George, I applaud efforts to create truly collaboration facilitating systems - we were asking that in ENA in the late 1980s. I am concerned that IOS by Wilber may contain his bias, which could be dangerous.

There is a wide split between the two co-authors of the 1996 book Spiral Dynamics. http://spiraldynamics.com/ gives you access to both camps. Don Beck has some relationship with Wilber, but Wilber's summary of SD is grossly deficient - and kept me from reading SD for years. I feel more resonance with Chris Cowan's camp, where they are quite explicit as to the deficiencies of Wilber's ventures. Both acknowledge but do nothing with Robert Kegan's Subject/Object model of adult epistemological stages (first published in 1982 and also ignored by Clare Graves, founder of SD). ALL ignore many other significant indiviual differences in cognitive and affective capacities that block effective communication and sharing.

It may be that the IOS is neutral re Wilber; and this is the first I have heard of it. Open Source is only "democratic" for those who have the special technical competencies to code. I don't know how users seeking features, but don't know how to code them, can participate. And, I know that many with coding competencies lack the openness to envision outside some limiting boxes.

But, what is most critical to me is that the query, "WHO ARE HUMANS" in "detail" remains highly controversial; research into the enormous diversity in cognitive/affective domains remains in its infancy and dialog between competing camps appears non existant. I am not sure that a new OS will help with this. But, we do need an OS and new tools to Support/Enable/Augment/Facilitate [SEAF] collaboration. To this end I have been working on identifying needed tools and how they may be combined in what I am calling Colab Studios (where a F2F team work in a colab version of the old "War Room", rather than the traditional model of one person to one I/O interface).

PS -- a few months ago you participated in an online event with many of the old participants from the 80s and early 90s, ENA and NetWeaver. Lisa? I discovered it after it ended, but have inquired as to the promised report - but have heard nothing.

Thanks, Larry

Awesome and mind-boggling.

How can one rule out biases? We all have them. Wilber speaks to me. All can be stepping stones. There's ultimately ONE Truth. Can the human mind know it without dying? It's an awakening. All that man has written becomes unnecessary, if the truth be experienced. All - a Word.

The Principle of Complementarity, needed to make Quantum Theory viable, demonstrates that there cannot be one logically consistent explantory system for all of "reality"; that we need at least two. TWO, or more, complementary truths. Wilber, and many others, continue to defy this aspect of Reality and seeks a single, absolute truth.

One can't rule out bias, but one can admit to them and collectively we can attempt to account for them. One truth is that there are many in that small percent that Wilber looks to who do not agree with Wilber's analysis or methods.

Wilber speaks to many, as his methods are well crafted to entangle minds. His "Integral" approach is far from comprehensive. His Four Quadrants is one of many useful tools, but he quickly turns it into the foundation of his reality. There are alternative ways to a better Humanity in balance with GAIA than Wilber's - which has no process to construct viable "programs" for what this new emergent population will do.

I do not oppose Wilber's efforts. I am only alerting others that his is not the only game in play, no matter what he claims.

George, it's really quite remarkable to find this posting here. I couldn't sleep on Saturday night (august 20), so I did some thinking during those quiet and peaceful hours of the night.

One of the things I was intrigued about, was the power of network effects for the adoption of an IOS. I say 'an' IOS, because I agree with Larry in that Wilber's version of a post-postmodern integral perspective should and does not preclude many others from developing and sharing their versions. An integral ecosystem indeed!

Anyway, if I were skeptical of morphic resonance and that kind of 'stuff', I would probably be converted on the spot, here and now. Your thoughts and quotes resonate deeply with how I feel about this, even if I don't want to make it all too personal in terms of endorsing one flavour of integral, SD, or any other OS.

The fact is, once more of us start resonating on a level of consciousness that is spacious enough to include all these different perspectives and all these evolving human endeavours, the interconnections will start (have started!) enacting a unique 'WE', which can support and foster new ways of organizing ourselves as a species.

Thanks, George!

George,

as Wilbers theoretical framework continues to evolve into what many are calling Wilber V now -I am studying especially the new Mega Output of his his rough drafts/excerpts for years:):)- I see a kind of relative Omega Point emerging ( Turquoise Community?) where all the different approaches are revealing their own truth.

Take f.e. Spiral Dynamics -right now already 2 versions, take Evolutionary Enlightenment, take Wilber and his critics, take perhaps Michael Bauwens essay about P2P.

Recently WIE asked why Andrew Cohen and Ken Wilber seemingly always agree to one another in their published dialogues.. I do not think they really do, but the paradox of self expression,autonomy and communion is enfolding itself on komplexer and higher levels.

I can recommmend Wilbers latest article about integral spirituality where he again puts everything in place.

One personal statement:

For 25 years now I am studying Wilbers work in all his cycles. I consider him the greatest therotecian we have on this planet right now. In personal communication however I resonate with many people worldwide too and simultaneously who have even a critical or no reference to his work.

What impresses me for years now that the basic integral framework is articulated and initiated mainly from our American friends who demonstrate this fresh and dynamic "Go for it" mentality.

Integral Community Intelligence could be the next "big thing" that co-evolves with the existing epicenters of integral action. Perhaps as expression of the European Integral Genius?

Many greetings from the land of "thinkers and poets",

Albert

George,

Without wanting to deny the 'relative truth' of what you are using. Do you not feel how elitist it is to assume that 2% (or 10%) of the population are asked to take responsibility for all. Do you not see how elitist it is to assume for any group that it is the best? If you see what kind of people Wilber highlights as examples, take da free john or andrew cohen, does that not tell you what kind of nightmare could result from such an approach.

What we need is not an operating system for a narcissic elite, but to base our actions on participation for all, focused on the potential for change in all. My P2P approach may still be underdeveloped and imcomplete, but I think that it points in the right direction, and that a IOS points to the wrong direction.

Michel Bauwens

Michel, I welcome your comment and in spite our disagreement on key points I'd have been delighted by it if it left a bit more room for genuine inquiry and exploration, tolerance of differing views, seeking harmony of our "relative truths" - the typical "green" values that I believe you and I share.

"Assuming for any group that it is the best" would be, indeed, awfully elitist. It would be like saying that one stage in evolution's forward movement is better than another, when we know well that all stages are necessary, they all contribute to the Whole. I don't actually know anybody saying that one group is the best, except critics when they misunderstand the position of Spiral Dynamics and Wilber's AQAL on the nature of evolution in human values and the life conditions influencing them.

"Assuming that 2% (or 10%) of the population are asked to take responsibility for all," as you suggest Wilber doing, would be much worse than elitist. However, by attributing that to Wilber, you seem to stretch the truth beyond recognition. So much so that I can't even fathom where did you get that "asked to take responsibility for all" idea from. Would you say more?

"What we need is not an operating system for a narcissic elite, but to base our actions on participation for all, focused on the potential for change in all." I will let you get away with the labelling the growing edge of the evolutionary wave as "narcissic elite." Instead, let me ask, where is the famous tolerance, pluralism, etc. in your "EITHER/OR" assessment of what the "we" needs. Why couldn't we have BOTH: an integral, aqal framework for those interested to commit to transformational change in all quadrants, including the Self, AND foster participation in cosncious evolution by all, respecting their needs and highest aspoirations, and helping realize their potential for change?

Hi all,

Perhaps this will help to clarify a little:
( www.integralnaked.org/forum/tm.asp?m=16909&s=#17130 )
This was a message from Ken Wilber to the Integral Naked Forum of 9/8/2004:

----
"As I have stated often in my books, the least important thing we need on this planet right now is transformation. In a theory of everything, for example, I said that the most important thing we can do is to make each level or stage as healthy as it can be exactly where it is. Horizontal health is defined as integrating the quadrants at whatever level you’re at. Since 98% of the world’s population is at first tier, then 98% of the work that needs to be done is at the first tier as well."

"At the same time, keep in mind that any action that is going to be effective, has to be at least planned from an Integral perspective. That means the action that needs to be taken is action that is from second or third tier. Otherwise, you’re not helping the world, but merely contributing to the world’s fragmentation, alienation, and torture. So if I don’t recommend transformation to the world, I definitely recommend that the world listen to those who have already transformed to centaur (yellow/turquoise) or higher."
----

I'd just like to share that I've been going round and round for years with the internal contradiction that this sort of message carries, as I'm guessing have many of you.

To cut a lot of my own thinking down to a simple SD shortcut, I'd just say that I think that Wilber is primarily operating out of Yellow, with a good deal of ungrounded Turquoise mixed in. My overall impression is that he has let the map take over his territory by and large. I love what he's accomplished but I can't really support where he seems to be going in terms of a closed authoritarian structure...but I am well aware that isn't the ONLY direction that he's going...

To continue the SD shorthand, I think that co-intelligence and p3p paradigms are turquoise at their best, and hold a bright turquoise promise in front of our collective eyes, but can be quite healthy/unhealthy green at their less finest when perfomative contradictions are not made explicit.

There is a performative contradiction in the Wilber quote above too of course...the message is different than the stance of the messanger. ("Make each level as healthy as it can possibly be?" From what position? From above or from within? Or if BOTH, how?)

I've found no real solution to that dilemma in theoretical terms, but have resolved it only in terms of action in the world, whilst practicing holding all perspectives in the Heart. The doing and allowing-(of all perspectives) has it's own logic beyond and within the logic of integal theory...

Dear Michael, thank you for your thoughtful comment above. I sure agree that Wilber is not the only game in town, for the simple reason that our world grew much more complex than the capacity of any single perspective to adequately describe let alone change it, no matter how integral is.

I am particularly grateful to you for the wondrously intriguing statement I found in your blog, which fully resonates in me: "I have the whole vision inside me, but it must be ubeautiful, beyond-complexity simple expression of nited with the whole visions that are inside everyone else or it’s worthless and doomed." As you wrote there, LET'S begin "to wake up to how this will work or die trying."

> I think that co-intelligence and p3p [did you mean p2p?] paradigms are turquoise at their best, and hold a bright turquoise promise in front of our collective eyes

I appreciate the potential of co-intelligence and p2p to further and broaden the evolutionary wave but you are right, they are turquoise only "at their best." I'm not so sure about p2p but positive about the fact that co-intelligence exists at every level of human evolution, even before we became humans. In fact, I've been intending to write an entry about the collective intelligence at the level of orange, green and yellow. (I have not much direct and recent experience of CI at beige to blue.) One of these days…. if and then the intensity of being in the flow of it with others will let up so that I get enough uninterrupted time to reflect on stuff like that…

HI,

I want to agree that this dialogue needs to turn into a multilogue and that Wilber, represents only a partial voice, although one which has wide appeal to exiting ER and entering/nodal FS.

If you look at Graves work on A'N', I don't think Wilber's IOS is operating at yellow, allow it has 2nd tier content and context...but more is needed...i.e. conditions for one and code for another.

There isn't a problem on earth at this point that can't be solved by the intelligences in first tier, should be sufficiently horizontally complex.

We don't have 2nd tier conditions, according to Graves, those are required for the unfolding for the next levels.

We are, in my view, getting 2nd tier meme generation and therefore content and context, but the code is missing because conditions aren't yet developed.

Just because technology ( horizontal complexity for the most part, which is and can be learned--which distinguishes it from vertical complexity) is expanding dramatically--obviously creating moral issues (which will open the door to 2nd tier conditions, probably at transhumanism)--doesn't mean we need people on a ladder.

This whole consciousness busyness is just that, a single "line" as Wilber calls it (I don't use lines!) that is expanding "horizontally" and the appeal of it to consciousness junkies is alluring and all encompassing.

I don't think this is bad, but I do think it's inefficient (Wilber) to project this onto the scene without a real understanding of Graves to begin with. The material on Graves work is so limited, that without a lot of study in SD--beyond reading the book and talking with Don Beck and others--has caused Wilber to make serious errors in his maps and in his thinking--this of course is my thinking.

There are central assumptions in his theory:

that meditation is the route to vertical complexity (flawed studies, sorry)

that transcend and include is actually operative for emergence--go find the chicken in your cake?

that there are "lines" of development...I'm sorry, nothing in the way the brain/bodymind works is linear...

There are others.

Now, to agree with Wilber that he has presented a system that a lot of people understand and can function within does increase interest in development and that is key.

However, few can develop beyond their inductive bias, or narrowness. I've worked with people one on one for years and I've found developmentally people are largely entrained by their predisposition or developmental trajectory.

WHILE people can learn, grow and develop, it is constrained, most often to epigenetic capacity and it's difficult to escape that gravitational hold...therefore it's not an efficient solution, either to prepare the "elite" or the masses for 1st, not alone 2nd tier fitness.

I do agree with Wilber about making levels healthy, although I don't use a term that can be confused with pathology...people have a right to be who they are...and can't be until they are --GRAVES.

While I'm not a Gravesian per se, I do think he found some keys in what SD reports as a values constellation and those "attractors" are key to help us support a "network" rather than a spiral.

While complexity does spiral, a network is a much more efficient metaphor to explain how things work.

Those are some ideas to add to the pot, [btw, I did contact Fink and agree that holding a meeting can be helpful on collective intelligence, which to me is where the meat is so to speak, not in individual internal development--proffered by the last 7000 years in the eastern traditions. They are now having to come to the west to unravel their internal issues. I spoke in India last month and a professor came up to me and asked me if we could use our virtual model to help the 630,000 villages that are stagnet and in danger of literally dying off...because their systems are NOT working to elevate the standard of life to life in these areas...

I'm sure there are other issues as well, but I don't think an internal driver is the way, because internal is only available to a few in terms of "developmental trajectory" --e.g. Jaques

I'll leave it there and try to come back from time to time to post, thanks for doing this.

> There isn't a problem on earth at this point that can't be solved by the intelligences in first tier, should be sufficiently horizontally complex.

I tend to agree with Einstein's saying that we can't resolved our problems at the level of consciousness that created them.