INTEGRAL CONTEXT
Print format

From: Bruce S.
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 1:54 PM
Subject: Integral Context
Reply to: 265694
ID: 265699

Thank you Ram. I am doing what I can to make this emerging "matrix" concept workable and readable. If you "click on" the smaller image sent in email, it should take you to a full-size image -- though that image, too, might be hard to read, since it is over 1300 pixels wide.

I don't know what kind of a monitor or email program you have, but here is that same image at 1200 pixels wide -- probably too big for many people. Maybe we can make an html (web page) version of this, that simply expands to fit whatever monitor somebody is using.

For this model to really make sense, or be entirely clear -- I think we would have to work on defining what is meant by "the integral context". What is that? Something like the awareness that "all things are one". But we need to get clear on the details. For example, part of that idea might be the notion that "all IDEAS are one" -- and we have to show how and why that is true. "All intellectual and academic and scientific disciplines are one" (ie, "all the subjects taught at a university are one"). This could get a little complicated -- I think this is the kind of thing Ken Wilber is trying to do with his AQAL model. Maybe we can create a new alternative model like that -- that shows how all those elements are held together within The One.

What is this "integral context of The One"? Presuming we know the answer, here is that model of integal politics, in an early stage:

Though it may seem we are simply going over the same ground repeatedly -- I don't really think that is true. Though these themes seem familiar -- I think the effort to interpret all these elements within a single (and "simple") framework is actually very innovative and ground-breaking. People have been talking about these things for many years -- but nobody, that I know of, has really been able to pull these pieces together in a fully simple and clear way.

If we can do this -- we can then show how hundreds (millions) of complex details are then held together by these larger simple principles. This is potentially very powerful -- and very "revolutionary".

And yes, as we keep looking at these things -- we can be exploring how and why these themes have implications for subjects like the environment or the economy. The transpartisan web site (http://www.transpartisan.net) states that its purpose is

To empower a unified political voice capable of restoring a healthy balance of power between government, corporations and the American people.

As regards the distinction you mention -- between "interior" and "exterior" -- that reminds me of the ideas of Ken Wilber. To me -- tell me what you think of this -- that distinction does not feel entirely real or natural, and I am not sure in my own mind whether I can really make that distinction.

Is my own visual experience -- say, of looking at a tree -- an "interior" experience, or an "exterior" experience? The actual visual experience takes place in my brain -- in my optic nerves. Something inside of me receives light, something happens in my neurons, there is an experience. Where is that experience located? Part of that experience is created by me, part of that experience is "created by the tree". In one of Ken Wilber's earlier books -- "No Boundary" -- he talks about issues like this. But in his later work, he uses lots of boundaries -- that are a little hard for me to understand.

But I am definitely interested in understanding how these various elements - I/you/we/it -- are all bound together through "The One" -- and how a politics based on that underlying truth could emerge.

Let me know whether this wider version is any more readable, and I will keep experimenting with this until we find a way to get all this information into one simple framework, that is easy to read.

Thanks.

--- On Thu, Nov 6, 2008, in msg265694, Ram Varma wrote ---

Thanks Bruce for your efforts to simplify or connect the integral Context to the "Oneness" theme. I am extremely intertested in this theme. And aspire being a part of this authentic dialogue. However, I find that the simplified Matrix that you have sent is hard to read on my computer. Can you please do something to make it clearly readable. In the meantime I am thinking aloud of Oneness into three areas:

1. Being One with oneself

2. Being One with the Universe/creation

3. Being One with the Creator/Source

We can see that we are talking about the Consciousness as It is everywhere at all times with all of us. This is the interior; the realization for which we all need to take responsibilty. Similarly for the exterior/manifestation/opportunity of what is realized within.

Both from interior-exterior/ responsibilty-opportunity scenario kind of 'Integral/Oneness' theme; individually and collectively. I agree with you that Ken Wilber's model is too heady. I am sure it can be simplified for reference purposes. As I feel-see it has some good underlying essence;although expressed over-intellectually.

More after being able to absorb the readable matrix which I hope you will soon fix it. And ponder over it from its translation potential into day to day living of our lives; both on an individual and collective basis.

Yes, Of course, we are individuals connected with the One. Once this reality is deeply felt-known, the unity will begin to radiate on its own. As it is radiating from the President- Elect Barak Obama. What do we need to do with ourselves individually and how do we authentically share this message with a view to cultivate this essence on on ongoing larger and larger (i.e. expontially expanding) basis.

Over-joyed to feel the flow of this Divine Oneness Energy. This is just the beginning though.

In appreciation and thankfulness..........Ram --- On Thu, Nov 6, 2008, in msg265690, Bruce Schuman wrote ---

Thanks to everybody. There is a certainly "a new spirit abroad in the land" -- or, at least, there is starting to be. The whole world is excited about the new US president. There are so many wonderful possibilities. My feeling is -- these possibilities are real, and the virtue and grace in this man is no delusion or fantasy or marketing hype. It's for real, and he is for real. People just have to get their heads around this...

*

One thing I am feeling -- is that his arrival on the scene is part of a larger global process -- towards "something" that we are trying to define. It's called "the shift" by many people -- and for many people, it's very mysterious, full of arcane symbols and unknown mystical forces.

But for me, at this point -- this whole business feels extremely simple. It doesn't feel mysteriously complex -- it's feels mysteriously simple. It's incredibly simple -- that's what makes it mysterious...

And something that I am feeling -- something that I need, it seems -- is the right way to talk about this.

I have been using this word "integral" for some time. For me, this word has to do with "oneness" and "integration", and pulling many separate pieces together into "one". That's the essence of "synthesis". It's like the motto of the USA -- "E Pluribus Unum" -- "Out of Many, One".

This is what we are doing. Out of many -- One.

Humpty Dumpty -- all the pieces come together -- into something extremely simple -- simple, organic, natural -- and, I would say -- divine....

But this word "Integral".

Is this the right word?

I am not yet sure it is.

The word works for me -- but for others, this word pulls in a big current meaning -- it involves Ken Wilber, and many other concepts and historical references -- that for me, become confusing, and are not relevant. When I want to use this word "integral" -- I want to talk about something simple.

For me, this is not a big slightly confused bunch of floating intellectuality and philosophic words -- it feels like something clear, basic, profoundly whole, and without a lot of clutter and controversy. Maybe that is just me -- but my best guess is -- this is how things are evolving. We have moved through all this intellectual clutter, and we are going towards extreme beautiful simplicity.

So, I would put this another way.

What is the best language to describe "the Oneness context"?

If everything is one -- everything is interconnected, including people -- then how do we refer to that context, as the correct and natural and true way to understand reality?

If we want to talk about how the world should understand itself, or make collective decisions about our collective future (democracy) -- what is the right language to describe this context? It's not really "the environment" -- though that might be on the right track, since "the environment contains everything".

IS there some way to put this into words? Everything is contained in the One, everything comes out of the One, everything is connected to everything else within the One..."

And politics and democracy have to look like this, too.

I feel that Obama carries this vision, and the entire world is feeling it.

And part of the power, I think -- is making this very clear to everybody, that this is how it works, this is how we get along, this is why and how global civilization can move forward into a fabulous new renaissance...

*

Here is another version of this matrix, with more elements, more details. Click on it to see a larger version.

It feels to me -- like this is starting to be a kind of master-framework for understanding where we are going, and where we want to go. Maybe we can indeed put "everything" into this matrix.

Just think about it, in your creative moments. Everything is contained in Oneness. That's the answer. Let's just get clear on exactly how this works....

(PS -- maybe this phrase on this diagram "what we actually do today" should be replaced by something like "Before Obama this is what we did". I think of Obama as an "Integral Politician". He is a politician of Oneness. How is this true? Look at all those things of the right side of the chart. He is doing most or all of those things)

---

---