Comments on teal organizations

Following up on this post, some comments from that FB thread follow:

Me: Actually the neo-Commons is more than socio-economics; it's an AQAL affair covering all the bases, itself a 'level' in all the zones.

Bruce: True this ~ but it doesn't spend any time whatsoever classifying self as such! ...which is the tar baby of the *integral* clan...

Me: As Gidley has said, some just enact integrality, others have to classify it. And it's not necessarily the same animal.

Michel: that's a very astute remark Bruce .. anyone who feels the need to call themselves 'integral' or teal as an individual characteristic, is probably one of the surest signs that it ain't.  p2p is emancipatory integral as opposed to reactionary integral, i.e. attempts to recreate a new hierarchy based on perceived or claimed states of consciousness ; following Wilber we could call it 'subtle hierarchism'

Me: I noted in this Ning IPS post the following, which links to the Gidley citation:

Gidley talks about the difference between research that identifies postformal operations (PFO) from examples of those that enact PFO. And that much of the research identifying PFO has itself 'been framed and presented from a formal, mental-rational mode' (109). Plus those enacting PFO don’t necessarilty conceptualize it as such' (104), meaning the way those that identify it do, i.e., from a formal operational (FO) mode. Which is of course one of my key inquiries: Is the way PFO identified through FO really just a FO worldview interpretation of what PFO might be? Especially since those enacting PFO disagree with the very premises of the FO worldview and its 'formally' dressed PFO?