just a reminder

the DEA may not prosecute any member of the native american church, regardless of race. thus, by constructing a computer source code, which basically amounts to freedom of speech, a potential distribution mechanism is virtually protected as the government cannot censor any first amendment manifestation. with this network in place, a decentralized power grid can alleviate persecution by maintaining a coalition conducive to individual needs and demands.


Judge Patel--> Bernstein vs. Department of State
ACLU et al. v. Norman y Mineta


Internal Principles Versus External Rules

In the spirit of uniting multiple, if not outright contradicting perspectives, I checked out a library book called: Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, written by Steve Milloy, a Fox News columnist, cofounder of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, and co-director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. After skipping around for a bit, I more or less felt like he was coming from an Orange center of gravity, which advocates the exploitation of nature for profit, using technology to enhance the standard of living and emphasizing progress:

"it seems that 200+ years of the technological innovation, free market-driven prosperity, and individual freedoms that have defined America's unique place in the world--and have drawn countless generations of immigrants to our shores in search of a better life--have not impressed the greens. They plan to diminish the famous geographic, social, and economic mobility of Americans--the very things that have always made us feel that "anything is possible." They are keen to reverse our noble advancements in producing more goods and services at less cost. They rail against economic growth as a blight upon society and the planet. They applaud technological retrogression as a virtue and seek to resurrect windmills, zeppelins, clotheslines, and iceboxes..." Milloy 5

He goes on to say that there is no scientific evidence indicating that carbon dioxide emissions (manmade or otherwise) control or even measurably impact global climate, that the "hockey stick graph" (that wouldn't be exponential growth, would it?) has been discredited by methodological flaws, and that it is necessary to fight against the Greens' scare campaign at all costs.

His points are as follows:

- green policies will add to costs, damage the economy, and destroy the tax base that feeds the government

-greens won't let America develop its own natural resources (domestic oil and gas drilling, coal mining, or nuclear power), even though wind, solar, and biofuels are more expensive, unreliable, and cannot satisfy the nation's energy needs.

-greens will try to limit reproduction, regulating the amount of children you may have (like in communist china)

-school curriculums will be in "eco-lockdown" as inquisitiveness will be hindered due to the imposition of an unquestioning politicized dogma

-government regulation will become more intrusive, growing to an international level

-"sustainability", "smart growth" and "optimum population" will effectively destroy autonomous economic activity

-"organic farming" uses more fossil fuel, land, and water as opposed to modern agricultural technologies which allow farmers to grow more food with less land and water.

-"carbon neutrality" will consider mere existence to be an ecological problem where every action is a violation

-all binding [greenhouse gas] emission caps will limit energy use and threaten future economic development, condemning people to perpetual poverty.

-greens promote oppressive lifestyles and convey a sense of urgency to end debate and rush to solutions, expanding their power.

his solution is to first figure out what companies you own, and then file a shareholder proposal requiring businesses to explain their course of action and remind them its their fiduciary duty to make sure you, as a shareholder, profit as much as possible, and if they don't actively oppose regulations, its a form of negligence, forcing you to sacrifice your standard of living for a regressive political agenda.

It sounds like the Author is primarily concerned about increased government control of people's lives. And why shouldn't he be? With an Orange altitude, he has transcended the Amber level (promoting authoritarian institutions) so as to more fully prosper at a global level. His perception of Greens, despite the possibility of their good intentions (and he does state the importance of the environment), is that they are reverting to using tools of authority (government, "oppressive" institutions and regulation") to FORCE others to do the Greens' bidding.

While the author uses many sources and includes a suggested reading/ viewing appendix, his main concern is that humans are not responsible for creating global warming. This may or may not be true, I really don't know, but I would love to see a dialectical knowledge evolution through a possible conversation with Freeman, who seems to have maybe graduated the Orange (and possibly Green) levels, and is relating what he sees to be the "proper" way forward:

-Outlaw new poisonous energy sources (monopolizing the energy sources for greens)
-create tax credits (giving greens "unfair" advantages in the marketplace)
-increasing regulations (interfering with the free market)
-funding research and development of new technologies (thereby increasing government spending)

Its interesting how these two world views run almost completely counter to one another. For instance, Freeman states: "A true solar revolution more promising than the development of nuclear power is under way that is likely to drop the cost of solar power below the cost of electricity from coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power. The breakthrough is the commercialization of an ultra thin solar coating material that can over time cover anything under the sun and generate electricity with no pollution and no fuel cost."

Now, either these two writers could speak in warlike rhetoric, increasing their constituency/ base until two systematic ideologies blew up and incited violence, or they could engage each other through the conflict resolution inherent in taking an integral approach to solving their problems:

"In our ever-evolving universe, each of us should strive toward inhabiting multiple perspectives--especially those that stand in contrast to our own habits of thinking and feeling. Only through developing such a capacity for world centric perspective-taking can we adequately achieve the mutual understanding so desperately needed on a a planet fragmented by conflicting world views and approaches." (389) To overcome this fragmentation, Integral Ecology provides a way to weave all approaches into an environmental mandala, and ecology of ecologies that not only honors the physical ecology of systems and behaviors, but includes the cultural and intentional aspects as well--at all levels of organization. (486) Esbjorn-Hargens, Zimmerman--Integral Ecology

How then do we resolve this? My personal guess would be that after a scientific study aimed at establishing whether or not it is necessary for businesses to actually conform to new standards, community projects should arise where local inhabitants spend their own time to help businesses make the transition. That way, each participant becomes a stakeholder in the future they cocreate, and no one feels like the burden to change rests solely on them. Also, the private sector should probably take more initiative than having the government tell people what to do, while a world-wide marketplace takes an active interest in understanding the key issues while restructuring their actions to promote sustainable practices informed by biomimicry, creating leverage so that businesses previously unaware of why its important now no longer have to address the ideology of Greens but now recognize the necessity for change for sheer survival/profit. Thus, orange gets what it wants (not being forced to by government as it realizes the potential for ecological economics) while greens get what they want too. I suppose too it will be up to the greens to demonstrate and prove that a lot of what they claim is possible while not inhibiting the role of strategic business as Oranges fear they are proposing to do.

In this way we can start to eliminate waste by design, addressing concerns about "outside control" by integrating communal concerns to self-organize new models accordingly.

"Some people think the movement is defined primarily by what it is against, but the language of the movement is first and foremost about keeping the conversation going, because ideas that inform it never end: growth without inequality, wealth without plunder, work without exploitation, a future without fear..."these people" are reimagining the world." 188 Hawken

maybe the bargaining stage is already present, contextualizing the existence of bad stuff by showing what it led too. In a book called Movement and Revolution, the author was saying that because recently modern childhood is largely protected from the experiences of painful illness and death, we come to feel very early that we are each persons of considerable importance, that we each have dignity and rights that belong to us. At the same time, society is pliant and responsive to each of our needs, and thus we acquire a low frustration threshold. at the same time childhood is marked by values and by a consciousness that are emphatically personalistic, bureaucracy by contrast has an ethos of emphatic impersonality.

"Put simply, an individual shaped by modern childhood is most likely to feel oppressed by modern bureaucracy. Indeed, one brought up in privileged circumstances is likely to have a very low "oppression threshold" when it comes to the impersonal procedures of bureaucracy..."

Thus people today feel oppressed and exploited simply by being subjected to bureaucratic processes that a generation ago would simply have been accepted as pragmatic necessities, as they are considered little more than statistics.

Gives new insight into why recent generations supposedly have perspectives informed by notions of entitlement, sometimes called "little emperors".

Anyway, after getting depressed about the fact that so much suffering has had to take place, we'll probably figure that its all just "perfect", since just breathing is a gift and we should all be content with the experience of existence, no matter how tough it turns out to be. Thus the fun becomes struggling against injustice and joining the "revolution", even if its just because we have nothing better to do :)

besides, "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right?" not to be callous or anything, but one could see the entire history of humanity as one big massacre. I take comfort in my privileged position and only hope that I can provide some sort of relief through my own personal practice


how to get over unfairness

1: justification
2. communication
3. taking other perspectives
4. non attachment to outcome

5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance



The Paradox of "Knowledge"


I think it’s interesting that even while recorded time has passed for several thousands of years, as the evolution of our knowledge has "progressed", we continue to organize and systematize our observations and notions of reality so as to hopefully better inform our sense of what exists. Yet we are still left with virtually nothing, as every single aspect of ecology conceived of is nothing more than another individual's perspective: based on [a whole bunch of theory], we should do __________ (fill in the blank as you see fit). We are still making decisions based on systematized assertions, though at least now we have more or less acknowledged and accepted the idea that we can't ever know everything (dare I say anything?). Thus arises the need to bring it all together (through interwoven perspectives). As such, we have not so much evolved our knowledge as refined our ignorance:


"What we call 'facts', in other words, are not ready-made but emerge in a complex process of perceptual, emotional, and cognitive negotiation between knower and known. According to perspectivalism every assertion is made by a person occupying a viewpoint within a cultural worldspace....consciousness is embodied in flesh…Assertions about environmental problems are created and interpreted by people with different perspectives and interests...Hence, a 'perturbation' in a complex system is determined as such by scientists with a methodology, informed by a hypothesis, which is influenced by a larger theoretical perspective [the 'best' one being one informed by an AQAL lens, of course]." Integral Sustainability 35


I wonder however, if this concept of "Integral" only perpetuates the folly of "confusing the map for the territory." The arrogance of attempting to authoritatively categorize "everything" in a relatively short handbook seems to be an unabashedly disturbing depiction of reality lending credibility to notions of "Ecofacism." When one categorizes, systematizes, organizes, hierarchizes, and taxonomizes the various phenomena we are all exposed to, it seems natural to put one's self at the top of the stages of conscious development (if not, there would be no possibility to recognize everything "below") so that OF COURSE when defending Integral Theory or AQAL as the most enlightened "Theory of Everything", it would seem natural that its main proponent (Wilber) would qualify as an "Eco-Sage" simply because he invented or refined the particular perspective being defended.


Of course that logic of theory would seem to follow: we are all the hero or protagonist in our own stories and will thus obviously try to inspire and motivate others on "lower" levels of consciousness to be more like “us.” Perhaps this self-centeredness is the basis for all writing in general (as we would have no reason to communicate to others anything we were not especially proud enough of to begin with), yet it becomes problematic when that pedestal becomes the foundational reason for telling others to do what we think is right.


Coming back to "Ecofacism," defined as a human institution where individuals are subordinate to a state of consciousness in which society is depicted as "developing according to the dialectical laws of history" (551), which, perhaps not incorrectly, presupposes that communal vitality is being drained by 3 factors: (571)


1) Urban industrialism (which cuts off the citizenry from its instinctual roots and natural setting)


2) racial mixing (here defined as the "abomination" of letting those "unworthy of ruling", i.e. "lower" levels of consciousness--red, amber, orange..., act in non-integral ways-- like waging war based on ethnocentric perspectives...)




3) misplaced pity that supports the "degenerate and otherwise deficient people" (i.e. letting those persons of a "lower developed consciousness" stay in charge...).


Through integral logic, "ecofacism" then becomes simply another perspective to be united in a comprehensive meshwork so as to more clearly articulate the "right" way to proceed.


For instance, Freeman writes it is necessary to create a "unifying solution" that "exists to control consumer costs, protecting the security of this nation, combat the awesome threat of global warming, reduce the existing health menace of local air pollution, and decrease the radioactive dangers," (9) by expunging the poisonous energy systems (oil, coal, and nuclear energy systems) and focusing on Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Biomass, Hydrogen (renewables)...so that "the needs of the nation will prevail over the self-centered views of any individuals or group...(174)...With inexhaustible and relatively clean and economical energy, we can satisfy the basic need for food and material comforts for all people inhabiting the Earth. But first, Americans must recognize and value a LIMIT on personal material affluence." (Freeman 206)


With the synchronization of the world through democratically elected policies, a procedure for change can take place, enacting a manifested evolution. Whether that change will be beneficial or not will depend on whether it is motivated by an Integrally conceived of system of habitual practices geared towards solving for pattern: "the spiritual practices that evolved were varied, but all concentrated on focusing and guiding the mind with simple precepts and practices whose repetition in daily life would gradually and truly change the heart. Enlightenment was not an end--equanimity, kindness, and compassion were." (Hawken 185)


So, by recognizing the value of interiority and internalizing a theoretic interpretation of reality that appreciates and conforms to such a belief (while remaining unique, but that should be taken for granted), clear objectives may be organized so that


"transformative practices such as therapy, contemplation, meditation, and community service help individuals discover the roots of their attitudes, beliefs, and emotions that give rise to care for or damage the environment. We stress the importance of individual (UR) and collective (LR) transformative practices so as to support individual development (UL), which in turn can affect collective attitudes and practices (LL), leading to new institutions (LR) that further support interior development (UL). Until we can create healthy expressions of each level of development and until we have leaders who embody worldcentric and planetcentric levels of development, we will continue to misuse nature." 195 Integral Ecology


Basically authority comes from synthesizing the work of others.


Anyone disagree?

[dialectical philosophy needed for paradigm shift where the future of democracy is sped up so that in acting we will be participating in the manifestation a new government]

Implications: we can better predict the future by creating it ourselves