Originally posted April 17, 2007.

I enjoyed this KW.com post “Holons Critique: Are Pavlina and Schwyzer Integral?” by Colin Bigelow. Thanks, Colin. Well stated. I intend these remarks as my own take on the concerns you raise (coming from somebody not being affiliated with Holons except as a reader).

Judging from my experience, Colin’s post will likely be controversial in the blogosphere. Many bloggers with an interest in Integral Theory refuse to use altitude markers, color labels, or other indications of stages of development. How integral is that?! I also have some qualms and have written on the subject previously.

At the moment, I am choosing to mainly move beyond the two particular bloggers (Pavlina and Schwyzer) … and even beyond the issue of differences between “orange-green with an intense masculine-mastery type” or “healthy green”, “teal”, and “turquoise”. As I see it, the core issue boils down to this: How do you distinguish between different levels of altitude within the context of blogging or similar types of cultural writing? Let’s say the context is: I don’t know you; I haven’t performed a psychographical analysis; I haven’t analyzed your responses to numerous psychological questionnaires; I haven’t read your memoir or journal; I may only have read a few items you’ve ever written in your entire life. Given that, when reading a blog, do I judge the blogger’s structure-stage, vMEME, altitude, or Kronology station?

Yellow-green and lower says: no, what’s the point (for a variety of reasons, most commonly, they’re just not interested in either the question or the answer).

Green says: no, it’s rude and mean and you might hurt somebody’s feelings. Besides, it might burn a few bridges or be perceived as so undiplomatic. And getting people to co-exist peacefully is, of course, the summit of all endeavours.

Blue-green says: that’s an interesting question, but almost certainly unanswerable. In light of the impenetrable mystery of the universe and the many textures of the soul, it’s probably best to remain quiet on such matters. Who am I, in the grand scheme of existence, to make pronouncements of altitude? I shall judge not, lest I be judged.

Blue says: yes, you need to judge altitude as part of an integral analysis, and you should do the best job you can even though it’s not an ideal context (given the relative lack of information), and then qualify your comments appropriately. Altitude or stage or vMEME or station of life is an essential aspect in any truly comprehensive analysis, and therefore needs to be included, implicitly at least.

Just to be clear, I’m responding to this question from a perspective that I believe to be blue. I may be mistaken about that, but that’s where I think I’m coming from. Got those Kosmic Coordinates?

My answer, therefore, to the concern over whether yours are valid criticisms of Holons is maybe-BUT. The BUT: How qualified is the judgment call made in Holons? How clear is the background context, given the audience? How appropriate is the expression of judgment relative to the medium? How explicitly must the color label match a judgment of altitude with the appropriate stages and modes defined precisely according to a specified integral theorist or psychological researcher?

I see Holons’s color coding as merely a suggestion, a starting point for further discussion … and to get the conversation moving beyond the content of any particular bloggers towards a conversation about altitude. I consider it most relevant that Holons’s audience is the integrally informed community, mostly supporters of the mission of Integral Institute. I also consider it relevant that the assumed familiarity of the readership with the AQAL model creates the opening for writing with fewer qualifications and BUTs than would be possible if the piece were written for a more mainstream (i.e., first tier) audience. Therefore, I’m quite comfortable with Holons attaching color labels to reflect the altitude at a given mode (in the case with Pavlina or Schwyzer, the Cultural/worldviews mode).

That said, I can now address the concerns expressed in your post regarding the labeling of Pavlina’s and Schwyzer’s blogs with an altitude marker. After considering what I know about the two blogs as a reader (and fan of both), I would be inclined to express a bit more DOUBT about my own ability to make a judgment of altitude.

Is Pavlina’s blog “orange-green with an intense masculine-mastery type”? Quite possibly. It’s also possible that the blogger is blue altitude on the cognitive line or overall with a strong concern mode fixed at orange-green and an agentic type. By “concern mode fixed at orange-green” I simply mean a person who is very interested in such things as healthy capitalism, personal success, achievement, maximizing individual personal potential, etc. Perhaps there are other possibilities worth considering as well.

Is Schwyzer’s blog “healthy green, critical of the mean green meme”? Quite possibly. It’s also possible that the blogger is blue altitude on the cognitive line or overall with a strong concern mode fixed at green and a communal type. By “concern mode fixed at green” I simply mean a person who is very interested in such things as the cultural construction of values, gender/sexual liberation issues, spirituality and harmony, etc. Maybe or maybe not.

In both cases, I’m inclined to think that the bloggers themselves are probably blue overall, or at the very least reaching into this area (best guess); however, the concerns that they are fixed upon in their blogs are (in Wilber’s color scheme) orange-green and green respectively.

Depending on whether one is focused on the blogger or the blog content, one could arrive at different judgments regarding the best color label or altitude marker. With blogs, it’s a very, very hard call. Much harder than with a magazine, newspaper, or mainstream media reportage. The blog is personal; the person and the blog are intertwined more so than any other medium. Judging altitude in the blogosphere should be different than other sorts of judgments one might make.

Therefore, I would be inclined to say that if Schwyzer were the editor-in-chief of a magazine called Gender and Culture Talk, the magazine itself would likely be green. However, Hugo himself would be (and could very well be in actuality) turquoise. Similarly, if Pavlina were to start a Personal Empowerment Institute, the organization would likely be orange. However, Steve himself might be turquoise.

That’s my take on why Holons is possibly correct in labeling Schwyzer and Pavlina turquoise, though it does seem that you and KW might disagree. In my opinion, assessing a blog must be done differently than assessing a magazine or newspaper op-ed. It’s harder to separate the person from the medium. Moreover, a single person may have different associated media that could be color coded differently.

I’m still working on the best way to add color codes to blogs for my own blog. I’ve been leaning towards an approach that separates the color marker from a strict identity with the altitude marker. The color marker may represent the stage, or it may represent something like a type, experience, angle, or mode.

For Until, I happen to list both Pavlina’s and Schwyzer’s blogs on my blogroll. I list them with a blue color label (for the station of life) like so:

Steve Pavlina
Hugo Schwyzer

However, this is shorthand. It’s vague. Intentionally so. The band of colors themselves, a suitable analogy, is also vague. Where does orange meld into yellow melding into yellow-green melding into green melding into turquoise melding into blue melding into indigo???? Vagueness, I think, is appropriate in this situation (not to mention diplomatic, which suits my green sensibilities just fine).

In the context of speaking about the major concerns of their blogs, however, I would color tag like this:

Steve Pavlina
Hugo Schwyzer

Furthermore, if I needed to be very precise, I would specify two different colors, say, one for the cognitive and the other for the concern/spiritual mode.

Steve Pavlina^S138 Steve Pavlina^S135
Hugo Schwyzer^S138 Hugo Schwyzer^S137

Pretty soon effective communion leads to markup of one kind or another such as Wilber’s “integral math” (tags) or its spawn, Whole Writing (tags). If precision in discourse is necessary, the conversation shifts entirely away from the subject matter at hand into a more meta discussion. Unfortunately, markup lingo is still in the process of evolving, with various standards and implementations arising in our midst. (Wilber: “Certain issues of terminology, especially in the math, are still being decided.”)

The contrast between precision and vagueness of color label is a typically blue(i.e., turquoise) concern, and at blue-violet (i.e., indigo) what was once seen as vagueness or fuzziness of thought may be perceived as a deeper union and communal harmony that allows for a level of theoretical disagreement (”a generous orthodoxy”). At a certain point, we just have to say “good enough” and allow for a little less theoretical precision and a little more disagreement, I think.

Technorati Tags: altitude, consciousness, dialogue, integral, Ken Wilber

Originally posted on May 2, 2007.

In high school debate club, I mastered a technique called a spread. Do you know what that is? For every one of your opponent’s arguments, make three counter-arguments. It doesn’t matter if your arguments have merit or not. He or she will be so lost and simply unable to keep up with you that they will have to drop arguments. When you make your next rebuttal speech, you avoid all the arguments that the debater touched upon OR you respond with two counter-rebuttals for every one of your opponents, and then you extend all the dropped arguments and magnify them. It’s an endless loop, brought to a close in debate class only by strictly enforced time limits and the flexibility and range of a debater’s vocal chords (to talk really, really, really fast).

Life is short. I’ve done my share of debating. Today, in my wanderings through the blogosphere, I’m content to make my views known, and the general rationale for those beliefs. I’m not interested in a proliferation of rebuttal and counterrebuttal. Once I start down that road, is there ever an end? There is certainly rarely agreement.

Often minor disagreements are traced to core worldviews and basic presuppositions about human nature. Those core beliefs are not likely to change as the result of an hour or two of conversation. I can plant a few seeds, but then I need to move on to areas where I can be productive.

I say this so readers will know there is no disrespect intended when I choose not to pursue the arguments of their comments any further than I do. I teach my ego how I can appear to “lose” a few debates by bowing out, and the world doesn’t come crashing down around me. I will attempt to point readers in the direction I think they need to move to outgrow their current worldview, as best I can tell, and then it’s out of my hands.

Technorati Tags: dialogue, Joe Perez