More on who decides what, when, where & why

Continuing from the last post, I'm in alignment with the general parameters of an MIP-civ. I just have questions about not only responsible management but in how we determine what is considered higher levels that do the managing. Just taking the example of the model of hierarchical complexity, the system most used by the kennilinguists. Let's look at how they've fared so far in judging people's level of complexity. There are many within their own ranks that have challenged its rampant capitalistic orientation, let alone reducing everyone who is not a kennilnguist to some lower level. Even the very nature of how the MHC formulates a higher level with Hegelian dialectic has been challenged by many in the movement, like Cook-Greuter, Torbert, Laske, Kallio and many more.*


If they were in charge of profiling who qualifies for public office we'd be stuck in the capitalist paradigm and prevent the already emerging Commons. Granted it'd be a kinder, gentler capitalism, but given its inherent and apparently unacknowledged metaphysical components, it fails to even recognize the nature and scope of the emerging Commons. They would prevent its emergence by profiling out anyone who would promote such a Commons. I base this on how the kennilinguists have virtually ignored it to date, or if acknowledged reduce it to some kind of green meme that can be both spiritually and economically by-passed.

I am however encouraged that the integral movement as a whole is moving beyond kennilingus. The most recent ITC included both Bhaskar and Morin, who are expanding what integral means in directions I'm more comfortable with. We here at the forum have preceded that inclusion by years, and no doubt influenced that transition, most likely through Balder, who has his foot in both worlds.

* This is not a refutation of hierarchy per se, since mereology is accepted. It's just in how a mereology is formulated, which can be done without the sort of Hegelian dialectic mentioned.