Joylynn -- good morning, good morning everybody --

Hmmm. Yes, I can see how this conversation could become confusing. There's a lot of stuff going on, coming from a lot of angles, and maybe the sequencing or "threading" is a little hard to follow.

This Alliance project has evolved under its own creative influence, and I never built a project quite like this before. So, maybe one thing -- that you probably do understand, but which could be clearer -- is that what we are mostly doing is responding to content on a particular "page". This idea appeals to me, as a way to keep people mostly on the same subject -- not always easy to do in an internet context, where people tend to do whatever seems to be flowing for them. Also, just as regards the sheer technology itself -- all of this is "under construction as we speak". This project is brand new, not yet completed (if it ever will be), and only a few of the pages have really substantial content. Many are just very quick and often incomplete sketches. So, thanks for your patience and your willingness to weigh in.

As regards the specific content -- globalization and all that goes with it -- or the empowerment or recognition of "all voices" (women, oppressed minorities, you name it) -- there are hundreds of issues we could be looking at -- and here, yes, at the beginning of this project, they are tending to be all jumbled together.

On this idea of "convergence" -- I need to write more about that -- I barely explained it at all, and that little description tails off to nothing; it isn't done. But "convergence" at the intellectual level -- does seem to be a very profound process, that is indeed, I would say, mind-blowing...

There is this sense of "collapsing boundaries" -- in many different ways. Ken Wilber wrote a book with that title long ago: "No Boundary". Yes, the boundaries between "nation states" tend to be collapsing in the context of globalization. But at a different level, the boundaries between, say, academic or scientific disciplines also tend to be collapsing -- as endless numbers of hybrid combinations emerge.

There is something extremely plastic and fluent about all of this -- and we are all scrambling to come up with a conceptual framework that helps model this explosive change into something very new.

I like the model of absolute local independence and freedom, held in the context of one universal/integral container. By local freedom I mean something like "each individual person gets to define themselves in exactly the term they choose. Nobody tells you who you are, or forces you into some broad category, where you have to accept a bunch of things you don't believe." Everybody (as I think Starr* said a day or two ago) is a unique individual. So -- we need "high dimensional" ways for people to define themselves in terms of individual differences -- and then, to build larger inclusive groupings -- "agreements" -- we need to follow what amounts to statistical approaches -- probably held together by what a lot of people today call "resonance". Categories are not rigid and brittle; they are fluent and flexible, and recognize that "words mean different things to different people". So -- in the context of huge fluency and complexity -- we essentially want to meet on the common ground of mutual respect and listening -- and the spiritual unity that Ram has been describing for us.

Not sure if that helps, Joylynn -- but it is at least a promise that we will continue to look at these issues, and we (I) want you to know we are listening -- and thanks for being here.

--- On Fri, Oct 11, 2013, Joylynn Graham wrote ---

I have been reading and re-reading these posts trying to figure out how I can weigh in on this discussion, and with each new addition I find myself becoming more and more befuddled. I have faithfully tried to follow all of the conversation, references and links that you all have provided, but after a spell that seemed to confuse matters even further. So I think that I will go back to the original post: “The Integral Hypothesis.”

I like how Bruce pulled the intent together in the statement: “A new movement is emerging, involving connectivity, universal spirituality, and new ways to interconnect and understand the experience of being human. In our framework here, we propose a broadly inclusive body of emerging new philosophical and spiritual ideas, arising from many sources, which we link together into an integral unity and describe as The Integral Hypothesis.” And I am grateful for the statement that follows in the section entitled “Convergence” because this intention is indeed complex. Our newly evolving globalized world is occurring at an astonishing rate and we are only beginning to discover our interconnectivity at the physical level, much less the spiritual. But it is there, and it is becoming more tangible with each passing day.

I think that Lynne makes a lot of sense when she points out that there will be input coming from many differing perspectives; and if we are going to hang with the “big tent” approach, despite matters of “incommensurability,” then good listening skills are going to be a primary asset. Bruce is also right; our differences are creative, and more eyes mean more knowledge. I always think of it in terms of everyone being in a huge auditorium watching the drama of life unfold on the stage. Some of us are seated in the balcony on the right; some are in the first row to the far left, some are dead center in the mezzanine and so forth and so on. No matter where you are seated in that auditorium, what you are seeing unfold on the stage is just a little bit different than what anyone else sees because every seat offers a different angle. The person who is seated in the first row to the far left may be able to see that one of the folks on the stage has a gun behind their back. It would behoove us all to listen when that guy speaks up. But at the same time, if that guy starts talking and never stops, eventually we lose interest.

Ken Wilbur talks about the Global Village and how “for the first time, the sum total of human knowledge is available to us -- the knowledge, experience, wisdom and reflection of all major human civilizations – pre-modern, modern and postmodern -- are open to study by anyone,” and with the opening of these floodgates, I personally think that the question becomes how do we unearth and expose the traditionally silent voices – voices that have been silenced because of race, class, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation? What does it mean to listen to subaltern voices, and how do we bring those voices into a dialogical existence that is mutually empowering? People need to feel as though they are being heard, and if we can manage just that much – then we are well on our way to “source knowledge.” Namaste, Joylynn

------