Project [Matthew Kalman, 24.09.02]
For the greatest
influence with the minimum effort my strong-ish feeling is we need to create
a small Integral politics webpage NOW - no procrastinating (we could
perhaps shield it for a while as we get it right until we think it's OK
to release to the public).
Does anyone have
a better idea than this?
We all (should) know
the basic theory very well - it crops up in a number of Wilber texts.
It's not wildly difficult to grasp and I think many people are receptive
I'd be interested
in criticisms of such a project - though not mere criticism unaccompanied
by other - better - suggestions?
I don't see just
carrying on our enjoyable online chats and valuable personal projects as
a preferential option. (Sorry if we've already worked out what we
want to do via Sara's questions - which I've not had time to follow).
A website might include:
- the soundbite version
of Integral politics
- the elevator pitch
- and maybe a 2,000
- Ken's outlines
of it in ATOE and the World Trade Centre piece.
- some of the documents
which have appeared on this list
- FAQs (which we
began to put together)
- Links to online
or real-world groups involved in Integral politics (eg this group)
- annotated bibliography
for further reading (a couple of dozen most important Integeral politics
- Contacts around
the world who are interested (ie from this list)
- I would also argue
for including my interactive 'Know your Integral score' questionnaire too
(if finalised) as it could be fun and get people interested (but I know
there are plenty of criticisms of such an approach for being too superficial).
Given the profuse
output on this list I would have thought that such a site would not be
beyond us. We could even simplify it by only using pre-published stuff
and not write anything much at all other than links and bibliography (I'll
even do these myself if no-one's keen - perhaps Michel will help on bibliography).
Hopefullly it could
even be hosted by one of the other Integral sites - so all we'd have to
do is provide content. But it needs to be a site where we can have a unique
URL at the top that somehow includes the word "integralpolitics" (presumably
after a /)
One reason I suggest
such a site is that I have come across a number of people ( - sometimes
influential - who are fed up with unhealthy Green (ie unhealthy/flatland
PC-Left-egalitarian) - but because they don't realise that there
can be something Integral beyond MGM they opt for something beneath it,
sometimes a kind of Blue-communitarianism with progressive overtones.
If I could just say
to people - 'look at this site to get an idea what Integral Politics is
- even if it's very early days and liable to evolve a lot' my life would
be much easier and if anyone else is trying to promote Integral politics
to others then their life should be easier too, I would guess.
I just don't have
time to pull together outlines of Integral Politics over and over again
for people who are (or might be) interested (eg Anthony Giddens was suggested
to me by one of his professor colleagues - possibly the most influential
political theorist in the world right now).
If we're not doing
an Integral Politics edited book then the website seems a good second best.
Such a website is
different from my 'exiting Greens'-focused website project, but much simpler
and more urgent too.
I feel a wee bit
frustrated that my suggestion for a potentially simple but effective little
public project for the group to try to do only received a single (favourable)
response (and no suggestions at all of other better initiatives for us
I still feel that
we need to have something to show the rest of the world as a group about
'Integral Politics', even if it's not the hard-hitting book Wilber would
like to see.
We surely need to
make a some first step, an interim project, however limited? (I'm not denying
all the fantastic projects that individuals on this list are personally
involved with already).
Should I go ahead
and ask Tony Arcari or Frank Visser whether we might be able to have a
few pages on one of their sites for an initial, basic 'Integral Politics'
site? (This was my suggested idea)
Or should I take
the lack of response as a firm post-con-pol 'no', and not make this request?
I don't even (greatly)
mind trying to put together such a page myself, with help from Alex and
whoever else, and feedback from the group if I do it wrong, so I can improve
But what I won't
do is put effort into some web pages that introduce 'Integral Politics'
only to find that they are unwanted and unsupported by our post-con-pol
So please respond
- if you can find the time - to let me know whether you will:
1. Support the project,
and let others get on with it (but perhaps offer feedback at some point
to suggest improvements).
2. Support the project
and offer to help bring it to fruition (perhaps writing some bits and pieces,
or including yourself as one of the I-Pol contacts for your country, or
3. Not support the
project, but allow it to go ahead anyway.
4. Not support the
project and block it on a point of principle or suchlike.
5 Suggest a better
project that the group might feasibly undertake, and which has some public/productive
side to it.
6. Some other response.
I can offer you all
the pages you want on my website noosphere.cc (at this moment ca. 200 visits
very kind offer (presuming you mean some free pages?). Of course these pages
are for free. It's my ideal also!
Is there any way
that "integralpolitics" could be included somewhere in the URL? (ie www.noosphere.cc/integralpolitics
And what does the
.cc ending mean - I've not seen it before.
It seems there are
things afoot with the Integral Age site which Sara has just contacted me
about - and that might be another option.
Do you think the
world actually needs some Integral Politics pages produced by us lot?
BTW, .cc refers to
the Cocos or Keeling Islands,
somewhere between Indonesia and Australia, with a kind of autonomy from
Australia. As .com ran exhausted in name possibilities, they sold .cc,
as all inhabitants (some hundreds...) had already an email address... It
was commercialized by VeriSign, but becomes exhausted now as well.
You can, in these
pages on my site, change colours, lay-out, font, etc., as you like. I consider
Matthew as the intellectual owner of the site, with the Final Decision.
All ideas welcome!
I'm already hosting
Michel Bauwens's Integral Politics
While I sent you
a separate note this morning that touched on some of this, I just now realized
- thanks to your plea! - that I did not respond on-list to your posting
from, hmmm, last week or so? I'm truly sorry. When I am buried
in an effort I try to keep a separate to-do list of posts to answer, and
I missed some.
All I have time to
say right now is YES, and that I think some or much of what you are pushing
us on will become do-able, really for the first time, once IntegralAge
(IA) site is launched. Tony had said they hoped that would happen
I agree with you
that it would be *ideal* to be "getting our ducks in a row" right now so
we have something ready. On the other hand, because they are designing
several different subscription levels that make different features available,
we might also need to wait and understand *what* and *how* we can do what
seems best. It sounded to me as though we'll find it like a candy
store and have some tasty choices. I would find it hard, right now,
to know what precise questions we could pose to Tony, because the framework
in which the site is designed sounds like a non-conventional approach.
Could I lovingly
beseech you to rein in those horses of frustrated impatience just a little
longer, until we actually have some clue what the IA animal looks like?
In the meantime,
I sure would encourage list members to respond to your questions!
And it seems to me that we are finding such point-blank brief questionnaires
might be *just* the way to get e-group responses.
My own response is
YES I'm in favor of some sort of integral politics presence/project on
the web. I also think it might be just the achievement of getting converted
to IA's site with some of "our stuff".
Russell's answer [27.09.02]
me a #1 -
One way to get a
website from thought to reality is to draw up some sort of flowchart-type
visualization of it: what is the navigation structure, what will be on
each page, how many pages are there, how will the content be organized,
etc. You don't need ANYBODY to let you do this, Frank or Tony or
anybody - webspace is freely available from a number of companies - my
suggestion is to work up a prototype and then send that url around for
feedback, instead of waiting for people to say "yes I will commit" - there
seems to be enough integral politics bits and bobs floating around that
it wouldn't be too hard to get content; so it's just a matter of throwing
together a first draft, let us know, and then be prepared for comments....
I bet Frank/ Tony would be much more willing to give space to a few pages
that have already been created and revised instead of to an idea that is
struggling to make it out of committee : )
Harris's Answer [28.09.02]
I can understand
your frustration, however, you are not the only one who posts stuff and
does not get the reply they want. For instance, I asked a question about
a policy on abortion - did you reply?
I am however a little
surprised by your plea, especially given that there have been several posts
of recent times that explain exactly why there is sometimes no reply. I
also commented that people expect instant responses. Let me remind everyone
that the problem is TIME. Time to read all the posts, time to digest them
and time to respond.
I have no problem
with setting up a website - but as Sara has mentioned a couple of times
Tony Acari is moving in this direction as we speak.
But I do have a note
of caution. We have barely defined what Integral politics is and where
it stands on several important issues - ISSUES THAT WE WILL BE ASKED ABOUT!!!
I'm not sure there is agreement on certain key issues.
Unless what we say
is well thought out, internally consistent and ADDS to the debate then
Integral politics can very easily be dismissed. Or in our enthusiasm have
we forgotten how vicious and uncompromising the world of real world political
And if we can't get
our act together on this site what hope has another web effort got? Isn't
another web effort going to face the very same problems this list has?
I think you're right
to some extent. There are, of course, strong material restrictions, as
you enumerate. But I think this doesn't explain everything, there are also
the questions of maximal responsibility and synergy, as I argued in an
earlier text before I was in this list. One of the things I miss in
this List --and in many other lists as well-- is the integrative tendency. Most often we are just posting views, very interesting of course,
sometimes contested, but nearly never integrated. And by integration I
mean an intellectual procedure by which separate contributions, even conslicting
ones, are reformulated and put together as a consensus. I think the Yahoo
List system --like probably all eLists-- is too cumulative, too parcelling.
The posted texts are just stacked, and only result into an archive, not
into an integrative corpus of insights. This is, for my feeling, as frustrating
as the fact the response percentage is always very low. Sometimes the only
reward is the idea to have put something on a global forum and to have
been present, during some seconds, in the awareness of a handful of people.
But the idea itself probably is buried into the archives some moments later.
I'm still looking
for an INTEGRATIVE forum, where no one idea is lost, where questions don't
have to return from time to time as if previous posts didn't exist. Of
course, I think that at this stage of technological evolution this kind
of intellectual procedure is to be performed by humans, although I'm convinced
that much more intellectual assistance by software could be available.
Just have a look to Google's entirely algorithm generated new News site
and you wil, perhaps, as I was, be very impressed.
Well, one of my intentions
by offering free pages to Matthew was not just to create the zillionth
internet forum, but to try to propose an integrative approach to Integral
Politics. Of course, as long as we don't have some better HTML or
SQL or PHP or whatever, this work has to be performed by hand. But one
of my proposals should be that some of us take the responsibility to integrate
(some) new posts that are presented on this eList, just to build up an
integrative IP site.
BTW your and Sara's
recent posts are already added (not yet fully integrated, but as the number
of comments increases this will be realized, as you can already observe
on several pages in my website, and perhaps especially
in a number of pages concerning an integrative production of a book on Teilhard and Whitehead by me and a person I never met:
the set of questions I don't know the answer to:
1. Why does
"integral politics" need to have "positions?"
2. What would
it do with them, if it had them?
3. How would
integral politics be "integral" if it acted like "business as usual?"
(if it did, in espousing its positions)
Site created 27 Sep 2002