Applied Integral Politics—Simulating the Operation of Future Global Law

Those who follow my work know that I am an advocate of political evolution toward a limited, democratic, integral world federation. My views on this goal are described in Integral Consciousness, and elaborated further in a 2007 interview with EnlightenNext Magazine, found here:

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j38/mcIntosh.asp

Moreover, since 2004 I have maintained an on-line petition entitled: A Declaration of the Value of Global Governance, found here:

http://www.integralworldgovernment.org

Although I believe the advent of a functional world federation is contingent upon the rise of the integral worldview in approximately 10% of the population of the developed world, I think there are ways we can begin using this future goal in the present. In other words, if we know that human social and cultural evolution will eventually result in an effective form of democratic global governance, we can start to plan and act in ways that will simulate the benefits of global law now. We can look beyond the current conditions of a post-colonial world of competing nation states "in a state of nature," and envision geopolitical solutions that could be achieved by a future world federation.

One such solution applies to the war in Afghanistan. Below is a 1,100 word "Op-Ed" article I recently wrote, which suggests how a supranational authority could "change the game" and provide an innovative solution for peace in the region. The article is aimed at modernists, with no mention of integral politics or world federation. It thus provides an example of how integral politics can be applied in the modernist marketplace of ideas. This piece will be published next week on the German world affairs website:

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com

However, I wanted to offer it here as well, with the addition of this larger explanation of the integral context in which it was conceived. At the end of the piece, below, I offer some additional "extra-textual" commentary.

Op-Ed Article: WINNING IN AFGHANISTAN
— An Innovative Strategy for Peace

Steve McIntosh

The war in Afghanistan is on the verge of being lost. Unlike the fledgling government of Iraq, the government of Hamid Karzai has not been able to exert control over the Afghan countryside (as is painfully demonstrated by the burgeoning opium industry which finances the Taliban). Despite the best efforts of the NATO alliance and many well-intentioned Afghans, the Karzai government remains a very fragile entity whose existence is wholly dependent on the ongoing presence of 30,000 American troops.

Employing the same tactic that defeated the Soviet Union in the 1980s, the Taliban have used the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as their primary weapon, conducting hit and run attacks in Afghanistan and then retreating to their sanctuary across the border. Although Pakistan has made ostensible efforts to attack Taliban sanctuaries within its territory, these initiatives have been undermined by the ineptitude of the Pakistani army, and by the fact that many Pakistani military leaders covertly support the Taliban. This unwillingness to combat the Taliban arises from the perception that the continuing military viability of the Taliban is necessary to counter Afghanistan's increasingly close ties with Pakistan's enemy, India. Karzai has consistently favored India over Pakistan in his foreign relations, and this has helped to fuel the ongoing "cold war" in the region.

Exacerbating the situation of a nearly failed state in Afghanistan is the very real prospect that Pakistan may also become a failed state. The recent U.S. ground and missile attacks into the tribal areas of Pakistan may have taken out certain Taliban leaders, but these attacks have also put severe domestic pressure on Pakistan's new democratic government. Thus, the simplistic strategy of "chasing the Taliban into their cross-border sanctuaries in Pakistan and finishing them off" does not appear to be a viable option because of its destabilizing affect.

President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to send perhaps 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan. However, even a reinforced total of 50,000 U.S. troops are unlikely to resolve the conflict. During their war in Afghanistan the Soviets maintained troop levels of approximately 100,000 and still suffered over 15,000 deaths at the hands of the Mujahideen. Like the North Vietnamese before them, the Mujahideen effectively used the protection of an international border to defeat a more technologically advanced enemy. And this is the same situation we face today; the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is proving to be as reliable a weapon in this century as it was in the last.

Tacitly acknowledging the futility of our military efforts, former White House Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recently called for a "political solution" which would seek to disengage with the Taliban in exchange for a promise not to harbor or support Al Qaeda. However, it is doubtful that the Taliban's central command could make such an agreement, and associated tribal leaders have already broken similar agreements with Pakistan. So it is naive to expect that any agreements made with the Taliban regarding Al Qaeda would be honored.

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute recommends a less conciliatory strategy that would concentrate on training and expanding the Afghan National Army. However, the Soviets tried this very same strategy, which failed badly due to the unreliability of Afghan troops and the Mujahideen's effective use of the border as a shield for its guerilla war.

The U.S. is thus faced with a seemingly no-win situation. If we withdraw our troops Afghanistan will revert back to the pre-9/11 status quo within weeks. If we accelerate the war by attacking the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan we could trigger a civil war in Pakistan and destabilize the entire region. And if we try to "stay the course" by sending in two more brigades of U.S. troops with the hope of training the Afghans to eventually take over the war for us, we will have embraced a Vietnamesque losing strategy that will bleed us slowly until we finally capitulate.

Therefore, in Afghanistan we need a bold "game changing" strategy, similar to Nixon's trip to China in 1972, which turned the tables on the Soviets and marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War. We need a strategy that will improve conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan simultaneously. Such a strategy will not be without its own risks, but wars are rarely won through plodding caution.

If we want to WIN in Afghanistan we need to eliminate the artificial, colonial relic that is the border with Pakistan. This could be done by ceding Afghanistan to Pakistan in exchange for a joint security agreement with the Pakistani military under which temporary yet direct military access to the tribal areas could be had by NATO forces. The divided region of Pashtunistan, which currently straddles the border, could be united as a province within an expanded Pakistan and given a degree of autonomy; providing something of a "victory" for this proud people, while simultaneously taking away the Taliban's primary weapon—the border that divides their country. The remaining Persian speaking regions of Afghanistan could also be given a high degree of provincial autonomy within a greater Pakistan, similar to the kind of autonomy enjoyed by the Kurds in Iraq.

Not only would such a bold move devastate the Taliban's ability to make war in Afghanistan, it would also strengthen and support Pakistan, making it more secure in its relations with its Indian and Iranian neighbors. Moreover, through this action we would remove the primary justification for the Pakistani military's tacit support for the Taliban—with the two countries consolidated into one federal region, the Taliban's role of buffer force for Pakistan will become unnecessary.

Unlike Iraq's government, which has developed a relative degree of freestanding legitimacy, the Karzai government's sovereignty extends for only about five square blocks in Kabul, and would quickly collapse without the presence of U.S. troops. Afghanistan's de facto government consists of corrupt warlords, and the countryside is increasingly lawless. Thus, if we want to bring lasting peace to this region we must face the fact that the "country" of Afghanistan is not a sacrosanct entity. Like a house with a faulty foundation, the current geopolitical container of the Afghan people cannot be built upon in a sustainable way. As long as Afghanistan remains occupied by NATO and defined by the 1,600 mile border that once marked the frontier of the British Empire, it cannot succeed as a nation.

Despite the inevitable difficulties and objections that such a bold strategy is bound to provoke, if the U.S. wants to put an end to the increasing bloodshed on both sides and avoid spending needless billions in a war without end, we need to innovate. We need to learn from the lessons of Vietnam and not allow ourselves to be defeated by a border that we must recognize but that our enemies may ignore.

[end of op-ed article]

Some afterthoughts

After reading this piece, you may ask: how could this ever be achieved? This is too radical and would be opposed by the U.N., Afghans, India, Europe, etc. So let me emphasize that this is a solution of last resort. Perhaps NATO will have to withdraw, let the Taliban take over, and then invade a second time to create a "clean slate" under which borders could be adjusted to correspond to the natural borders of consciousness. I would certainly like to end this war in a less dramatic and potentially disruptive way, but as argued in the article, "staying the course" will only likely produce another Vietnam—a lengthy and bloody conflict that we will inevitably lose. Thus, if you have a better idea for peace in the region, I'd love to hear it.

 

"We All Speak Arabic" Memorial — cultural healing for Iraq

As of this writing, it looks like the war in Iraq is winding down. So as we prepare to leave, I feel strongly that for all we have destroyed, and for all we have tried to build back up in the way of security and infrastructure, we also need to try to reconstruct some cultural interiors in Iraq—we need to restore some of the dignity of the Iraqi people and pay tribute to their once and future greatness.

Toward this end, I have conceived and designed a teaching memorial for Baghdad called: "We All Speak Arabic." This memorial would celebrate the accomplishments in mathematics achieved during the golden age of Islam—many of which were actually made in Baghdad.

The “We all speak Arabic” memorial would celebrate Islamic civilization’s significant contributions to our international system of decimal numbers and to mathematics in general. The actual forms of our numbers, zero through ten, are taken directly from Arabic script! Think about how important ones and zeros are to the digital age. So this memorial would tell the story of Islam’s achievements in mathematics during their golden age. These mathematical achievements were adopted by Europe several hundred years later and made a big difference in the development of capitalism in Italy, and in Western civilization in general. Numbers (Arabic numbers) are the world’s only universal language, and now is the perfect time to thank Arabians and restore some of their pride as a people through this memorial.

I have a beautiful design for the memorial (the attached image is only a placeholder) that combines traditional Islamic architectural motifs with sacred geometry and some high-tech elements for a stunning appearance. Inside the open air memorial there would be exhibits informing visitors about the accomplishments of great Arabic mathematicians, such as Al-Khwarizmi.

From a cultural standpoint, the developed world can now help the evolution of Islamic civilization by showing respect and gratitude. A memorial such as this would thus help to heal the animosity that is an ongoing threat to peace, reducing the anti-American resentment that is so prevalent in the Middle East. Just as the Vietnam War memorial provided cultural healing for America, this memorial could help heal the “internal wounds” and restore some much-needed dignity to the Iraqi people, and to Islam in general. This kind of project can also contribute to the reduction of violence and the recruiting of terrorists. Although food, medicine, security, and investment are all needed, we can’t ignore the “internal” cultural side of the problem either. Now that we have torn down the memorials to Saddam Hussein, we need to replace them with something positive—now that we have removed the dictator, we need to restore hope. And it is through symbolic gestures such as this memorial that hope and morale can be restored. This could also generally benefit international relations between Islam and the West, which would ultimately redound to the benefit of Americans.

Initial Steps to implementing this idea include the architectural rendering (CAD drawings and model making) for the memorial, as well as the collection of contents for the educational exhibits. Prior to actual construction, we could create a “virtual tour” of the memorial’s design, viewable on-line. This would build support and help in the organization of a diplomatic mission to Iraq to secure the cooperation of the Iraqi government and find an appropriate site for the memorial to be constructed.

The optimal outcome would be that the memorial would become a symbol of pride for Iraqis. Similar to the way the Statue of Liberty (a similar gifted memorial) has become a symbol of pride for America. Measurements of success would include international media coverage of the memorial, both in its idea phase, in its construction phase, and ongoing thereafter. Success could also be measured by opinion polls of Iraqi people in their attitudes toward America and the West, and by the state of long term relations between the U.S. and Iraq. Once we raise initial seed capital, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Foundation could be set up to receive the additional money needed and administer the creation of the project. If you would like to help with this project, send me an email: steve@stevemcintosh.com

 

Writing for AQAL Journal

Back in 2005, the Integral Institute inaugurated The Journal of Integral Theory and Practice (the "Journal"), which claimed to be a peer-reviewed academic-style journal. I was somewhat skeptical at first because I suspected that submissions would be required to conform to strict Wilberian orthodoxy, and that the "peers" who did the reviewing would be limited to Integral Institute insiders. However, when I attended the Integral Theory in Action conference at John F. Kennedy University in August, I found that the integral academic milieu was developing a healthy independence. Moreover, I could see that Sean Esbjörn-Hargens was working closely with the Journal to ensure its integrity and academic credibility.

Then, shortly after the conference, Australian integral theorist Mark Edwards sent me a paper he had written (which was soon to be published in the Journal) which critiqued “Appendix B” of my book, Integral Consciousness. Appendix B, entitled: “Consideration of Wilber’s Four-Quadrant Model of Evolution,” expressed my concerns about the AQAL model’s integration of human artifacts into the timeline of evolutionary development. Appendix B thus offered a critique of the quadrant model, which I hoped would spark a scholarly debate about the issues raised.

After reading Edward's critique of my critique of Wilber's model, I inquired with the Journal to see if they were interested in publishing my response to Edwards. They said they were indeed interested and (if I could move fast) they could squeeze it into the same issue in which Edwards's paper was due to appear. When I asked about the "peer-review" process, Esbjörn-Hargens explained that "JITP publishes dissenting voices. The only thing you have to tend to in this context is that you present integral theory's view on these matters correctly. As long as the theory/AQAL is represented accurately then you can go to town critiquing all you want."

So based on these assurances, I wrote the article "Problemitizing Interobjectivity: A Response to Edwards." After turning in the first draft, I received constructive feedback from Esbjörn-Hargens and doctoral student Zachary Stein, who served as the peer reviewers. Then once I had revised the paper to incorporate their comments, it was sent to Ken Wilber, who apparently reads (and vets) every paper published by the Journal. As a last hurdle prior to acceptance for publication, I was asked to join a conference call with Wilber and the other editors to discuss my paper. Given that Wilber has not always taken criticism very well, I didn't know what to expect on this phone call, having not spoken to him directly since 2003. However, I was pleasantly surprised by our conversation. While not agreeing outright with all my critiques, Ken acknowledged that I had some valid points and that the theoretical problems of interobjectivity and artifacts are "what smart people should be thinking about." The call ended on a positive note and I was not required to revise any of my critiques. I did, however, add an endnote that reflected some of the nuances of our discussion.

Pointing out the shortcomings of Ken Wilber's quadrant model is obviously not the main thrust of my work. But I was glad to make a contribution to the academic world of integral scholarship. So if you subscribe to the Journal, look for the forthcoming "Edwards and McIntosh debate," which will be published at the end of the year. Once the Journal issue is out for a while, perhaps I can get permission to reproduce it here on my website.

Overall, I'm very glad to see that integral philosophy is slowly gaining academic legitimacy. However, we still have a long way to go before this new philosophy of evolution is appropriately recognized by the more elite circles of academia. And ultimately, no matter how much scholarship we accumulate, it may be folly to expect that the cautious and conventional professionals who guard the gates of mainstream academic legitimacy will ever be willing to validate our transcendence of their way of thinking.

 

Travels in California

For the past few weeks I’ve been traveling in California in connection with my Integral Philosophy work. My trip included an invitational event at Deepak Chopra’s center in Carlsbad, a talk at the new Santa Monica Center for Integral Living, a talk in Berkley at Bay Area Integral, and a variety of presentations at the Integral Theory Conference at John F. Kennedy University. I finished the trip with a weekend at Esalen on the Big Sur coast where I gave a workshop on Integral Consciousness. This post includes brief comments on the highlights.

Evolutionary Leaders at the Chopra Center

This event was attended by some of progressive spiritual culture’s most prominent thinkers and activists (named in my last blog post). As you can imagine, it was difficult to accomplish concrete outcomes with forty outspoken postmodernists in a room together, but we did agree to work on a “declaration of conscious evolution” document, which is still being circulated by email prior to finalization. For me, the best part of the event was the personal connections I made with Jean Houston, Marianne Williamson, Peter Russell, Bruce Lipton, and Deepak himself. Although the integral perspective was well received, there was a clearly discernable difference between the participants who were “exit green” and those who remained embedded within the postmodern worldview. I did make the point that the best way for progressive spiritual culture to persuade modernists to adopt postmodern values and concerns is for postmodernists themselves to “become the change” and demonstrate their own evolution by adopting the integral worldview. I emphasized how the often anti-modern sentiments of postmodernism represent a hindrance to the important project of moving America’s center of gravity forward in history. Overall, I think that there were good integral seeds planted at this weekend event and I look forward to working with this group into the future.

Integral Theory Conference

The long-awaited integral theory conference at JFK University was very exciting and rewarding. The sold-out event was attended by over 500 people, with at least 300 more on the waiting list. It was the really first time that a good portion of the integral movement could “see each other,” and the connections that were made helped to solidify and expand the intersubjective entity of the integral worldview. My presentation on Integral Politics and Global law was well-attended and well-received, and I also participated on two panel discussion: “Does Integral Theory = Ken Wilber” and “Integral Politics.” The Integral Theory panel, which included Sean Hargens, Allan Combs, Bill Torbert, Sean Kelly, Bonny Roy, Mark Edwards, and myself, was electric — the room was filled to overflowing with over 200 people and the questions were excellent. However, I sensed a lack of cohesion among the panelists about whether the integral worldview is really the next historically significant stage of human history — what comes after postmodernism — or simply an interesting “meta-theory.” I argued for the former, but I’m more of an activist than an academic. The Integral Politics panel was attended by about 40 people, and it also resulted in some lively discussion. As with the Chopra Center event, for me the highlight of the conference was the personal connections I established and the general exchange of subtle energy among the participants.

Esalen Workshop

I was moved and impressed by my first visit to Esalen. The beauty of the ocean and the rugged cliffs of the Big Sur coast, together with the venerable pedigree of this pillar of postmodern culture, gave the place the aura of a sacred site. My workshop was held in the “Maslow room”(auspiciously), and although I worked hard to give my attendees a fulsome experience of integral consciousness, I also had time to soak in the delicious sulfur hot springs just above the waves with my wife, Tehya, and two-year-old son, Peter, who thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

The integral worldview is blossoming all over California and it was a real pleasure to return to my native state and share my work with so many enthusiastic people.

 

Gathering of Evolutionaries at the Chopra Center

Thanks to the help of Gerard Senehi and Carter Phipps, I’ve been invited to a special event at the Chopra Foundation in Carlsbad, California on July 26 and 27. This event is described as a “gathering of thirty evolutionary visionary pioneers whose radical new ways of thinking and interpreting human experience have expanded our knowledge of evolving consciousness and its impact on the way we lead our daily lives and respond to world issues.” Other participants include Brian Swimme, Jean Houston, Marianne Williamson, Michael Beckwith, Duane Elgin, Barbara Marx Hubbard, and of course, Deepak Chopra. The event is designed to help us “evolutionaries” coordinate our mutual efforts and otherwise get to know each other better. In furtherance of this social goal, we’ll be having dinner at the home of Dr. Chopra and his wife Gita on Saturday night.

As a newcomer to the marketplace of ideas, I’m obviously pleased to be invited, but I’m not sure how the “subversive” nature of the integral worldview will be received by these leaders of postmodernism. In anticipation of the event, the organizers asked the participants to fill out a questionnaire about “the great shift” that is occurring. So I provide one of my answers, below, as a preview of the position I’ll be taking at this gathering:

Question: How could this collective coming together of leaders be most instrumental in bringing public awareness to the great shift that is occurring?

Answer: First, we could demythologize the idea of “the great shift”, recognizing that there is not just one shift, there are actually many shifts in consciousness going on simultaneously in the world—a shift from pre-traditional to traditional in Africa, a shift from traditional to modern in Asia, and in America, and ongoing shift from modern to postmodern, as well as the beginning of a shift from postmodern to integral.

We could also be more discerning about the nature and behavior of cultural evolution, and recognize the fallaciousness of the wishful thinking that expects that the world is going to “wake up” and suddenly become “cultural creative” in a miraculous transformation.

Progressive culture has already made significant progress in the fight for human rights; through the progress it has made in raising our society’s concern for the environment; and in the way that American culture has now become more tolerant of alternative lifestyles and more conscious of the values of spiritual pluralism. Although there is obviously much more work to be done in these areas, when we compare our current national culture to the state of American culture in the 1950s, it appears that evolution has been achieved through the rise of progressive postmodernism. And this postmodern worldview is continuing to actively develop and persuade people about the importance of its issues and concerns. Yet there are also signs that this worldview is no longer showing the same creative vitality and dynamism that characterized its emergence in the 1960s and its consolidation in the 1990s. Postmodern culture is growing, but there are many signs that in this decade it is growing at a decreasing rate than its rate of growth in the 1990s.

Thus, at the current rate of growth it may actually take generations before the majority of the American body politic becomes conscious enough to effectively deal with our environmental crisis and create the kind of moral society that spiritual progressives envision. And just scolding people, just admonishing them to care more and be more responsible is not going to produce the results we need. The pace at which our global problems are increasingly becoming “more local” requires that spiritual progressives find a way to become more effective at raising consciousness—and this is where the integral perspective can be of great assistance.


I’ll post a follow-up blog entry in August to recount my experience of this auspicious meeting.

 

Integral Advice for the Next President

On Friday, What Is Enlightenment? Magazine is interviewing me on the topic of “integral advice for the next president.” So now that I’ve had a chance to think this through, it seems like a good subject for a blog entry. But before I offer this advice, I have to say that no matter who is elected, this person will be a “tool of the system” to a large degree. So while I do hope that the next president can help us make progress, I'm not pinning all my hopes on the American federal government to provide the important political leadership we are going to need in the years ahead. Those who have achieved integral consciousness will also be needed to help move America’s cultural center of gravity forward in history by building the social structures of the integral worldview.

Obviously, the next president will need to resolve some basic issues, such as achieving a positive resolution to the war in Iraq, providing for a better healthcare system, and a fairer immigration policy, as well as reducing the deficit and propping up the dollar. However, from an integral perspective, I think there are three main areas where the next president can provide the kind of visionary leadership that will improve the human condition worldwide. These are:

1. Launch a major campaign to shift the American economy away from its reliance on fossil fuels.

2. Inaugurate a new kind of foreign policy that recognizes how every problem in the world is a problem of consciousness.

3. Provide integrally informed leadership in the areas of education and economic development.

I’ll discuss each of these proposals in turn, starting with the first and most important: the issue of energy.

By weaning the American economy off its reliance on fossil fuels, we can solve multiple problems at once: global warming can be ameliorated; air pollution can be reduced; the corrupting influence of oil wealth on developing countries can be lessened; the significance of dysfunctional Islam can be reduced; the U.S. economy can be stimulated; and the eventual globalization of the new energy technology can provide a way for China and India to industrialize without destroying the environment. Moreover, through such an initiative America can fulfill its duty as the leader of global modernism and restore its moral reputation in the world. Indeed, America’s dependence on foreign oil is really our biggest long-term threat, so there is a strong argument that we should use a portion of our defense budget to pay for the kind of “defense” we really need.

From an external perspective, creating an alternative energy economy requires two kinds of solutions: an engineering solution and then an economic systems change solution. The engineering solution involves finding the best long-term alternative to fossil fuels. And to achieve this goal writers like Thomas Freidman have called for a new Manhattan Project, like the program that came up with the atomic bomb in the 1940s. Through this kind of intensive national effort we could identify and develop the most effective form of alternative energy.

Then once we have come up with the best alternative to fossil fuels, the next phase of the solution involves a systems level change that will convert our economy from one that’s based on oil to one that can be run on this new technology. However, this systemic transformation of our economy is something that the free market won’t be able to do by itself, the government will have to get involved to help us through the transition. Then, once the American economy has created the alternative technology and made the transition from fossil fuels, it will be much easier for the rest of the world to follow suit.

However, notice that the biggest hurdle to implementing both the engineering solution and economic solution is the tremendous problem of generating the prerequisite political will. It took the concentrated threat of World War II to generate the political will for the original Manhattan project, and it seems like short of World War III, America’s political will for alternative energy may not be adequate until it’s too late.

Thus, the heart of the challenge is not the external engineering or systems change problems, it is the internal challenge of generating the requisite political agreement to undertake the sacrifices that will be necessary. And this is where the integral worldview’s new understanding of the internal universe can be of great assistance.

Just as Kennedy inaugurated America’s decade long mission to the moon, our next president needs to inaugurate a similar kind of “moon shot” for alternative energy. And he or she will find that “integral technology” can be an indispensable asset in this critical initiative by helping to overcome the primary challenge of building the political will required for such an undertaking.

The next president can also make major progress by initiating a new kind of foreign policy. For example, it’s important to see how war in the 21st century is being fought primarily in the internal universe. The conflicts turn not so much on the actual military engagements, but rather on the results of the battle for hearts and minds. And it’s also important to see how wars are often fought with the tactics and technology of the previous era, resulting in costly losses and bad mistakes. So as we might expect, history is repeating itself in the war on terror—we’re fighting it with the tactics of World War II and the Cold War, wherein torture, secret prisons, and unjustified covert operations by the CIA and others are making us less moral overall. Thus, any gains in the external universe produced by these tactics are more than offset by the losses they create in the internal universe.

So my advice to the next president is to act on the understanding that a more moral foreign policy is actually a critical part of a comprehensive and effective national defense. And by embracing this understanding will see where we need to change our tactics. For instance, we can put an immediate end to all forms of rendition and torture, and we can carefully articulate a more transparent and accountable role for our intelligence services. We can announce this change in direction and the reasons for it, and then we can do some things to help heal the history that is continuing to hurt us today. For example, we could pay for a memorial in downtown Tehran that memorializes our shame at the CIA’s political manipulation of the Iranian government in the 1950s. We could symbolically atone for those sins, help heal that little bit of history, and thereby become more moral ourselves.

We can also strengthen Islamic traditional consciousness by using integral technology to help empower the more moderate voices of Islam. For instance, we could endow a prestigious prize like the Nobel or Pulitzer called “The Qur'an Prize” that could be given annually to the writer in Arabic, Persian, or Turkish, who best demonstrates that Islam is a religion of peace, and that violence is un-Islamic.

However, this is not to suggest that we should simply go soft on terrorism or adopt a predominantly left-wing foreign policy. We can’t ignore the very real threats posed by all the unhealthy forms of traditional consciousness in the world. The integral approach to the war on terror thus involves using the solutions of every level simultaneously. For example, we can use a traditional approach by keeping the Navy in the Persian Gulf, we can use an modernist approach by continuing with the diplomacy of economic carrots and sticks. We can use a postmodern approach by apologizing and making amends for some of our past actions, and we can use an integral approach by becoming better at changing hearts and minds through the application of the kinds of integral technology I have discussed.

We can also make our foreign policy “more moral” by insisting that all our foreign aid be focused on the central task of raising consciousness and thereby providing permanent solutions to problems of hunger, poverty, and disease. Moreover, America can articulate a new standard of justice for the way it will treat all foreign nationals—a basic set of rights that everyone is entitled to regardless of their citizenship. America cannot shirk its duties of leadership in the world, and the articulation of a global standard of justice that we are willing to abide by will go a long way toward restoring our moral fragrance and the world’s good will.

Finally, my advice for the next president must include the use of integral technology to improve our public education system and appropriately stimulate our economy. It is in these areas that the integral perspective can help us make major progress in the ongoing development from warrior consciousness to traditional consciousness, and from traditional consciousness to modernist consciousness. Moving America’s center of gravity forward in history must begin with these initiatives to “strengthen the base”.

So ultimately, my advice to the next president is that he or she needs to become fully integrally informed and to surround him or herself with a cadre of integral advisers, including some at the Cabinet level. In the final analysis, politics is always about persuasion, and in this task the integral understanding of consciousness and culture can be used as a new kind of secret weapon, somewhat akin to “remote viewing” into the internal universe.

 

Speaking in Boston, Lenox, and New York City

For the past few days I’ve been on the East Coast giving presentations on integral philosophy. On Wednesday, January 23, I spoke at EnlightenNext’s beautiful Boston Center, and the audience participation (a group of about 80 people) was really terrific. Much of the discussion focused on “free will” — where it comes from, why it is an organ of perception of values, and why it is a critical feature of human consciousness’ role in the “cosmic economy.”

Next, I traveled to Andrew Cohen’s EnlightenNext headquarters in Lenox Massachusetts. Set in the Berkshire Mountains, this former Vanderbilt estate consists of a large “manor house” (in which the offices of What Is Enlightenment? Magazine, the community dining room, and other facilities are located), and several other historical buildings, including a large “meditation hall” where I gave a presentation to another sizable audience on Saturday night.

I stayed at “Foxhollow” (as the estate is called) for six wonderful days, having private dinners with Andrew and Executive Editor Carter Phipps (see the snapshot from my i-phone of the three of us above) on three occasions. Andrew, Carter, and I talked a lot about “integral natural theology” — the aspects of spirit that become “self-evident” from an integral perspective. That is, even though Andrew’s teaching is rooted in Eastern Nondual traditions, and my spiritual path has been Western and theistic, there is nevertheless very much we can agree about, and even directly see from the newly emerging vantage point of the integral worldview. For example, Andrew and I both agreed that evolutionary spirituality yields a kind of “developmental logic” that shows us how the evolution of our consciousness will continue beyond this life, with death changing very little. Also, we both could see that there is really only one “authentic self” in which we all participate. However, in our discussion we did encounter some interesting differences regarding the spiritual importance of originality. From my perspective, even though “we are all essentially one,” we are all also uniquely original. And it is this originality that allows us to be known and loved by God. Although Andrew now recognizes a Divine Person through the concept of the “second face of God,” this concept is not as central or robust in his theology as it is in mine.

Concepts such as the “Authentic Self,” the original and eternal nature of human personality, and the love of God, are obviously beyond the scope of this blog post. So suffice it to say that Andrew, Carter, and I had a very fruitful and heartfelt discussion, which is continuing to resonate and give me a new appreciation of the movement of spirit in the world. I hope to write further about integral natural theology soon.

Overall, I can say that I was very impressed with Andrew Cohen; I found him to be warm, natural, and thoroughly authentic. Despite my reservations about the Guru model of spiritual community, I received a most favorable impression of the Foxhollow residents. Especially edifying was the friendships I established with WIE editors Carter Phipps, Elizabeth Debold, Ross Robertson, Jeff Carreira, and Robert Heinzman (not to mention Andrew). In fact, in my travels to various cities to speak about integral philosophy, I consistently find that the EnlightenNext folks are some of the most spiritually fragrant people I meet. It does seem that Andrew is definitely doing something right.

After giving a variety of presentations and interviews at Foxhollow, Carter Phipps and I took the train down to New York City to give a joint presentation at EnlightenNext’s center near Madison Square Garden. Here again we had a large and receptive crowd and I thought the evening went very well. You can hear a recording of this presentation in its entirety on the INTERVIEWS SECTION of this website. The New York talk was a new format for me — usually I give a prepared power-point presentation followed by questions. But in New York, Carter and I started with a brief statement of what the integral worldview meant to us, and then we devoted the rest of the two-hour event to questions and discussion. This Q&A format helped me see that I am a much better speaker when I can be spontaneous and let the “intersubjective field” of the audience bring out the content.

In the next few months I’ll be giving a variety of presentations at the new Boulder Integral Center (see the SCHEDULE SECTION). Also, we are continuing to work on planning my trip to Southern California, where I grew up.