How is an integrally intelligent being supposed to interact with lower spectrum cultures without becoming persecuted, and yet still communicating integral knowledge?
I like what’s already been said, especially Layman’s comment and Tom’s response which read:
We need to better articulate what it means to drop into their world view to fully convey understanding and to provide affirmation before we can expect them to be open to the possibilities. Often this takes a great deal of patience and timing.
And I would add that we need to embrace a methodological pluralism regarding even “integral” communication styles. Partly, I suspect, this is about differences between orangish-teal, greenish-teal, turquoise, and indigo integralists, etc., taking on different orientations. And of course it’s also about personality types, personal quirks, shadow issues, and so on.
For some of us, we will seek to model through example our inclusiveness and ability to think with nuance and balance and act with integrity, all the while refraining from explicitly discussing the “operating system” working in the background that helps to facilitate our way of communicating.
Others will take an approach with greater visibility and willingness to present the Integral worldview to a world, whether it’s ready for it or not, trusting that Spirit will sort it all out. They are the writers penning memoirs and novels and poetry and philosophy and other books for a public audience. They are the artists making integral art and music. They are the business people running Integral businesses and political activists running Integrally-informed think tanks. They are everyone who is willing to work a label of “integralist” or “evolutionary” (or similar), ever so lightly or boldly as befits their taste and sensibility.
Sometimes these approaches are at odds with each other, and not necessarily any “more integral” or “less integral” as a result.
I think the day is coming where “integral knowledge” will be embedded in works of art and literature and in public figures or organizations so prominent and influential that it’s going to change the game. Then we won’t get the blank stares anymore. But we’ll have a whole other set of challenges.
Personally I’ve worn a number of different communication hats at different points, and I can confidently suggest that it’s worth experimenting to find an approach that works for you. And don’t forget to listen and learn from every other person regardless of their station of life — they often have much to teach us as well.
I’ll close by quoting someone who’s said something similar as part of an elaborate theory of Integral Communication that’s worth taking a look at. T. Collins Logan wrote:
In a more general sense, integral communication celebrates the diversity of existence at the same time. It excites and absorbs the profound creative force of every heart, mind, body, soul, spirit, will and community. It invokes a neutral field of exchange where all concepts, emotions and experiences are relevant, but where no single meme or worldview dominates. This requires that we suspend our judgments and beliefs in the moment of listening; that we allow each contribution to exist by itself, without being prejudiced by its source, the language used, or even the perceived intent behind the language. To maintain a truly neutral disposition in our communication allows us to both receive and transmit on many frequencies at once. As a result, to communicate integrally is to accept, love and celebrate what is – in all its complexity, diversity and apparent contradiction – so that what could be is a natural synthesis of the greatest potential in all of us.
Although Logan’s definition won’t work for every Integralist at every station — there’s the rub with methodological pluralism — it’s a great start. The truth is, everyone deserves to be listened to fully and completely by someone, but not necessarily by us, in every context (not all perspectives are equal, and our time and attention are precious). Communication is just one aspect of our relationships and missions in life, and we have to weigh the opportunity costs of being a good communicator with being good at many other things.