08-2008, 6:35 PM cgnost
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-04-2006
    • Posts 28
    • Points 425

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Great stuff, Schalk.  I love the idea of the practice of law as all about shifting perspectives; AQAL sure seems to fit pretty clearly into that, eh?

    But mostly, great questions.  I'd propose only modifying the big one you posed - instead of asking Ken to sit down with all things 'law' and work it out, perhaps it's up to us?

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  01-18-2007, 11:19 AM 18421 in reply to 18213

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    cgnost:
    instead of asking Ken to sit down with all things 'law' and work it out, perhaps it's up to us?



    I concur!

    Smile [:)]

    Elizabeth
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  01-18-2007, 1:30 PM 18432 in reply to 18421

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Hi, All Integral Legal Scholars!

    I've just returned from our 3 day Integral Education showcase where 5 of us did 35 minute prospective modules before an I-I team of seminar presenters.  We then worked on the agenda for our 5 day seminar this August on the west coast.  What it did was to pull together for me the concepts we've been working with for I' Law.  As I saw the thematic means by which to explain I' Ed, I became clearer about how we can present I' Law.

    so now the challenge:  there is one paper already approved as the basis of an Integral Law Center.  I am half way thru an intermediate one, but with my job, I Ed, and other duties, I can/t promise when that paper will be ready for submission to AQAL Journal.  If one of you has a paper that might be developed into either intro, intermediate or advanced, pleasre send it to me, and we can see what steps need to be taken to form a formal Center at I-I.  Then, there is the seminar that awaits us, in 2008 or 2009, who caares?  It is out there.

    I will state again the following offer: whoever wants to have a concall anytime, just let me know, and I will arrange it with I-I.  We can then begin to form LL and LR amongst ourselves.  As I was teaching Kohlberg's moral inventory yesterday, it occured to me that so many laws are aimed at Stage One, which of course is aimed at the lowest common denominator: fear of punishment.  But some laws require higher Stages of moral reasoning to embody and to guide conduct.  Even adding an element such as this would help lawmakers and judges.

    So let's try to arrange a first concall, shall we?

    Lynne

     

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-19-2007, 11:19 AM 18463 in reply to 18121

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    schalk:

     

    What I am suggesting is that in an adversarial system, there is a healthy place for vigorous adversarial practice.  Let's cut the saffron and beads.

     


    What am I saying - as lawyers we are one of the few professionals anywhere who people (jurors) have to listen to!! As long as you want to talk. You can plead, pray, shout, and they have to listen to you.

     

     

    You want to be an AQAL advocate? Go to your local library and check out Cicero.  Fire up your cam corder, imagine you are standing in the Roman Senate, and deliver one of his speeches from start to finish.  Then watch yourself.  And ask - does this guy light any fires for me?  If not, ask yourself why your ego prevents you from experiencing passion and translating that through your vocal cords.

     

     

    Let me offer a few comments: first of all, a Marine Corps Colonel who happened to be a legend as a litigator told me a long time ago - never ever buy into a world or a philosophy that espouses a lack of courage. Here you are, in the prime of your life, getting ready to become a lawyer and practice law in the best legal system in the world.  And you already want to do ADR? What is this? There are plenty of old farts to do that - you need to join the fray! Change the world, at least for one client! Don't succumb to dividing up piles up cookie crumbs at this stage in your life. Learn how to litigate and persuade and advocate. Learn how to be passionate. You can do ADR later.

     

     

    Sorry Matt - I just want to point out to you and all the other young budding lawyers out there that you are at the Frostian fork in the road and you need to make the choice that makes all the difference.  Pick a path that has heart. One that you can actually help people who are getting hosed. Like me and the earth I live on. We need your immediate help. Take a risk for me, will you? Take some prisoners and get some meat in your teeth. Don't wimp out and become a senile 25 year old.  It is not good for your Integral Life Practice.

     

     

    As a lawyer, you have a license to grab people force them to take you seriously.  Use it. 

     

     



    I'm thinking about the role of a lawyer....and that an Integral theory of the practice of law would include as many of the possible roles as possible, yes?

    Lawyer as advocate is just one of many roles.  What about lawyer as peacemaker?

    I don't think ADR is all "saffron and beads".  And I don't think that it necessarily lacks passion.  Is it not possible to be a passionate peacemaker?  I believe Treya mentions the concept of "passionate equanimity" in Grace and Grit (and Ken again mentions this concept in his book Integral Psychology).  Do we need to limit the concept of passion to presenting an oral argument and being an advocate?  I know it might sound odd to many people, but what if someone is passionate about being a real estate transactional lawyer? What about being passionate about creating peace between two siblings fighting over inheritance by acting as a mediator?

    Do we really want the entire field of law to be adversarial?  Yes, an adversarial system and approach has its place and its benefits.  But it has its limitations, especially in the field of domestic relations or any other situation where the parties are going to have a permanent relationship with one another.  Personally, my  life  significantly  improved when I dropped my adversarial approach to my  fiancee's ex-wife and the legal issues that come along with child support, visitation, etc. 

    I understand that some attorneys may find their calling to be that of an advocate....but I don't see this role as inherently better than that of one of many other possible roles an attorney can take.

    Let me know your thoughts!



    Elizabeth


    Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser--in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.
    --
    Abraham Lincoln, "Notes for a Law Lecture," 1850

    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  01-20-2007, 2:14 PM 18496 in reply to 18463

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    One idea that I would hope Integral Law would incorporate is the idea of rebalancing the scales in a positive way rather than  a negative way.  The current norm is that when one party feels harmed (a negative effect), the goal is to rebalance the scales by adding another negative, usually to the individual who caused the harm.  In other words, when one person feels victimized, the goal of the legal system is to make another person feel victimized, to balance out the relationship between them.  It's good old tit for tat - a lose-lose solution, you might say.

    But as any inquisitive preschooler eventually discovers, you can also rebalance the scales by adding a positive to the side of the scale that is lacking.  This is the approach that courts take when they offer those found guilty of a crime the option to do community service, in lieu of a fine.  It's more of a win-win solution where the individual who caused harm to the community makes amends by giving something of value back to the community.  And, in the process, the perpetrator gets a chance to feel like they belong to the community a bit more, and perhaps shake off some of those feelings of worthlessness that may have sent them down a path of not caring about themselves or the world in the first place.  Offering the guilty the option to take training classes, such as driver's ed and anger management, is also a way to add a postive to the scales, because learning a new social skill is hard work, and it's good for the community too!  Mediation is also an approach that restores balance to the relationship in a healthy, positive way, where all parties have a chance to express their needs and concerns, and solutions that work better for everyone can be explored so that all parties can have more positives in their lives.

    I'm sure there are other approaches that add positives to the world, rather than adding negatives, and I think a truly healthy Integral ("greatest span for the greatest depth" Law plan would want to investigate all the options available.

    Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
    Turtle
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-22-2007, 10:29 AM 18553 in reply to 13957

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    scotpedin:

    Lynne started this conversation with a strong question:

     

    “But when it comes to day-to-day practice of law, how do we, the practitioners, even add a modicum of Integral understanding to our duties?”

     

    Here is a partial transcript of Ken Wilber taken from Integral Life Practice Part 2: The Essential Modules of an ILP (available on this site):

     

    “…Once you have, or you are working on your spiritual practice, how do you actively relate that to what you are doing in the world?  How does that become a part of your profession? If you are a lawyer, how do you take compassion into law – but not idiot compassion.  The last thing I want is a lawyer who’s operating on idiot compassion, or boomeritis, or the green meme.  I don’t want my lawyer being sensitive to the person who is suing me (Laughter).  I want my lawyer to kill the son-of-a-bitch…with compassion…smiling…smiling… (Laughter.)  So there a place for all of this but you really do want to be able to carry this into the real world in an authentic, genuine way.”

     

    We could be of great service to our profession if we could make progress on this question.

     

     

     



    I remember hearing the above quote during my first semester of law school.  Now, however, I am not sure if I completely agree with the statement.  I'm not a supporter of idiot compassion ever, but what is wrong with an attorney operating from the green meme?  Do you always want your lawyer to "kill the son-of-a-bitch"?  What if the person suing you has a totally valid claim against you?  What if they don't have a particularly valid claim, but you have an ongoing relationship that you want to preserve with them?  What if their non-valid claim/suit is motivated by underlying issues that could be addressed through mediation?  How does an attorney operating from the green meme differ from one acting from orange or from one acting from 2nd tier?  (I'm guessing green would find all lawsuits "mean" whereas 2nd tier would discriminate between valid claims and ones that should not be filed, wheras orange would sue just because they can??)  When is mediation preferable to an adversarial process?
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  01-22-2007, 10:38 AM 18554 in reply to 831

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    integrallynne:

    I'd love to hear anyone's input as to how to be integrally-informed while dealing with the Blue/Orange coded practice/game of legal wrangling.  Try as we might, we are still dealing in a total adversarial contest.  I have some ideas, of course, but thought I might gather more of yo out there to assist me in fleshing this out.



    The fact that most of the legal profession is comprised of Blue/Orange (and often seems to be pathological Blue/Orange?) is scaring me about entering the legal profession. 

    Any thoughts as to whether Blue/Orange in the legal profession is frequently pathological Blue/Orange?   I'm thinking of attorneys (my boss, for example) who are SO competitive that they will push as far against the line that crosses into un-ethical behavior as they can in order to "win". 
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  01-23-2007, 6:36 AM 18584 in reply to 18554

    INTEGRAL LAW

    Friends:

     

    Have you read "Integral Spirituality" yet?  This is a truly important book!  Way to go Ken!   

     

    Lynne:  I support your efforts in advancing "Integral Law" and hope you are hugely successful.

     

    Would you mind telling us all in true honesty what you see on the road ahead?  Are any fires being lit?  Where are you seeing eyes light up?  Just lay it on the line for us. We can handle it.

     

    Personally, I am very concerned. 

     

    Reviewing the various posts, the discussion bounces back and forth and back and forth between an integral theory of "law" and the "practice of law" by integrally-informed lawyers. 

     

    Can I humbly propose "Integral Legal Theory" as the title of the former and "Integral Lawyering" for the latter?    

     

    The distinctions are sufficiently numerous and basic to warrant this bifurcation.

     

    We need to do this now or the discussions and comments will continue to lack focus. 

     

    I know many very smart and effective lawyers who will have no interest in learning the "Integral" vision.  They are suspicious of any "new theories" that promise to re-order our perspectives.  Law is founded on respect for the old and the bedrock.  You do not fly in at mid-night and re-arrange the minds of the legal community. 

     

    Life makes sense for them, and they are not bothered in the least by the absence of a map that integrates the highest and lowest of physical, mental and spiritual life in an integrated and unified theory of reality!  For them, whether scientists dismiss the reality of mind and spirit and whether people accept this is of no significant import.  Chakras, Spiral Dynamics, Ever-Present Awareness, Boomeritis, etc?  Whatever!  Hope y'all have fun!    

     

    In my humble estimation, there may be no community of professionals less sympathetic to inviting an "integral" vision into their domain that the successful judge/attorney/law professor class.  

    So, where are we going and who are we trying to touch?

     

    Personally, in 15 years of practice as a criminal lawyer, I have never billed a single client.  Not because of my supreme benevolence, but because I work for "Mother Fed" who pays me a salary and prevents me from billing clients. 

     

    (Can I make a plug for the military?  I would like to say that many people trash the military men and women, officers and enlisted alike, but if you look hard, you will find that in its frustratingly complex corpus of rules, regulations, and customs, the military represents one of the most "integral" communities in America.  

     

    I am a Navy Officer.  I have a mandatory regime to maintain physical fitness.  If I stray, I am out of a job.  You want to talk about Integral Body training?  How about having your career and the support of you and your spouse and your 4 children depend on your ability to maintain a 40 inch waste at a height of 72 inches?  I must adhere to customs and mores of the Navy.  I cannot be friends with the people who work for me.  If I stray, I face trial by court-martial.  I must maintain proficiency in my technical field.  If I lag, I err, and may be charged with dereliction of duty under a law (the UCMJ) enacted by your Congressional representatives.  I have ethical guidelines in spades that have the full force and effect of laws (via "lawful general orders"), the violation of which can land me in the brig (i.e. jail.)  I am subject to the Joint Ethics Regulations (a directive having the full force and effect of law, signed by the Secretary of Defense.)  If I sexually harass anyone a ton of bricks comes down on my head.  Same thing if I discriminate in any way against anyone based on their gender, religion, or sexual orientation.  I cannot accept gifts from people who work for me, give gifts to those I work for, come to work late, use drugs, solicit prostitutes, speak disrespectfully to my boss, disobey an order (no matter how mundane) from a superior, or fail to report any of the above to my superiors.  Any of these things is very likely to get me a "federal criminal conviction."   

     

    In its very large and old way, the U.S. military, is, quite interestingly, one of the most integrally pure communities in America.  And if you are an American tax-payer, you are paying for this!)

     

    Now, back to selling an Integral Vision to the civilian legal bar.

     

    Can I remind all of us idealistic integralists: most lawyers earn their bread by billing their clients based on the time spent working on the client's "matters."  That means that the financial success of most lawyers is directly related to their ability to prolong and entangle litigation. 

     

    Let's say a client comes in to the firm of Schmuckatelly, Noload, and Gried.   The client is concerned that his ex-wife is taking advantage of him by failing to adhere to the terms of their custody agreement. 

     

    You are an integrally informed lawyer.  You have the overpowering sense that these two former spouses could be united at the mediation table where the problem could be solved through inspired "alternative dispute resolution."  Heck, they might even get back together again, (you might be able to move them just a tad in this direction), and hey, the kids would certainly like this, wouldn't they?  Winners all around!

     

    You bring your vision to the Senior Partner, Mr. Gried.  (Remember, he ultimately takes home most of what you earn.)

     

    Presented with two options: one, a quick and healthy mediated solution where everyone (except you and Mr. Gried) wins, and the other, a fierce offensive against the ungrateful ex- which can only lead to tens of thousands of dollars in billable hours, how will Mr. Gried, Esquire direct you to proceed?  How will you proceed, knowing that your main competitor for "partner", T. Willington Booth, just brought home $437,000.00 in bacon for the firm last year by dropping nuclear bombs on the cross-town firm of Sheik, Raddle, and Rowl. 

     

    This is the very real reality of law as practiced by real lawyers with real bills to pay and real desires to drive a Jaguar next year. 

     

    This applies to both "Integral Legal Theory" and "Integral Lawyering." 

     

    I believe I see the point of insertion, however.

     

    There is a mini-crisis in American law practice today - many lawyers are falling apart!  More and more, stress levels are higher, drug and alcohol use grows, competition is fiercer, job satisfaction is lower, and collegiality is gone.   

     

    What has happened?

     

    Collectively, I believe we are all suffering under the power of the Internet.  Pre-Internet, your access to "the law" was through books which you held in your hands.  You turned the pages one by one and found the law, took notes, and checked cases and cites using the books in your library.  The expectations about the scope of your research were moderate and humble and the time allotted for research and writing was often generous.  (You could even slip in a quick back nine at the golf course at lunch, and enjoy a 1972 Lafitte Burgundy, or two...) 

     

    Nowadays, fuhgeddabowdit!  Legal victory goes to the single-minded grinder.

     

    In the old days, your clients either visited you in person, or called you on a land-line telephone to make an appointment to visit you.  Life was balanced and you could breathe.

     

    Clients did not "shoot you an email" with 35 questions cut and pasted from e-conversations with their attorney brother-in-law and stuff they found on the Internet.  And they did not e-mail your legal work product to 6 other knowledgeable persons with a personal interest in opining that you don't know what you are doing. 

     

    Today, every source is available instantaneously.  And there are many lawyers who are ravenous in their ability to quickly chew up legal e-matter, collating it into truly impressive and lengthy briefs.  They are like meth addicts, working 14 hours a day, 6 days a week.  These maniacally successful lawyers are setting the standard for others to emulate.  And, many lawyers are now collapsing under this new and "improved" model of "success."     

     

    To survive as a lawyer today, you have to read faster, search faster, and speak faster.  And there is no time to pick a flower, let alone smell it!

     

    And it is getting to a point where the art of argument and on-point citation of case law is being abandoned, simply because there is so much available.  We have gone trans-rational where argument is used when needed, but mainly we just throw our weight around.    

     

    In 1850, the Supreme Court wrote enormously important opinions in 15 pages.  Perhaps one Justice would dissent in a 3 page opinion. You can read the whole thing and find the black letter matter in 30 minutes. 

     

    In 2000, the Supreme Court writes opinions on relatively mundane issues that take up 50 pages, and there are 2 lengthy concurring opinions, and a vicious and lengthy dissent, as well.  It takes days to figure out what they are holding.  We throw up our arms and resort to b.s.

     

    Many lawyers are getting "crushed" (figuratively) by the pace of the law today.  They are good, ethical lawyers who cannot keep up.     

     

    Aside from the pure intensity of modern day law practice in America which is taking down many victims, I also would like to make the following point. 

     

    In my sense and experience, the lawyers who are most falling apart are also those who are not and never have been really "effective" as lawyers.  They might be good people, awesome parents, and excellent neighbors, but ... they do not do well in law practice.     

     

    A good modern lawyer is congenitally integrated.  S/he has a strong grounding in primordial survival skills.  S/he is not afraid to fight and to love.  S/he understands intimately the old myths and values that always lie at the core.  S/he is well-read, knows an array of literary and historical themes that resonate, and can elevate an issue to a principle.  S/he is verbally competent and skilled at writing, speaking, and and arguing.  S/he is skilled at stating and interpreting rules using language that is rational and acceptable.  S/he has a healthy "green" capacity to see the value of alternative perspectives.  And, s/he has a first person taste of a transcendent reality that prevents mis-identification of self and other with limited perspectives, aka "hell."  For a good modern lawyer, the practice of law is fun and rewarding on many levels.  

     

    The modern American lawyer may be second only to the Priest/Spiritual Guide in practicing an avocation that inherently calls for and rewards "integrated" skills, while punishing via personal melt-down those who cannot bring "integral skills" to bear.  

     

    You can be an "integrally informed" plumber, basketball coach, taxi driver, or waste management professional, but your success in those endeavors is largely independent of your "integral" awareness.

     

    But the modern lawyer who lacks an "integral" vision, not only does not enjoy resounding success, but, often, crashes hard and miserably.  

     

    "Integral Lawyer Therapy" is a very timely topic. And the Integral Legal Theory/Integral Lawyering vision is most perfectly tailored to those lawyers who are good and ethical people who are at this moment falling apart across America under the insane imbalance of modern law practice.   

     

    Lawyers and judges who are having a grand time and making gross amounts of money and sharing in the power and glory are not going to be impressed with a new proposal to "integrate" law practice in their respective jurisdictions. 

     

    But lawyers who are having a really hard time because their lives are messed up, their heads are messed up, the speed of practice is crushing them, their skills are deficient in different areas, or their interpretations of what they are doing and what it means are mis-guided, these lawyers will be immensely open and receptive to hearing how an "Integral" perspective can get them back on their feet again to where they are functioning, happy, healthy, and effective.

     

    Can't you apply "Integral" vision to any group of troubled people?  Yes, you can. But, a troubled lawyer may very well be one of the most complexly troubled people around! 

     

    And yet, s/he also has the ability to grasp the concepts of the "Integral" vision.  (Remember - they passed a "bar exam" at some point in their lives, which is no small feat of intellect.)  That may not be the case for, say, the class of high-school drop-out felons doing hard time for methamphetamine manufacturing.  You can talk quadrants all day with these folks and get nowhere.   

     

    So, I am suggesting that if someone really wants to do something helpful and meaningful, approach the director of the local chapter of the bar's "troubled lawyer" group, and begin offering seminars, rehabilitating troubled lawyers with "Application of the Integral Vision to the Practice of Law." Include actual modules of Integral Life Practices.

     

    Once you have saved 25 souls, write an article for your bar's law journal.  Include testimonials from each lawyer about what they were doing before that did not work and what they are doing now that is more "integrated" and therefore, more healthy and successful.  Now you are making an "Integral" dent in modern American law practice. 

     

    I will tell you what prompted this vision. I am licensed in the State of Washington.  I receive the monthly bar journal, and last month, there was an article in it by a member of our bar who is native American and who practices on his reservation (the Yakima, if I recall correctly.)  His article was the most soulful thing I have ever read in our bar journal.  He acknowledged his good fortune to practice law, but mostly he stated in very straight-forward terms how disappointed he is, at the end of his career, with what he has actually done and accomplished as a lawyer in trying to help members of his tribe.  I got the sense he has been trying to push a round peg through a square hole.

     

    As I read his honest and heartfelt account, it struck me that a native American lawyer may be uniquely suited to suffer more than any other lawyer in America from the unhealthy aspects of modern legal practice.  His people and community already suffer enormously from simply trying to integrate western truths (and untruths) in their lives.  And s/he has the added burden of trying to integrate and apply western legal conceptions and the imbalances that accompany them to people who are struggling to maintain their non-western customs and identities.     

     

    I have a dream.  A vision of "Integral Indian Lawyering!"  The beauty of launching something like this, under "Indian Nation" jurisdiction, would be that the tribes have big swatches of sovereignty that allow them to make their own internal rules!  You don't have to go to Tibet.  The fertile territory is in your own back yard! 

     

    Many people don't realize this, but inside of the United States of America, there are many "sovereign nations."  (Heck, come to think of it, as a kid, I used to wander from U.S. territory to Indian territory and steal salmon berries from a foreign ruler, i.e. the Puyallup Indian tribe of Washington.).  You don't have to convince conventional western minds and rule-makers to expand a legal system toward Integral.  You instead convince Indian minds to restore the dignity of their lives while at the same time upgrading their cultures with the best of the west.  

     

    Can you imagine how delicious it would be for "Integral Indian Lawyering" to serve as a compelling model that inspires non-Indians toward an "integrally-informed" practice of law?

     

    So, in summary:

     

    1.  I am skeptical about the impact you can have in trying to introduce Integral Legal Theory or Integral Lawyering into the conventional American legal community.  Remember Critical Legal Studies?  Some of the best legal minds around beat that drum for 15 years, and no one even listened to them. 

     

    2.  I am confident that you can have an enormous impact if you introduce "integral" principles to lawyers who are not functioning well.  They are smart, receptive, and "screwed up."  And often, the reason they are "screwed up" is because the "non-integral" nature of their practice has caught up with them (like it will catch us all ultimately.)

     

    3. I suspect one could have an almost landmark impact by using an "integral" platform to restore the dignity and identity of native Americans through the integral training of native American attorneys.  You can combine theory and practice, both integral, with Indian hosts in a way that will hardly be tolerated in the conventional American legal community. 

     

    Now, a final offering. Something that I just need to say about lawyers in America.   

     

    I have lived and worked in China, Japan, and Italy for extended periods of time.  There is an exquisite "feeling" of "being" in each of those cultures that is not found in America.  And especially not among American lawyers!

     

    It is hard to describe.  The best way I know to point at it is through the Chinese word 'xin' or 'hsin.'  This means 'heart' but not merely in the sense of a physical organ or in the sense of courage.  It refers instead to a way of seeing the world and relating to it that springs from the heart center.  It is not emotional gushing or sentimentality.  Instead, it is a full and potent freeing of life force which allows one to feel empathy, see beauty, intuit justice, and remain embodied in a secure and relaxed place. 

     

    Whenever I interact with lawyers who are not "forgetting" 'hsin', invariably the encounters are productive, healthy, and satisfying.  Conversely, whenever I interact with lawyers who live only in their heads and who are choking off or chronically freezing their 'hsin', nothing ever works out right and everything ends up with a bad taste. 

     

    My take on "Integral Legal Theory" and "Integral Lawyering" is that, if nothing else, it should strive to restore a good "taste" to "law in America" through the unfreezing of 'hsin' in our practice. 

     

    Best Wishes, Schalk

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  01-23-2007, 5:20 PM 18602 in reply to 18584

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    schalk:

     

    Reviewing the various posts, the discussion bounces back and forth and back and forth between an integral theory of "law" and the "practice of law" by integrally-informed lawyers. 

     

    Can I humbly propose "Integral Legal Theory" as the title of the former and "Integral Lawyering" for the latter?    

      

    So, in summary:

     

    1.  I am skeptical about the impact you can have in trying to introduce Integral Legal Theory or Integral Lawyering into the conventional American legal community.  Remember Critical Legal Studies?  Some of the best legal minds around beat that drum for 15 years, and no one even listened to them. 

     

    2.  I am confident that you can have an enormous impact if you introduce "integral" principles to lawyers who are not functioning well.  They are smart, receptive, and "screwed up."  And often, the reason they are "screwed up" is because the "non-integral" nature of their practice has caught up with them (like it will catch us all ultimately.)

     

    3. I suspect one could have an almost landmark impact by using an "integral" platform to restore the dignity and identity of native Americans through the integral training of native American attorneys.  You can combine theory and practice, both integral, with Indian hosts in a way that will hardly be tolerated in the conventional American legal community. 

     


     

    Best Wishes, Schalk





    Great thoughts!

    - I think the bifurcation into Integral Legal Theory and Integral Lawyering is a great idea.

    - I agree that the discussion and comments seem to lack focus.  I am reminded of my days as a social worker where our staff meetings were endless discussions with very little being accomplished! 

    - I would agree that it is questionable how likely successful attorneys will accept Integral Theory.  But I believe it is a question that should be kept open.

    - I am a little skeptical as to "
    how an "Integral" perspective can get them back on their feet again to where they are functioning, happy, healthy, and effective."  I suppose I am skeptical as to how ANYONE can be happy, healthy and effective while working 14 hour days, 6 days a week, at a large firm, for years on end. 

    - From your description of "hsin", I agree with you completely as to how it affect the practice of law and the need for restoration of this quality.

    - Has anyone read Transforming Practices by Steven Keeva?  Or the paper by psychologist Martin Seligman (et al) regarding lawyer unhappiness and the underlying causes (Countering Lawyer Unhappiness: Pessimism, Decision Latitude, and the Zero Sum Dilemma.)  I would be interested in seeing how their ideas would fit into Integral Lawyering. 

    Elizabeth

     




    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  01-31-2007, 1:11 PM 18907 in reply to 18602

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Hey, I didn't want to post this here because it's almost seven pages long, but I've been trying to put together a law review piece on the relationship between critical legal theory and integral legal theory (obviously, not getting into issues of practice). I'd be interested in seeing what people thought of my idea thus far. It's extremely informal - just a livejournal post - but if you want to read it, it's located at satyadaimoku.livejournal.com/29933.html.
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  02-03-2007, 8:31 AM 18981 in reply to 18602

    • cgnost is not online. Last active: 06-08-2008, 6:35 PM cgnost
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-04-2006
    • Posts 28
    • Points 425

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Regarding integral lawyering, especially a lot of what Elizabeth has very helpfully brought to the table:

    - I think there are, of course, lots of valuable roles for attorneys besides adversarial roles, and I don't think Schalk was suggesting otherwise; and of course, there's nothing wrong with an attorney working out of green.
    - Of course, an attorney working solely out of green (which isn't what Elizabeth suggested, I realize, but thinking about it this way puts some of the contrasts into focus, I think) is missing a lot of the valuable blue and orange aspects of law (which, as we all know, makes even the green aims less effective).  For example, jumping straight into ADR and adopted a green approach to it can be a very valuable practice, and maybe personally very rewarding, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that if that's what you want; but (and I think this was Schalk's point) it's much harder from outside the adversarial system to make an impact on the blue principles and communities of the traditional legal system, and much harder to gain a degree of orange success and power (that could then be used in service of 2d-tier values).  Not that it's easy within the adversarial system or not possible outside of it, but it's harder.  So, I more often see people (former classmates, colleagues, etc.) that operate in a sphere outside the adversarial system and then complain about it and how much it harms their own work - which, to me, is generally a sign of some dissociation of the worldviews that the complained-about thing represents (i.e., instead of adopting it and working within it, it becomes an other).
    - In that context, then, I hear Ken's comment about "killing him with compassion" to be saying that that's a skill that a 2d-tier lawyer should have, to be able to tap into those red/blue/orange values when necessary; but definitely not as a limitation, where that's the only approach one could ever take.
    - My experience has not at all been that the blue/orange aspects of lawyering are inherently pathological.  There are, of course, ultracompetitive people that will do anything to win.  But with just a little attention to that aspect, I think it's very easy to identify lawyers (in law firms, in government, in defense) that are very ethical, that have strong principles of advocacy for their clients but also as an officer of the court or member of the bar, that strive for success but not at the cost of those principles.  Of course, we (in the legal community) can do even more to emphasize healthy blue and orange values in the legal world, but a lot is done already.  Part of the issue, I think, is that green will always see blue and orange as pathological, and we're always going to have some green in us (thankfully!), so this will always be a struggle.
    - 14 hours, 6 days/week does seem difficult for anyone to really carry into an integral lifestyle (although Lynne, do you work in BigLaw?  It'd be great to hear about that).  But the vast majority of lawyers don't work in that environment.  Perhaps part of this (among us younger lawyers and students) is breaking away from the expectations of what "success" is supposed to mean (as law schools tell us, in predominantly orange terms), and notice that a lot of the lawyering world doesn't look that way?
    - Basically, I think there are lots of positive aspects of law and lawyering out there already, in every value structure and with lots of different emphases on different lines and types.  That's what makes me so excited about integral in this field; I think a lot of our task is putting together, in a 2d-tier fashion, what's already out there, rather than inventing integral law or integral lawyering altogether.

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-25-2007, 1:23 PM 22032 in reply to 18981

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Lawyers and law students- where do you think you fall on your moral reasoning- do you tend towards the ethic of care, or to the rights orientation, or somewhere in between?

    Just curious.


    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  04-25-2007, 4:44 PM 22039 in reply to 22032

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    I have lawyers in the family, one appelate judge.  My oldest son was a Marine Capt.

    so that will catch his attention.   I hope that it all does.  He is almost 50 and says that the whole thing has "lost its glamour".    I think that life itself has lost that and this may be mid life crisis.  Just what the doctor ordered -  Integral Everything.  I assume it is alright to copy and print this thread for him and others in his firm.  I don't think it would have occurred to me to ask but since you are lawyers, I am.  I am trying to leave a legacy to children and grandchildren.  My oldest grandchild is at Oxford and has just decided to go into Economics instead of Law.  I want him to hear about Integral also.  I want Oxford to know about Integral.  Maybe someone  over there does since Wilber's In. Spirituality was # l over there.   I will tell him to give what you write to someone in Law.   Let me know if it is OK to copy.  Thanks and I am enjoying checking back here for my own info.   Later Pattye

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  05-25-2007, 5:43 PM 23309 in reply to 22039

    • cgnost is not online. Last active: 06-08-2008, 6:35 PM cgnost
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-04-2006
    • Posts 28
    • Points 425

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    seems fine to me to copy.


    but where did everyone go?
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  05-25-2007, 8:56 PM 23320 in reply to 23309

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    hey here,

    a thingk popped up on this contributional quest
    ::
    "where did everybody go?"

    i was lately talking with bernard here at bakkumbeach/holland/europe ...
    he was british special forcer for about 9 years, you know, had quit some experiences in his life US-2/Africa-12/Japan-2/Holland-12/UK-lot (years working as a ref.) and inbetweeny missions, you know ... Interesting Elder ...
    on topic: he told me about those lawyers in US ... who were no lawyers at all ... well, for quit some percentage, he stated ..., in the (small?)talk he labelled them as "politicians".

    hmmm ( a paradigmental suggestion? )

    then ... what happened in the context of "the power to/from/in/among the people"?

    integral investigation on integral meta-core?

    Y our 'S ace


    can a collaboration or a group loose its good name? if so, how?
    can a human being loose it's well face? if so, how?
    should polite questions being asked or before that, formulated, and then directed? to who(m)? in what space/circle of togetherness?

    :{wild guessing/envisageing as communicative vibrat'ion}:

    "Through the 28::7 T-T cosmogenesis of time, merge your mind into the ever-evolving higher conciousness of time!

    If there were not time, there would be no mind to become." - VV-Rinri-II
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
Page 4 of 5 (66 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 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