networking holons

construct sentences that energize, educate, and entertain. then internalize...

all of our language is used to compartmentalize and determine existence/reality in the hopes to fuse together and develop portions for personal gain (as an alchemist would do), or manipulate experience to create a better place for the self to live within (as a strategist might do). Athiests often blind themselves to the synchronicity of the universe and the spirit that permeates it, while theists hierarchize themselves to keep everything equal to each other, UNDER god. The Generator, Operator, and Destroyer of that which exists exists with or without our acknowledgement. To say "I believe in god," would be as ludicrous as saying I believe in humanity. its irrelevant. it is a written symbol of experience that exists whether or not you recognize it. rather, it is about trust, and whether one has the will, the choice, and the foresight to trust in the truth of that symbol. eckharts quote demonstrates the inadequacy of language to describe something as unimaginable as this force that has created us. How can our minds (a part of a larger whole) even conceive of such a being. by definition we cannot contain the full thought process of all that it would encompass, and so, we can only ascribe letters to the abstraction we feel there to be. 

Yet what of those illogical elements that strike the individual? that in experiencing existence, one is exposed to signs or revelations of something else sustained only by a momentary glimpse? How can logic be what establishes the existence of God? Infinite regression is fine, but if we see our own infinite regression of the cells in our body, they are initiated by a sperm and egg from outside parties. Perhaps the big bang is just the fusion of two other universes, or outside parties entirely?


"awareness does not need the brain to exist" ---> so therefore, FOR the brain to exist implies that one's specific awareness is trapped/limited to the subjective ego's own experience? To transcend this own experience and thereby return to the completeness of the totality of awareness would require the dissolution of boundaries and barriers in 2 ways (at least): 1) death 2) communication. Thus god, that force which is omniscient, cannot be contained in the human mind as a symbol in its full state, nor can the omnipresence/ominpotence we associate with it (namely, the whole) be conceived of by any of its constituent part (us)

has consciousness benefitted homosapiens? we are systematically destroying our environment, enslaving and oppressing ourselves, and wiping out significant portions of our food sources. Just the fact that the introduction to fire led us to cook meat, and now we can no longer process raw meat as our digestive enzymes have been forever altered, should at least point to the absurdity in stating that consciousness is our greatest benefactor.


hijacking new world orders

So I noticed while reading Mark Edwards' "Where is the Method to Our Integral Madness" that he basically states the reason why Meta-theorizing is still kind of a "fringe" discipline is because there is no real Method for proving any of the assumptions that meta-theorists come up with (am I right in taking this conclusion from that paper?); That there is no formal infrastructure with which to prove or solidify hypotheses, and the result is that:

"Integral meta-theory will not take its full place among the mature forms of scientific disciplines until it too has reliable methods for (re)searching the good, the true, the beautiful and the just." 185 Edwards

While I wasn't completely clear on Wilber's Integral Methodological Pluralism (except to say that we should all appreciate each others unique insights and contributions) I was wondering if Merry's "Evolutionary Leadership" may perhaps be (at least the start to) that infrastructure needed to determine the validity of a meta-theoretical assumption.

That is, for a community (which accommodates a meta-theory) to display the CHANGE CYCLE; the 5 TENETS that lead to the evolutionary impulse of which 4 CORE ELEMENTS come to emerge; CHANGE CONDITIONS; DESIGN FLOW; and ultimately the EMERGENCE OF COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE (out of which we facilitate a necessary change) through its structural processes...-if these key aspects are considered the actions of those who apply the meta-theory proposed, then could these processes possibly constitute the necessary method with which to in fact prove the theory? To paraphrase, perhaps the meta-theory is only able to be proved by charting the RESULT of its theoretical manifestation (simply by displaying these common traits) AFTER people abide by it?

I know this runs into the problem that in the absence of other methods, research communities will simply APPLY a format rather than act as contributors and critics to a living system, but I got the feeling that meta-theories really couldn't be institutionalized first because they are the constructions of a new world view that can't be proven UNTIL they are actually in effect, and by then it WOULD be proven because it ALREADY exists in actuality--which to me was what the opening anarchistic quote was speaking to in that it is impossible to nail down an assumption because all our tools (science, rationality, logic...) are NOT universal measures of excellence. It's a contradiction that helps us understand the world, though it's too vast to actually prove empirically, aside from us ASSUMING the theory is right and living our lives accordingly.

"Creating the conditions in our physical selves which will maximize our ability to respond to emerging needs is therefore a key part of leading ourselves from an evolutionary perspective." Merry 78

Because "self" is the vanguard of any movement, there is no way to prove a theory is accurate aside from first adopting it fully, and second, acting from/through/out of that prime motivator; which makes it impossible to check the validity of the theory until it's already in motion.

However, considering that meta-theories are built from unit theories (that are constructed using methods) then wouldn't they be implicitly true by default?

Maybe I'm missing something crucial, or perhaps stating the obvious, but it just seems that meta-theories appropriate and co-opt discovered truths and fuse them together to serve the authors own vision of reality, to get the audience to see the way the author sees. And it can't really be proven false until it fails as a cultural perspective (but what would that even look like? Reality would have to be in direct opposition to the proposed theory after it was instated), right?

Anyway, if any of that's true, then I like meta-theory that much more because it seems like it is founded at its core by freedom, as long as its backed up by pre-established facts. In this respect, we would be free to do anything, as long as we could (integrally) justify doing it!


the messiahs on the way...!

who would you rather be led by:





 operation northwoods

i love my fellow countrymen.

responses to responses

I got the impression halfway through writing this I was writing just to entertain myself, but hey, maybe that’s why anyone theorizes anyway...

Okay, it seems like the map we are drawing goes something like this:

In searching for truth we create a meta-theory by freely incorporating sections of various concentrations and disciplines that have collectivity become assembled.  One particular approach to regarding this massive social accomplishment is “Integral”—the simultaneity of many (or different, though ideally all) parts of meta-theory re-establishing themselves within each subsequent theorem, bringing clarity to all other component theorems as well.

“This integral overview, or Theory of Everything, further acts as an indexing system for all these worldviews, thus allowing us to appreciate the special and profound contribution that each makes. ” (Wilber 112)

In creating this integrated lens, we transform an impossible abstraction (the Kosmos) into something much more manageable. As the meta-theory evolves, so too does our understanding of it—and consequently, our understanding of ourselves.

Within this context our experiential stratification begins. By living our lives in the separate places that we do, our intake of processes or interpretations of given multifaceted social phenomena provides the differentiation between individuals. Social groups and communities develop at rates relative to each other, resulting in the specialization of individuals into interdependent value-driven memes [Spiral Dynamics].

“The prime directive is for all of the memes…to be seen as necessary parts of the overall spiral…allowed to make its own crucial contribution to the comprehensive health of the spiral.” (Wilber 124)

From an integral perspective on “Transformation,” we are enamored by this advancement; we concern ourselves with the “Leadership” dynamics of evolution (i.e. how to transcend and include different levels of SPIRAL DYNAMICS to “change” the overarching social order/system into a more harmonious collective cultural value system) to better apply and institute ways of adapting to the surrounding environment. Our community value system manifests as the social system, which itself is constructed out of the individual values that shape an action.

This relationship between individual and collective in their effort to change can be seen in the many different processes and illustrations of generally unified conceptual schemes.


Is this more or less correct? I’m assuming the point of all this is that the more “in-tune” you are to the knowledge production process (meta-theory), the more inclined you will be to solve problems, which will present themselves more frequently in the future as global dilemmas no doubt will require global responses. Thus, the need for “Integral” dynamics—psychological, social, technological, ecological…

This seems pretty general, like a “no-brainer,” though I’m prepared to recognize the enormous implications that studying the specific concept of leadership may play. If correctly mapped, proposed, and implemented, the perpetual state of evolution’s rate of collective transformation could increase exponentially, helping us adapt and advance to the world around (and inside!) us at an altogether staggering speed.

Questions that arise are such:

1.              What are critical variables in an analysis of leading, or transforming?

2.              How would we translate the “Apocalypse” into integral terminology?

3.              What are variables involved in determining values (good, evil)?

4.              What is the role of Object and Subject?

5.              How do foundations relate to formulations?

6.              What is the future of Integral theory?

7.              What is the difference between theory and theorist?

For me, something that produces results is necessary in analyzing any change or transformation. Perhaps this is an idea, policy, social institution, coded technological process, etc…rather than a person. I’m not sure change is a process as much as it is an idea representing an alternative situation, with leaders acting as the portals from one state of reality to another. I think people are used as vehicles for a concept that is now “different.” They may go out telling others what needs to be done, or how to do it better, but they are constantly in motion living one way, as opposed to the idea, policy, institution, … which is stagnant and unchanging in its self. People may subscribe to a NEW belief, and their actions may come into compliance with that unchanging belief system (which even while the system may state “everything changes,” is itself unchanging), but again, the higher order process, which, to me, is the prime cause for the “leadership occurrence,” remains the same. People are then “enabled,” or “allowed” to act in a more “pleasing” manner due to the ideal absence of any convoluted or contradicting aspect in the different, other thought.

I think this relates tremendously to an integral approach concerning the archetype of “Apocalypse” in the many united forms of spiritual folklore. Apocalypse, Greek for “lifting of the veil” (revelation), implies the general acknowledgement of some previously unknown truth, and thus, the reversal of actions to fit to the new prescription. So, it is not people who are the “Change,” but rather a new governing tool being utilized. Here, the evolution of Meta-theory (or perhaps the integral approach to that theory) has developed to a single point in time of which people now accord their actions. Thus, acting in a different way involves having a new model to mimic—or, making one up as we go.

So too, I see the relationship of ob/subjective to be inextricably linked to determining values. While objectively we may concede that there are only enough resources to provide all with only half of our requirements, subjectively we possibly could assert that “my” needs are more important than anyone else’s. I think self-interest/preservation is definitely at the root of any value system, though as we transcend levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, entertainment, purpose, and spiritual fulfillment certainly guide our actions as well. Tradition, religion, moral application, worldviews, and the recognition of human values influence thought and action as well, but these, to me, are emotional responses of the subjective to the objective world one finds him/herself in. We all create our own meaning and structure our responses accordingly.

Maybe it’s this meaning we have rationed into existence that creates the foundations for formulating any other truths we may feel is important. Wilber writes, (84) “I made the observation that…liberals tend to believe in exterior causes, whereas conservatives tend to believe in interior causes.” If one were to make an a priori assertion that people are basically good, then perhaps they would be more inclined to adhere to social institutions, thinking these bodies were aimed at helping and aiding them in their pursuit for a higher quality of life. Conversely, if people were considered to be bad, then these same institutions would be the subject of fear and confusion, and people might think they were there to control and corrupt the individual in their quest for success or prosperity, for the gains of another. The resulting conclusions might mutually contradict each other, providing for the stagnation of social processes if nobody can agree on common values.

Here is where I think Integral theory has potential for its greatest success. By identifying common values, fears, and expectations, and neutralizing all qualms, we can move forward with how better to use the system for personal and communal gain without labeling ourselves (progressives, conservatives, environmentalists, Christians, Muslims, working class, activists, etc…), because everyone would recognize the commonality of their aspirations and goals.

Finally, I think the only difference between theory and theorist is that we tend to identify one as subject and one as object, a detrimental mistake in my mind. We live our lives by what philosophies are fashioned at the different times, deeming theses “truth” and turning them into doctrines to guide ourselves by new cultural religions. The difference is that while a system of words created by a theory is unchanging, that is, a published paper can never be changed—it simply exists as is—the theorist on the other hand CAN change. S/he can be subjected to a whole array of new experiences and events that can drastically change their views and opinions. The theorist can then write another (unchanging) document that will serve as the most “enlightened” display of experiential truth discovered, at least until the next attempt.

Responses to responses to questions:

1.     Is anything alternative to integral theory? Considering each assumption is developed and guided by aspects and dynamics motivated by a concurrent understanding that continually evolves—and as was stated, we are all in “learning mode”—perhaps the only alternative to integral theory is integral practice, a revolution of body to enact any necessary shift in individual/societal norms. I suppose a break from integral theory could be if one were to study a specific subject in such depth as to understand its matter completely; and consciously choosing not to factor in its contextual relevance within the greater holarchy. But even simply understanding a multilevel-integrated lens would move them into the realm of Integral. Anything else would be like looking for answers in a limited “ignorance is bliss” type of environment.


2.     If integrated culture includes malevolence, then perhaps we should differentiate between “pain” and “suffering.” While surely there will never be an end to tragedy in our lives, we can more assuredly dictate the place it holds in our lives. We learn and “grow” from personal accounts of pain, yet it is more of a choice to suffer from that pain, even while agony is repeatedly inflicted. I think Merry might speak more about the necessity of pain, and one quote I liked was something to the effect of “stress is the inability to accept what is.” We are called to seek out injustice and make it right (perhaps that is just my own assertion), and to be oblivious of malevolence, or to decidedly ignore it, I agree, would be detrimental to an integrated culture.


3.     I think my question is are we saying there is something “déclassé” about operating from a lower level of meme status? One could argue all day about the moral opposition and ethical contradictions that are implicit in war as a means to justify not fighting in one. However, how can anyone argue with the statement, “no one tells me what to do!” besides sending them to prison, showing them you actually DO control what they do. I propose that justifications for action operating out of the higher memes often appear cluttered to anyone not on that level when having to account for integral processes, when all that is really needed for a person to stay resolute about their actions is deciding what they will in fact be obliged to do, and then not compromising with anything else. Obviously, that individual will “suffer” from a retardation of complexity, and the flat-out refusal to accommodate compromise, but s/he will never be persuaded by a more “authoritative” logic, or be manipulated by the governing social apparatus. I brought this up because it seems as if this statement is quite fundamental and crucial at a lower level (red, I think?); and, because it’s transcended and included in second-tier, it is quite valuable to be acquainted with to utilize correctly.


4.     Just so I have some clarity about the majority opinion on the subject, are we saying that simply leading others (and ourselves) into a new generative future to overcome any obstacle or adapt to any situation is the ends itself? Or is that where we are now, and there is something in our way presently, hindering us from fully implementing it? I think this could fall into the both/and category, but to me, there seems to be something currently preventing that transition. Maybe it’s only Time, but if indeed a theory needs proof—the empirical observation of change—or as you put it, using a “meta theoretical approach, particularly integral, to shape a strategy for survival of the species in the face of the challenges we face today,” then I believe there must be a fundamental transformation from the present climate (perhaps not accommodating of integral notions) to one that implements, encourages, fosters, and demands an atmosphere of collective integration, and furthermore, I think a 1-unit class is the perfect place to theoretically construct that social structure as an acting catalyst in solving the problem!

Step 1:            Make a list of things that suck, while proving an unhealthy imbalance

Step 2: Formulate a healthy balance using various lenses

Step 3: Embed results through local networked governance from self to Self

When parts impact the wholes they make up, a “positive” charge (as opposed to a “negative” one) will determine the extended life course of the social organism, and new energy will create new actions. Let the system change.


Was that too much, worth saying, or even coherent? Am I projecting? 


conscious evolution (a would be transcript)

We need a way to map, track, and connect the things that are working in a time of mutually assured destruction, where many are afraid of nuclear HOLOCAUST. There are population problems, growth problems... we find ourselves hitting a limit. Club of Rome

The Capitalist system is based on infinite growth. The same year as the lunar landing, earth day is conceived. We are born as a universal species, technology, militarism...

With minerals in space, we find unlimited new environment. We need to grow up and integrate self-social-technology. We need to figure out what's working--not to just kill people, but to notice all the problems.


Peace must be as advanced as war--> we will see it. We are right at the threshold. Mapping connectivity--> new news. The government can't do this alone--> we are sharing life purpose while creating new purpose.

We must enhance connectivity; creativity is the source of governing the government.

While the media hasn't caught up.. we must check internet people--

Executive order at the grassroots level. SIMPLE. Be receptive to change in individual-social- technological.


spiritual jumps--> greater consciousness--more complexity (hits a crisis, self destruction is possible, self = evolutionary awareness, we are expression of evolution process being conscious, motivation is impulses of evolution localized ____union oneness

The clarity of connection, framework is a tool to affirm connection, religions, traditions,

40,000 years ago self-reflected consciousness,

next stage of human evolution, ultra, noetic, gnostic, universal human

consciousness is evolutionary

eternally conscious of internally connected to eternal

cosmogenesis--in our parts are the story--supernova dust
atoms of jesus, carbon

embody that. consciousness--> tune into molecular biology, physics,

EVOLUTION OF SELF-expression of the one

encoded with creation, motivated to create

you were CALLED to do something

recognize self as larger of design.

surrender to process.

critical mass to be reached

civil rights, universal rights, human rights, women's rights

social-self evolving as evolutionary self becoming more conscious and creative, social evolution is facilitation of our reactivity finding its vocation and joining with others to create

if you are not dealing with bullshit, you create, find lifepurpose, chosen work--> society is finding ways to express unique creativity.

somewhere you are needed. state goals, needs, resources, in light of whole system,

news is co creation, hit something you can't sustain, signal of what can happen

United Nations University, NASA

no finances to create an organization

run for vice president--evolutionary perspective, displayed

pays off. social synergy . scientific--quantum disruptive--RAY CURZWELL?


biotech nanorobotics, 0 point energy, 20-50 years with spiritual , social, not just technology,-------social self, homouniversal--noosphere, capable to restore conditions

shift or die.

scenario--> doing business in a resource limited world--why dont you create task force into solving--> environmental social poverty earth based energy potential, 30 year scenario, you are smart enough to do this, we are more fragile than we look.

humanity ascending- completing visions of humanity

ECOLOGY--environment can go extinct fast

its okay to be violent, corrupt, prejudice, = spell
spell broken, planted seeds, great creating process, accident based on error,


call to conscious evolution
draft of declaration
dont know social synergy application yet
hasn't happened yet.
joy f supra sex

seuxal drive expanding into creative drive
turn on to greater creativity
cmpass of joy- tell your story
meant to express ourselves
vocational arousal
joining of genius
Pleasure in sexuality--> cocreative society
post menapausal--> regenerapause
create a world by joined creativity
old system can't do it

obama is propping up an old system until a new one emerges.
keep it from complete collapse until relocalization,

we've hit peak oil, theres no way to go back
need a social structure to empower cocreativity

don't look to others, look to ourselves and relationships

we need to stop convincing people to change. We need to create a power structure ourselves that will be able to do the tasks we need it to do. connect ourselves to education systems, job training, farming, etc...we need to stop all harmful practices. we need to subsidize peoples lives until their actions change for the better. we need to take care of ourselves.



Battles for the World's Trade

Things to think about during a Mass Protest.

1. you are preventing other peoples freedom. they will not like you.

2. when one person does something to another, two people do something to that person.

3. start smashing shit if you can't get your way.

4. do a what would you do

5. burn money

6. be willing to die

7. what happens when guns come out?

8. bring your own.

9. are you willing to kill?

10. get in line with nature.

As unprovoked attacks on spoken truth harmonize with law, we all must move to where we need to go. "What is your mission? To protect freedom or prevent it?" Stick to those on your side, don't let people stop you. Don't let others stop those with you.

Who the fuck is in charge? Don't just shout "shame." Protest. Move where you want. Make signs. Make statements. Get the working class: productive people are listened to. Politics, legislature. Make sense. Start saying stuff. Defend your actions. Inject community organization with culture. Who has a purpose?

Speak Truth. Explain what is not good. Money changing hands. Re-educate. Start getting arrested-its all part of the struggle. VOLUNTEER. Believe in what you say. Its always for the kids. Talk to the other side. What is your business?

This is another generation not aware of what you know. What is the problem?

The WTO ought to have a human face, with the most prepared number of Trade Ministers in history. Brave men and women in every continent endorsed by their sacrifices. The now universal values of freedom. Nelson Mandela's smile ignited and lifted the spirits of men and women everywhere. Trade in itself is not enough. Members pay up to nine times more in debt repayment than on public health. Sell what they create. Live on under $2 per day. Dismantle barriers. Increase world economic output.

A $1.2 trillion boost to the world economy and the poorest nations would gain the most.

Technology and science can improve the condition. A year's wages on the internet for free. The best the world has to offer. There are so many in this conference who also marched, protested, went to prison, fought, suffered. Let change exist.

Do we capitalize off of others? We march together. Freedom is absolute. Buildings don't talk back. Exchange flags. Disgust for admiration. Release your rage into the system. Now amplify it.

We are going to go to war. For your safety, all those opposed to injury please leave now. Negotiations don't mean shit. Talk is cheap. Lies are at the door. Communicate. Police are coming from behind we need to make decisions. We're tired. We are sustainable. We are successful. Move forward.

Dance. Sing. Play music. Be who you are. Plant culture. Offend. Be free.
Figure out differences. You are not my government. I am my government. Awaken. We live through the stories we create. Teleport to another dimension.

We do not have the full story of who we are. We are searching for answers. We are searching for logic. Knowledge is trying to take its place in our mind.

Consciousness against subconsciousness. Is destiny a birthright or an achievement?

Love conceives of our logic. It is technology. We are without sin. Choose what is right. Find what is good. Give up your authorities. Let truth guide you.

Are you ruled by time? We create content to destroy death. Release the captives. Who are our Gods? There is only the supreme. We act for it. Those who hide wisdom are no longer fit to lead. Speak the spells that free us.

There are things wrong. Profit at the expense of people will not be tolerated. We take exception with your actions. We are converging. We are uniting. We are dying together.

!@#$%^&*()_+":?><,./`~=- who is the terrorist?

anonymity is the essence of power and fear