Same old kennilingus dogma

Over at IPS forum we've been discussing Evolving Dharma by Jay Michaelson. e chimed in with his usual kennilingus dogma on how Michaelson is 'green' because "he criticized Asian dharmic culture as being too stratified. He criticized capitalism and folks who marginalized minorities." Hologram holomovement replied:

"I certainly have my limits with overly politically correct greens, but their ability to be critical of capitalism for destroying human communities and the environment and being more tolerant of alternatives that are more egalitarian and non-judgemental is something that is desperately needed at this point in history.  so instead of labeling greens as mean-green nihilists as wilber and the integral orthodoxy do, we should encourage and promote the best of each level while maintaining a critical eye toward the pathological at each level.  wilber is clearly in a performative contradiction when he proclaims the transcend and include imperative on the one hand and then dismisses the greens by excluding the entire archetypal lexicon of social justice from his system in favor of entrepreneurial commercialized spirituality, the postmodern form of religion in late capitalism."

To which I replied:


Also see this post and several following, which call into question the kennilingus green meme formula while offering a different take on what constitutes postformality. I and many other alternative integralists have argued that in many ways kennilingus is itself formal and not post, one being "entrepreneurial commercialized spirituality" as you so eloquently put it. And another of your good points is that just because someone might care about more egalitarian communities, environmental stewardship and social activism doesn't in itself make them relativists where anything goes. Such reductionism is again indicative of formal operations, and skewed ones at that.