Progressive framing

Continuing this post, I can see how Terry's framing might encourage some who identify with integrality to get politically involved, as that demo has been less than active, some even identifying such activity as 'green.' But by integral marketing's own estimates fewer than 2% of the population identify as such (likely an inflated stat), so it's singing to a very small electoral choir. Much broader support is needed. To wit: More candidates that frame things progressively are winning a lot more special elections in deep red districts.

Also remember Stein's study of JFKU integral theory students. This from p. 8 is interesting: "Also examined was the relation between Integral Life Practice and Lectical Level. Level scores were neither correlated with with any meditative, body, or shadow practices, nor the number of Ken Wilber books read." The following indicates that knowing the model itself does not generate higher order understanding. E.g., from p. 15: "There are clear developmental differences in the ways in which individuals in this sample understand integral theory and practice." And one area of the study was significant: Those who stereotype individuals, or worse cultures, within a particular level or color is antithetical to higher cognitive complexity, and if fact inhibits it (18).

Note the chart on p. 5 of the levels, then the chart on p. 10 on the range of interpretations of the AQAL model in stages 10 through 13 (aka formal, systematic, meta-systematic, paradigmatic; or orange, green, teal, turquoise). The notion of a 'center of gravity' for levels is, irony of all ironies, GREEN relativism! And typical sophomoric interpretations of quadrants and levels are ORANGE! Just knowing the AQAL model does not in any way jump one to postformal (or so-called integral) cognition, as one's prejudices are carried into the study of AQAL.

The point that even those who identify with 'integral' are not operating consistently from at least a meta-systemic level, even in framing integrality itself. So to merely identify with integral evolutionary ideas does not make one so. And it often sets up an ideology that rates everyone else based on perceived traits of what integrality is, with the solution to get others to accept the ideology in order to make them integral too. That is, if enough people are integral then problem solved. (Which reminds me a lot of The Secret.) Instead, practical solutions reside in operating from the framing that works best to achieve social justice results for the most people right where they are.