What do I mean by prayer?

Topic: prayer

Prayer. What do I mean by prayer? Not contemplation. Not meditation. Not sitting quietly. Not praying in a liturgyQ/LR. But private, individualQ/UR, UL prayer.

“God, if you’re up there…” “God, I want…” “God, help me…” “God, who are you?” “God, are you out there…”

Prayer as a conversation… Avoiding?

Topic. Prayer. Conversation. What do I know about prayer and conversations?

I remember an old friend, an evangelical Christian who always seemed so certain about God and Christ. But we got to know each other really well, and then we told me, “sometimes I talk to Jesus and…” (as if he were revealing a deep dark secret) “I don’t know if it’s real or not.”

“Maybe I’m making it all up,” he said.

Prayer and conversation. How do you have a prayer with someone who may or may NOT be there? Do you have to “believe in God” to pray?

What strikes me tonight is that prayer and conversation require and presuppose the existence of the other party. I want to bracket questions of metaphysics for a while.

Prayer is speaking aloud to The Universe, the Higher Power, Spirit. And allowing Spirit to find its intersubjective context within and beyond you. Prayer is talking to Jesus, yes, but Jesus is Spirit. And Spirit is within and beyond you. Jesus is the ground from which you have all conversations….

Avoiding? Ground. What do I know about prayer and grounding?

When my feet are planted on the ground, I feel more secure. I feel in balance. At one with myself and the world in the plain, ordinary sense that I’m not dizzy and floating and unable to gain a perspective. I get a perspective. Grounding means taking a perspective.

Taking a perspective and prayer. In prayer, we ground ourselves by making Spirit an object to our (limited sense of) self. This establishes an explicit intersubjective contextQ/LL. Then, within that intersubjective context, we find Spirit and become grounded in it.

What better way to ground one’s self in Spirit than actually speaking aloud to Spirit. Talk to God. Listen to Jesus. Be in the spirit of the living Christ.

The role of conservative religionists in fighting homophobia

Note: The following post is reprinted from Rising Up: Reflections on Gay Culture, Politics, Spirit, a book available as an inexpensive ebook or a print-on-demand paperback from Lulu.com. It was first blogged on my now-defunct blog Rising Up on January 9, 2006.

I don’t usually write about the antigay messages of conservative religionists. Everyone knows religious traditionalism and antigay bias go hand in hand, so it’s not exactly a man bites dog story.

But it’s nice to be able to occasionally find examples of religious conservatives pointing out another conservative’s antigay bias and offering constructive corrections. While it’s not exactly a heartwarming tale of conservatives losing their bias to soothe my liberal heart, it does speak to the ways that individuals can make a small difference by speaking out.

A popular Roman Church priest tells his parish that he’s gay but celibate and abides by the Roman Church’s teaching. So conservative Roman Church blogger Mark Shea opines:

But as a layman, I am no more interested in the fact that he is a celibate SSA [person with same-sex attraction] guy than I am in knowing whether the guy in the pew next to me made love with his wife last night. It’s not information that concerns me and it’s not information that my kids need to be subjected to in a homily. Priests who use the homily as a chance to engage in True Confessions like this seem to me to be engaging in a none-too-subtle form of narcissism.

There the traditionalists go again—always making the attributes of the previous developmental stage of egocentrism the preeminent bugaboo of our age, and then misinterpreting higher-stage responses from that warped perspective. Shea’s remarks prompted a comment box reply from Courage Man, a conservative Roman Catholic struggling with same-sex attraction:

Assuming the complaint is “Too Much Information,” then the proper analogy to the guy in the pew next to you would be the priest saying he abused himself last night. At the level of personal disclosure and specific information, the priest is doing nothing more than the guy in the pew next to you does by wearing a wedding band or introducing “my wife.”

Excellent point! Now to hear this comment from a typical gay man would be expected, but to hear it from a conservative Roman Catholic is most encouraging. I advocate the approach of combating homophobia in social institutions by using strategies grounded upon divergent rationales. Among religiously conservative institutions, that means arguing against homophobia by challenging bias without necessarily challenging the orthodoxy of the institution.

If a church teaches that homosexual sex is sinful, then religious conservatives can avoid challenging that assumption while focusing on other areas such as combating negative stereotypes and double standards. Persons who self-define as “ex-gay” or “living with SSA” are among those religious traditionalists leading the way in this sort of important transformative work. Their internalized homophobia and alienation from the mainstream gay culture buys them invaluable credibility in the eyes of the leaders of the institutions where change from within is most desperately needed.

A STEAM-based perspective to fighting homophobia within conservative institutions must include and strongly encourage the ameliorative efforts of folks like Courage Man. We must encourage people to take the little steps at correcting bias when they happen upon it in ordinary life. If mainstream gays don’t like where conservative religionists like Courage Man are coming from, that’s our problem, not theirs. Although conservative views of homosexuality may be repugnant to those of us who see the world from a more complete lense, serious change in religious institutions cannot happen without religionists on the inside doing what they can to discourage homophobia given the limitations of their institution’s strictures. Folks like Courage Man who are closer to the belly of the beast are in a far better position to effect positive change than most of the rest of us.

P.S.: April 2007. As careful readers of Until will notice, this blog post used to be distributed as part of a “free sample” of my ebook Rising Up. As of today, I have discontinued offering the free ebook sample on Until. The reasons are too numerous and dry to bother enumerating at this time. Suffice to say that readers who want the content from the sample chapters of my book can (a) spend a few bucks to buy the ebook or book, and/or (b) search the Internet archives (you know where to look for those, don’t you?).

What good religion journalism looks like

Note: The following blog post also appears on KenWilber.com. 🙂

 

Thursday, April 12’s post by Scripps Howard columnist and religion professor Terry Mattingly “Is GetReligion a ‘Christian’ blog?” has inspired readers and fans of the GetReligion blog to ask pointed questions about the nature and quality of the media’s coverage of religion and theology. My own brief comment (see item #10) advised the bloggers (Mattingly, LeBlanc, Hemingway, etc.) to look not only to the type of religious faith professed by the blog’s authors, but also at their relative level of consciousness.

In my view, the blog team’s commitments to Christianity are also rivaled in importance by their common adherence to conservative theological impulses arising from the mythic-membership or essentialist worldspace. [For readers confused by my colorizing of this blog post, see “What do the colors mean?”] In other words, the GetReligion team could easily add, say, an orthodox Jew or moderate American Muslim to the mix of blogging heads, but the result would not really be a significant expansion of their own vantage point. On the other hand, my own integral Christian perspective really probably wouldn’t gel too well with Mattingly’s or Hemingway’s styles.

In a follow-up comment on GetReligion on April 13, Terry Mattingly responds that I “should do more media criticism on [my] own blog. Honest.” I will take his suggestion under advisement! (However, my own blog is a rather idiosynchratic and experimental blend of usually personal posts. It’s probably not the best place for serious media criticism, I’m afraid.) Although unlike Mattingly I may not teach future practitioners of journalism their craft, I nevertheless could and probably should comment more about the successes and failures of the media in covering religion than I do.

Looking for Ghosts in the Story

But before returning to my view of the media and religion, let’s look a little closer at the fascinating GetReligion blog project. In February 1, 2004’s “What we do, why we do it,” the blogging team gets spooked out on ghosts.

One minute they are there. The next they are gone. There are ghosts in there, hiding in the ink and the pixels. Something is missing in the basic facts or perhaps most of the key facts are there, yet some are twisted. Perhaps there are sins of omission, rather than commission.

A lot of these ghosts are, well, holy ghosts. They are facts and stories and faces linked to the power of religious faith. Now you see them. Now you don’t. In fact, a whole lot of the time you don’t get to see them. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

And so the GetReligion team scans as many newsworthy items in the mainstream media as they can find, picks out the best and worst religion coverage, and shares their opinions on what the journalist did well or poorly. The various blog team members come from around the US or Canada, but they share a common outlook: they are all relatively conservative religionists whose radar screens are especially spooked by any effort by the so-called mainstream media to misrepresent evangelical or traditionalist Christianity. And so they use the tools and lingo of traditional, objectivity-seeking journalism to question bias, demand balanced coverage for Christians, and advocate for greater representation of “doctrinally informed” religion reporters in the newsroom.

Want to know why it’s unfair for the media to poke fun at conservative Mormon Mitt Romney’s holy underwear? Want to learn why it’s unfair for the media to portray gay couples raising children as “normal” parents instead of giving equal time to the view that they are narcissistic freaks who are raising a generation of confused youth? Want to learn why the media isn’t getting the tone of coverage right on totalitarian legal efforts to outlaw all abortion in Latin American countries? Look no further than GetReligion, where you are sure to find given expression the beliefs that “bias” always exists, it usually tilts to the left, and it very often shows up in unseemly places (especially the New York Times).

In Thursday April 12’s typical post “And [Pope] Benedict hates teddy bears, too” GetReligion blogger Mollie Hemingway calls a religion reporter an angry hack for snide remarks and superficial analysis of Pope Benedict’s upcoming trip to Brazil. She concludes, “I hope it felt good for [Joseph] Contreras to spew this piece, because it sure doesn’t serve any other purpose. I certainly don’t think Pope Benedict is above reproach, but this piece is just infantile.” She may or may not be right, but she’s boldly willing to call other reporters on their shit when she smells it stinking. I admire that. And I hope it felt good for her to spew that opinion on her blog.

From an AQAL-informed vantage point, I see most mainstream religion coverage in this country coming from somewhere between a mythic-membership and a postmodern pluralist vantage point (i.e., in the Integral Institute’s terminology of altitude [see “What is Altitude?”], amber to green). A few skilled writers also show the potential for existentially rich, multifaceted and holistic viewpoints and nuanced, evolutionary constructions of the various models of journalism (i.e., teal to turquoise).

However, most of the more advanced teal and turquoise writers are not covering religion news as beat reporters; they are writing as advocates, editorialists, and bloggers. As an aside, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald writes Unclaimed Territory from a yellow-to-teal perspective and is a daily read for me. He’s one of the most sensitive and intriguing blogger/commenters out there talking about the media’s shortcomings as he does recently in “Do national journalists agree with Gary Kamiya?”.

Some Ghosts Have Ghosts

Is there room for taking a more AQAL-informed approach to the mainstream religion beat? Of course! I feel the most urgent need for an integrally-informed religion journalism is for journalists to use (at least implicitly) multiple quadrants in forming their analysis and in identifying the comprehensiveness of their reportage. (See Ken Wilber’s A Theory of Everything or (free) “Introduction to Integral Theory and Practice” for a quick overview of the quadrants.) A Four Quadrant look at religion news would insist that individual subjective and social, cultural, and individual objective perspectives are all included. If there’s no room to include each of them in any given story, then the journalist should try to make explicit what is being left out.

From this perspective, most religion news today seems obsessed with the objective social angleQ/LR (what mainstream Christian or Jewish denominations are doing what, and whether they will divide in order to accomodate for disagreements within their communions, etc.). Such coverage usually seeks fairness and balance by quoting individual experts to give their “professional”Q/UR opinions regarding the social events happening in their midst. Reporters may interview, say, a religion professor who will offer that (a) US christian denominations are constantly multiplying and dividing and there is a historical precedent for mainstream denominations to schism when confronted with a controversial social issueQ/UR, but personally (b) she sure wishes everyone could just alongQ/UL. But then the reporter will ignore the “fluffy” opinions and just print the hard “professional” opinions.

There’s nothing wrong with focusing on the social angles on religion, of course. But this approach does have its shortcomings. GetReligion recognizes that unlike other types of news stories, religious stories are often influenced by doctrinal disputes–disputes with long and complex histories going back centuries. Would it kill journalists to occasionally treat religion news with the respect of acknowledging that religionists may be motivated by doctrine and faith/skepticismQ/LL, UL as well as by politics and objectivity/biasQ/LR, UR? When GetReligion makes this case, as they so often do, they are becoming unwitting advocates of a more integrally informed journalism. Include the Lower-Right Quadrant, they might say (if they were fans of AQAL theory), but please also look at the Lower-Left Quadrant and take it just as seriously.

Unfortunately, GetReligion falls short of a truly AQAL-based look at journalism, primarily because it neglects the roles of two of the four quadrants, types, states, lines, and (especially) stages. In terms of the STEAM acronym, they don’t look deeply or self-consciously at the Stages, Types, Experiences, or Modes (and their analysis of Angles falls short, too).

On types, for instance, GetReligion always speaks about good v. bad journalism and rarely seems to get that different personality types have an important role to play by shining through the supposed objectivity of the prose. Evidence of a particular type on display isn’t poor journalism; it adds color and nuance and relevance, thereby enhancing journalism. There is no appreciation for the contribution of both feminist (communal) and masculinist (agentic) types to journalism, for instance. Instead, there is is usually only GetReligion’s plea for “objectivity” and abandoning petty prejudices and agendas. In other words, their agenda is of the masculine type, not feminine (whether it’s being mouthed by a woman or a man). A more feminine approach is generally more comfortable in acknowledging the actual relationships between the reporter, the subject, and the audience.

On states, to take another example, GetReligion bloggers often insist that good journalists must do a certain sort of precise craft, generally impersonal and carefully-written, stodgy or breezy depending on the circumstances. But I say: Why not let journalists write in various modes of traditional prose, or light and lively personal reflections, using words and multimedia, with occasional forays into giving expression to alternative states of consciousness?

Give me Maureen Dowd. Then, once or twice a year, give me Maureen Dowd drunk or stoned (or strapped into a straightjacket). Let me see if I can tell the difference, and then float her actual state of consciousness into the column notes somewhere. Some alternative media outlets already do a fine job of this, and I’d like to see more of it. Perhaps the folks at GetReligion would also be okay with this, but I’ve never heard them mention it let alone recommend it as a technique for enhancing the media’s coverage of religion. I would love to see journalism that consciously gives expression to a variety of different states, including forays into prerational and transrational consciousness.

But GetReligion’s most significant shortcoming is its failure to acknowledge the existence of multiple stages of consciousness along various key developmental modes (e.g., the worldviews line or the spiritual line). Many of the problems they attribute to differences between “mainstream” v. “alternative” journalists, or between “good journalists” v. “bad journalists”, or “objectivity” versus “bias” are very good and usually healthy expressions of a mythic-membership journalist’s reading of how folks at other levels of consciousness are doing things. As such, it’s fairly predictable and can often be used to identify the mythic-membership or mythico-essentialist point of view on any problem involving religion and the media. However, it’s NOT truly being an advocate of objectivity. Real objectivity in journalism would be more like taking an integral approach.

Toward a More Integral Journalism

Make no mistake, GetReligion is NOT truly an advocate and friend of objectivity. Real concern for objectivity among journalists is expressed by self-consciously making itself aware of its particular location and contexts of expression AND, to the best of its ability, being aware of its own Kosmic Koordinates. With awareness of both cosmic and Kosmic coordinates, such journalists would formulate principles and theories for doing good, effective, integrally-informed communication. See the scholarly work done by contributors to the Integral Institute and other integrally-informed groups such as ARINA ‘s Integral Review for more substantive critiques of contemporary communcation theories. Integrative theories would generally insist that the proper role of the newsroom is to offer stories that strive for fairness, inclusivity, comprehensiveness, sensitivity, accuracy, and trustworthiness … NOT merely a mythico-essentialist style of psuedo-objectivity.

Yes, reporters should generally present two or more sides to every issue in their news pieces. But they must not pick out what they hear as the two loudest voices in the dialogue, usually one a classic republican and a classic liberal, or a modern conservative and the other a modern socialist/liberal, allow those voices to speak at high volume, and then say that they’ve done their job. Instead, journalists should acknowledge their own situatedness in various contexts and personal commitments (just as the GetReligion bloggers often wisely do), but then strive to gain a broader, more expansive viewpoint that sensitively embraces the whole field. They should try to include as many quadrants and levels in the discussion as they can (with some attention to states, lines, and types insofar as it’s possible).

Good religion journalism won’t just stick to the big page-one stories, and then offer the top two conflicting sides of the issue equal time. As GetReligion rightfully insists, good journalism should penetrate the sociological conflicts of institution/politicsQ/LR to the cultural sources in theology/philosophyQ/LL. However, why stop there?

To survive and thrive, newsrooms must strive for diversity of gender, race, class, and point-of-view (including religionists of different stripes) so as to maximize the fertile fields of universal types that are allowed to be given expression. Whether there are more postmodern Wiccans or high-church Christian Orthodox in the newsroom isn’t nearly as important as whether there are personalities that take seriously both Descending and Ascending currents (i.e., types) of religion, because journalists who don’t “get types” or “get altitude” will often write in a way that always ridicules the contrasting perspective.

This is a somewhat technical way of making the common sense point that whites and blacks, men and women, gays and straights, etc., will often reflect their own tastes and styles in different and valuable ways (and even within those groups there are differences). Embracing diversity in the newsroom should enrich the stew of universal types (e.g., masculine v. feminine styles) of writing that are offered to the news audience. The result is good for everyone, especially newspapers, in building stories that accurately present the types of thinking done by readers of various types of persuasion.

But let’s not stop with increasing diversity to get more universal types flowing more freely into a wider context. Let’s also aspire to a journalism that is sensitive to the evolutionary dynamics at work in all human contexts. Objectivity must not be seen as the exclusive domain of the GetReligion-style journalism, lest we become confused about the ability for any human beings to truly “leap over” their own range of opinions, cultures, preferences, and modes of being into some sort of otherworldly (and delusional) “objective” truth. The alternative is not to abandon Truth. I advocate an integrally-informed style of journalism that seeks to coordinate and arrange the multifarious voices of the newsroom into an effective whole, suitable for its diverse audiences, and with demonstrated mastery of the evolving understanding of professional standards of excellence.

Of course, we must give the mythic-membership and rationalist/essentialist journalists a valued place at the table! Plus, let men and women, blacks and whites, yellows and browns, children and adults, rabbis and atheists, old age and new age, humorists and scientists, abled and disabled, overdeveloped and underdeveloped, shine their lights! In religion coverage, let the infirm, new age, totalitarians, mythic believers, essentialists, conservatives, greens/liberals, existentialist/naturalist, integralists, visionary, soulful, and mystical types speak.

The resulting chorus need not be a noisy cacophany; it could be a beautiful harmony attuned to a new and refreshingly familiar melody. At the very least, it will be more interesting than listening to the GetReligion echo chamber of “see the infantile ,liberal, antireligious bias!” and “please, please cover traditionalist dogma more accurately!” passed off again and again, interminably, as the summit of media criticism.

A dialogue with David Morrison and retrospective

I’ve been perusing my old stomping grounds on the web and came across a blast from the past. More than three years ago, I had a blog-a-log with conservative Roman Catholic and same-sex attracted David Morrison. The conversation began here and continued here. If I recall correctly, I had the last word.

Times change, though if we were to judge growth by the appearances of our blogs, it seems that perhaps I’ve changed a bit more than David. David’s still got the same Sed Contra blog, a traditionalist Roman Catholic spirituality blog with frequent incursions into moralizing against “the gay lifestyle,” and various other (mostly sexual) sins in US culture and the world at large. He does it in a way that’s somewhat less snarky and cruel than the ordinary way it’s done in the RC blogosphere, so he should be appreciated for that. Sed Contra is cultural critique, 1950s style, wrapped in 00’s accessories. I hope I don’t sound too negative–actually if Sed Contra weren’t any good I wouldn’t include it on my color-coded blogroll (see sidebar). In a blogosphere in constant motion, Sed Contra never seems to change.
Meanwhile, my blogs have gone through several reinventions (or “refreshes” as I prefer to say). My first blog, The Soulful Blogger, had a seeker and astrology student’s and angry ex-Catholic thing going for it. All the good stuff made it into my book Soulfully Gay, along with enough of the bad stuff to keep me honest and paint a realistic portrait of who I was at the time. Some of my 2003 and 2004 writing, like a brief excerpt from the blog-a-log with David, made it into the book.
Then, following a year of blogging The Soulful Blogger and finishing the book Soulfully Gay, came serious breakdowns (requiring two periods of institutionalization) and a remarkably brief six months or so of blogging hiatus. My follow-up blog, Rising Up, helped me to stretch my writer’s wings at a time when I was just learning to fly again. You can read the good stuff in a cheap ebook or POD book.
It was during this time of my life that it became clear to me that I didn’t share most of the animosity that many fellow gays feel towards “ex-gays” and religiously conservative gays. David’s one of the good guys. He’s just doing his best work in an area that I don’t happen to spend much time in–the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic Church. Gays who are offended by David’s writings are best advised to simply ignore him. I penned my thoughts on the positive role of religiously conservative gays for Rising Up. Here’s an example: “The role of conservative religionists…”
My third personal blogging incarnation (THIS blog), Until, gives me the flexibility to have a writer’s platform in an informal and experimental mode that I don’t have anywhere else. Lots of the posts are hit or miss, but I learn as much from every miss as from the hits. I don’t write much on homosexuality in this blog and tend to avoid writing about religious conservatives here. Done that; been there; moved on. And I’m busy enough as it is that my posts on Until are often only one or two per week, so I have to choose my topics carefully.
My current passion is in honing my writer’s voice and style in continuing to talk about spirituality, life in general, and exploring what it means to have an “integral” outlook. It’s an open secret that many of my posts are practice writes for my future work, Kronology, in which I use the Kronos mandala (a 12-pointed figure within a 30-tiered model of Spirit) to collect, organize, synthesize, explain, symbolize, and pay respect to Spirit.

To write well about Spirit, one must BE Spirit. One must incarnate the mystical Body of Christ, Light from Light. That takes work to express in a way that won’t get you thrown in jail or the psychiatric ward. And my blogs allow me to practice the role of teacher as well as student of Spirit. In 2007 and 2008, I also plan to write much more on my spiritual journey with Christianity … and my health struggles with HIV/AIDS.
I’ve continually refreshed the outer appearance of my blogs and gone through “phases” as I do in life itself. I try different things, see how they work, take what I like, and move on. David’s blog Sed Contra has probably done some of that, too, but more subtly. I’ve barely noticed the changes. He’s still writing regularly about his harmful shadow projections onto the gay community … and still surprising with beautiful attempts to make sense of the world.

Sometimes as an occasional visitor to Sed Contra, I stop by and hear a lecture from David. Here’s my impersonation: just LOOK at those filthy sexual sinners, Glory be, add them to your prayers and be glad like I am that celibacy is available to all of us as a wonderful gift from God. My oh my, too bad not everyone gets how wonderful celibacy can be, especially those 19 friends of mine I lost to AIDS. I love them so and remember them fondly, but I sure do wish they hadn’t had so much anal sex.Uh, not taking anything away from the beautiful poetry and sensitive imagination that often crops up from the pen of David Morrison, his blog is not my cup of tea. I rate it mythic-membership with synthetic essentialism undertones (translation). Moving on.

What do the colors on this blog mean?

Until uses the color scheme of Kronology to describe coordinates of human experience, nature, and development. The colors of the rainbow (primary, secondary, and tertiary) describe each of the 12 stations (S130 to S13B) of visible light. The result is most comparable to the color scheme of Ken Wilber’s Integral Spirituality, in which each altitude of human development corresponds to a marker such as infrafred, red, magenta, amber, and so on. (But then again, how do you display infrared or ultraviolet light visibly?)

Additionally, many colors correspond to locations on the SDi map of spiral development. Persons familiar with Wilber’s or SDI’s color schemes are welcome to “mentally translate” the colors back into the language they are familiar with, just so long as they recognize that colors as used in Kronology denote Stations, not altitude markers or vMEMES.

Terminology Notes

Kronology. Kronology is my own effort (which is very much a work in progress) to produce an “emulator” which “includes and extends” Ken Wilber’s Integral Operating System; (b) an application of Integral Theory to the magical or astrological worldview (and therefore, in a sense, an updating of natural religion into a post-metaphysical structure of expression); and (c) an ordering system for the major symbols of human development.

Tiers in Kronology. T stands for Tier, a base-12 designation of one of the 30 tiers of the Kronos mandala (i.e., T0 to T25). Tiers are also designated by a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, with early tiers corresponding to invisible radiowaves, microwaves, and infrared light. T13, the 15th tier, is depicted by the range of visible light (thus, the 12 colors of the rainbow). T14 to T25 is depicted in terms of invisible ultraviolet light, x-ray radiation, and gamma radiation. Each tier represents the number of cycles of motion completed by a point moving across the Kronos mandala over time. T13 depicts the visible cosmos and all of its temporal contents from history until the end of time.

Stations in Kronology. S stands for Station, a base-12 designation of one of the 360 stations in Kronology (S0 to S259). The most commonly referenced stations are S130 to S13B, the 12 stations corresponding to visible light (i.e., red to red-violet light). Each station is a Kosmic Koordinate which can be used to trace the motion of a point moving across the Kronos mandala over time, and therefore is useful in tracking development (evolution) and regression (involution).

The current average stage of development in human nature and potential is in transition from S135 to S136 (i.e., a shift from yellow-green into green). The cutting edge of consciousness is thought to be the transition of a significant number of individuals from S136 to S137 and S138 (i.e., a shift from green into blue-green and blue consciousness). Various integral theorists call this latter shift the “emergence of integral intelligence” or the “leap into the second-tier”.

The Major Stations of Kronology and Their Corresponding Colors

The precise Hexadecimal values of the 12 colors used are shown below, so readers desiring to use this sheme in whole or part can easily do so on their weblogs.

Red (#ff0000), S130 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: infrared (Wilber), beige (SDi), prenatal, infancy, oral sensory, neediness, willfullness, disassociated consciousness, altered states, archaic, Stone Age, root chakra, animal.

Strategy keywords: Uroboris, survival, lifeforce, the courage to be, birth and rebirth, unconsciousness, psychosis, hallucination, electrical shock, awakenings, fundamental trust, Aries.

Red-Orange (#ff6600), S131 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: magenta (Wilber), purple (SDi), early childhood, adoration, bodily sensations, desire, magical, kinship, wonderment, body shame, safety, sacred spaces and objects, emotions, tribe mentality, team building.

Strategy keywords: self-love, feeling at home in the world, acceptance, getting grounded, enjoying life, dysphoria, flakiness, wishes and curses, divination, Taurus.

Orange (#ff9900), S132 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: red (Wilber/SDi), childhood play age, validation, power to control, freedom to pursue happiness, hedonistic, accumulating experience, narcissism, addiction, winner-take-all games.

Strategy keywords: self-expression, heroism, messiah complex, freedom to be let alone, mastery of the will, surrender, setting healthy boundaries, fascism, holy war, Gemini.

Yellow-Orange (#ffcc66), S133 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: amber (Wilber), blue (SDi), middle childhood, mythic-membership, purposefullness, law and order, stability, promise-keeping, fulfilling duties, guilt, hierarchy, ecclesiastical religion.

Strategy keywords: conformity, congruity, integrity, moral principles, honesty, virtues, vices, orthodoxy, dependence on a higher power, Absolute Truth, heaven, hell, Cancer.

Yellow (#ffff00), S134 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: orange (Wilber/SDi), adolescence, truth as correspondence to facts, cautiousness, unshackling from irrationality, Newtonian physics, rebelliousness, desire to control natural world, achievement.

Strategy keywords: modernism, spirited argument, individual conscience, industriousness, thrift, success, doubt, mental clarity, logical reasoning, demands for proof, Leo

Yellow-Green (#33cc00), S135 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: yellow (SDi), early 20s through age 30, attempts to synthesize skepticism and faith, devoted to ideals, focus on personal growth, refinement of practical skills, keeping to essentials or fundamentals.

Strategy keywords: Individualistic, Meta-systemic, Western medicine, late modernity, humility, sacrificing for the greater good, service, victim mentality, perpetrator role, critical methodologies, justification by works, Virgo.

Green (#009900), S136 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: green (Wilber), thirties, settling down, empathetic sensitivity, plurality, spiritual but not necessarily religious, taking delight in beauty, recognition of multiplicity and particularity, romanticism, self-contradiction, compassion, kindness.

Strategy keywords: Pluralistic Mind, HumanBond, self-realized, alternative medicine, postmodernism, camp humor, multiculturalism, achieving life balance, gender and sexual liberation, aesthetic attitude to life, Libra.

Blue-Green (#336666), S137 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: teal (Wilber), late 30s to mid-40s, mid-life transition, brooding questioning, dissatisfaction, suspicion, dominance and submission, interpersonal intimacy, jealousy, death and resurrection, occult or esoteric knowledge.

Strategy keywords: Low vision-logic, Systemic, FlexFlow, post-postmodernism, complementary medicine, shadow work, aliveness, reclaiming the soul, deep presence, tantric sexuality, looking into the abyss, sincerity and authenticity, existentialism, Scorpio.

Blue (#3366ff), S138 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: turquoise (Wilber), forties, mature adulthood, integrative, multiperspectival intelligence, holistic and universal healthcare, Third Way politics, multidisciplinary academic studies, concern with evolutionary and developmental dynamics.

Strategy keywords: AQAL Framework™, high vision-logic, GlobalView, Construct-aware, personal style of stewardship, flexible and flowing awareness, parental figure in divisive environment, bridge building, “analysis paralysis”, pilgrimage, Sagittarius.

Blue-Violet (#000066), S139 (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: indigo (Wilber), fifties, prime of life, Humpty Dumpty, passionate efficiency, high creative flow, deep sense of interdependence, expanding need for power, “resistance is futile,” high-order problem solving.

Strategy keywords:Illumined Mind, Transcendent, strategic, genius, nannying or meddling interference, multi-national, global reach, multidimensional spirituality, Capricorn.

Violet (#333399), S13A (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: violet (Wilber), sixties, retirement age, golden years, creativity inspired by intuitive visions, holistic synthesis of old and new, revelation, zeal and impractical idealism, ineffectuality, spontaneity.

Strategy keywords: Intuitive Mind, Meta-Mind, imagining the impossible, creative syntheses in art, stabilizing subtle energies, oracles, wisdom of King Solomon, psychic powers, New Age spirit and rationality, Aquarius.

Red-Violet (#cc33cc), S13B (Visible Light)
Concern keywords: ultraviolet (Wilber), seventies, old age, elders, near death experiences, living with illness and dying processes, radiance and bliss, nondual awareness, altered states, instability, lack of strong personal boundaries, insanity, institutions.

Strategy keywords: mysticism, divinization of the Self, Overmind, deity, eccentricity, lightness of being, simplicity, distinguishing delusion and illusion, addictions and rehabilitation programs, Pisces.