timelody:

Actually, think again! There was that big uproar a few years ago that made national news about a T-shirt being printed and sold which stated in, I think, big red (and even blood dripping) letters I HAD AN ABORTION and even like an arrow pointing down to the womb or some kind of other pretty goddamned graphic proclaimation of "Nobody tells me what to do!" And teenage girls were wearing it.

That is some pretty morally, psychologically, emotionally, culturally and in so many ways otherwise, pretty fucked up Boomeritis shit.

I'm wondering why you think that this is Green? It looks far more to me like Red.

Also, I want to say that there are pro-choice and pro-life Blue minds. Blue isn't necessarily about conservative values, it's about rules in general. Rules are what Blue sees as necessary for the flow of a healthy society. The rules themselves are arbitrary, for the most part, as long as there are rules. Otherwise, only Western Republicans would go through Blue :-)

Peace, Love, and Bicyles,
-Turtle

coppersun:

 The problem is that a lot of folks can't deal with infallibility. 

Wow, I think we could really better understand a lot right there.

Q. How do you deal with your fallibility?

A. Beige, Purple, Red -Huh? (With the possible exception of red  A. Am I going to jail?)

A. Blue - I try to avoid it, but admit it and seek forgiveness and redemption for my mistakes. I try to help others see this too.

A. Orange - I trust myself with the right decisions and take responsibility when I'm wrong. Try to work with others to do the same, but I can really only worry about myself –that’s the only thing I can force and be responsible for. Everyone should take their own responsibility.

A. Green – Who’s fallibility? Who's fault is this really? We all affect each other, there's no getting around that. We need to have compassion. I don't think you can judge. There is no right or wrong. On what grounds are you judging me? Can't we just love, forgive and understand? I'm not a bad guy. You're not bad either. We need to be given the freedom . . . There should be no oppression.

A. Boomeritis - You can't tell me what to do. It's all your fault. Fuck you. I'm outta here.

A. Yellow -I do make mistakes and those mistakes can deeply effect other people. The bigger the mistake the more people it effects. But this can also work for good too, since slowly but surely we all might lean something -we do learn something, however long it takes. None the less, some things are unacceptable. I certainly try to avoid that, think things through with great care and caution and try to imagine all of the possibilities. If I can cause that much damage to others, well, what good might I do for them as well? Therefore, I try always to be always an example or a catalyst for good, seeing the chain reaction-becasue that help me too, the effects come back on me good or bad, see? I can't avoid it -but we are all in this together. So I definitely take responsibility for my part. As far as mistakes and my inherent fallibility, I am learning all the time, and try to keep them as minimal as possible  . . . . I really am sorry when the occur. It affects me deeply and I want to change it . . .

A. Turquoise - The only way around fallibility is to work for the overall health of everybody in the world, at every level of development, in all ways, in all of the best and most beneficial ways, all at the same time. In order to do that, we need to work together, especially those at the higher levels, setting it up so that people can both live and grow as healthy and pain free as possible. Fallibility is not even really the question, it's consciousness amidst causes and conditions. Everything would change, if we could just adjust all of those causes (that we can adjust) and all of those conditions (that we can adjust), just so, so that they were at once embracing everyone at their own consciousness level in the most encouraging and compassionate, healthy and safe way, while at the same time making it easy for them to learn more and move on. But it's very tricky, there are a million and one factors that need to be distinguished, but we can do it. We need to question everything, and "fix" everything . . . we have a responsibility and we can not, not do otherwise. There is no getting away . . . Oh me? Well, I will repeat what I said . . .

We could do the same with Q.How do you deal with other people's fallibility? and also following the moral stages.

Anyone else want to take a stab?

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

randomturtle:

I'm wondering why you think that this is Green?

Oh, no it's not Green, but it is the effect of green either on the lower levels or in bringing out the lower levels at any level, at green or below it.

As far as blue, my thoughts above are general . . .

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

To bring my very long and involoved post back into this thread in a topical way, maybe I should say how my theory of a Holarchy/Integral government would deal with abortion. What a concept, this relevency thing, huh?

So, if the only global laws were:

1. avoid harming others physically
2. avoid threatening other's safety and wellbeing
3. if there is a dispute you must participate in one of the many conflict resolution processes available

...then it would be up to the individuals and communities involved to decide what the best solution to deal with unwanted fetuses is. Each affected party would have the right, under law #3, to be a part of the resolution process, and the fetus's interest could be represented by anyone who wanted to do so. Communities would be free to come up with their own, local laws relating to abortion, but all individuals would have the right to seek a resolution process if the law affected them in a harmful way (forcing them to have a child they didn't, or couldn't love and care for, or forcing them to give up a child that they want). Obviously the resolution process for this sort of thing could get pretty complicated, but, as I mentioned before, the goal of the process would be to end up with everyone better off than when they started out.

I would imagine that once the first few really involved resolution cases happened and the news got out about the process and it's conclusions, communities and individuals would have a motivation to enact policies that help avoid the situation in the future in effective, and respectful ways for all levels and types of people.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle

timelody:

Oh, no it's not Green, but it is the effect of green either on the lower levels or in bringing out the lower levels at any level, at green or below it.

How do you see Green creating this effect? Sorry, I'm still confused as to where you're coming from here.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle

randomturtle:

Communities would be free to come up with their own, local laws relating to abortion, but all individuals would have the right to seek a resolution process if the law affected them in a harmful way

Maybe this would a good direction to go in -- it acknowledges the first-tier embrace of both individual rights and pluralism (healthy orange and green). The legalization of abortion is connected to pluralism -- it's a recognition that society has currently not arrived at a consensus on when human life begins, and that it is therefore preferable to have laws than enable people to make their own choices based on their own moral code and the standards of the community of which they are willing members.

And second-tier / integral allows first-tier to be what it is, right? It recognizes that amber has to be amber, green has to be green, etc., and thus could embrace prolife stances while also keeping abortion legal. The post-conventional pro-choice stance allows people to be where they are values-wise, but it would not allow the values of those at lower altitudes to become the law of the land.

And again, in reference to the post I wrote earlier (with the Don Sloan quote): of course we will always be able to find examples of women who have abortions cavalierly (or who at least appear to have a cavalier attitude about it. Appearances can be deceptive). My point is that it is wrong to generalize that women make these decisions carelessly.

My two cents,

Mary

---

Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

~Rumi

maryw:

[And again, in reference to the post I wrote earlier (with the Don Sloan quote): of course we will always be able to find examples of women who have abortions cavalierly (or who at least appear to have a cavalier attitude about it. Appearances can be deceptive). My point is that it is wrong to generalize that women make these decisions carelessly.

Right. But it is also equally wrong or at least incorrect to generalize that all women do. (That is, use care.) When we can embrace the reality of both generalizations, a clearer picture emerges, that is not at all general, and I think shows a pretty desperate situation, collectively (LL, LR), that does need some attention.

Also, I don't think the community by community law thing is correct either (if I am understanding it correctly). It's too pluralistic. The lower memes do need somebody to tell them what to do. For thier own health and saftey and for the health and safety of all. They can not make these decisions properly on their own.

As I said above, the turning point there is probably somewhere around "middle" blue, but it is still going to be confusing, and that, yes, can be left up to community in closer proximity. But for early blue and all the lowers, they do not know how to make these kinds of decisions on their own. Period. And that is really the major problem with this blanket legal (no more questions asked) abortion . . .

Not everybody is "okay" on their own.

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

randomturtle:

How do you see Green creating this effect? Sorry, I'm still confused as to where you're coming from here. Peace, Love, and Bicycles, Turtle

Becasue by leveling all values it causes the lower memes (and sometimes the lower memes in us) to loose control.

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

timelody:

Also, I don't think the community by community law thing is correct either (if I am understanding it correctly). It's too pluralistic. The lower memes do need somebody to tell them what to do. For thier own health and saftey and for the health and safety of all. They can not make these decisions properly on their own.

How do you see this jibing, then, with that postconventional pro-choice stance? (And imo, "community" implies that we are beyond red and at least into conventional, mythic-membership blue).

I'm not implying that guidance in this kind of decision-making should be discouraged, but rather that each case exists within its own context, and that context needs to be taken into account.

Mary

---

Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

~Rumi

maryw:

timelody:

Also, I don't think the community by community law thing is correct either (if I am understanding it correctly). It's too pluralistic. The lower memes do need somebody to tell them what to do. For thier own health and saftey and for the health and safety of all. They can not make these decisions properly on their own.

How do you see this jibing, then, with that postconventional pro-choice stance? (And imo, "community" implies that we are beyond red and at least into conventional, mythic-membership blue).

i'd say it doesn't jibe.  green does not accept that there is a higher level that has right to tell lower levels what to do.  it's ok with other levels.

here's the thing: almost every human has done something that they regret. most of the time you can't reverse the clock and erase a mistake.  with abortion . . . heyoOOO!!  we can "erase" a mistake.  we're not going to give up that ticket in first tier.

there are far too many inspiring stories of women and men having stength and courage and who stand up to lousy awful degrading circumstances. a woman in africa who was raped in darfur brought her baby to term and is loving it, others who gave up their children to adoption . . . that it makes it clear to me in my heart where i stand.  i can't say to other women that they should behave in the same way as some courageous loving women have done. not everyone can live that way. abortion and anti-abortion stories are not inspirational to me.

 

later,

gene

 

 

 

maryw:

How do you see this jibing, then, with that postconventional pro-choice stance? (And imo, "community" implies that we are beyond red and at least into conventional, mythic-membership blue).

 

Then perhaps it is just a question of semantics. What I really mean is that any sort of strict pluralism will not work because it reverts into tribalism. This only causes then more division and not less because there is nothing to connect, hold together and unite in a common care and embrace.

Tribalism, though does have a role to play -but each tribes agency must be held some way in communion (and I am stating to get a bunch of very progressive ideas -at least, progressive for me and my mind thus far). More on that a little later.

But for now, perhaps it is a question of numbers. In fact, I think it is a question of numbers.

Speaking strictly of the United States of America-united we stand, divided we fall - we have to figure out a way to unite in full care and embrace and some kind of common communion 230 million people on this issue. Perhaps that is better stated we need to find a way to hold together 230 million people with regard to this issue, and it is a fundamental issue, in that it affects all, goes down to the fundamental questions and beginnings of life itself, and the preliminary interactions leading to it. All of which greatly affect society. And it is, at this point, IMHO, truly a question of national emergency -as far as "holding" us together.

Again, on the question of numbers, I think we can really find a united stance for the vast majority or all on the simple fact that while we might allow this to happen we are not at all comfortable with the enormous, and when we would think of it, quite ghastly, numbers.

The Catholic Church for example has from the beginning been a leader in spinning out the numbers. I remember listening in Church even back in the late 70s early 80s -so only a few years after the ruling-numbers being compared to the civil war, both world wars, all combined, simply millions and million and millions of unborn children, essentially being murdered. I am not so sure anybody past the threshold of blue is at all comfortable with that. (Before I might not be able to comprehend that. But we do have the right to hold you agency in communion.)

But one of the major things that the US Rove v. Wade case brought to light is that, indeed, this does happen and there are indeed cases where it might be considered acceptable to allow it to happen, ultimately for the greater health and fundamental agency of the woman. (Also, i.e. it has been happening all along -I think the ruling brought this more to social light -and I think that is a good thing.)

Now, that leads to my next new point. I think we might be far better served to look at this in terms, not of men vs. women or mother vs. baby or individual vs. community, but rather, just simply strictly in terms of agency vs. communion. I think that simple measuring stick can do a lot for women, men, relationships, obviously babies, community, the whole shabang.

These are just a few thughts in response for now, becasue I have really suddenly got a whole lot of ideas on this, but simply haven't the time to share for now.

So, later and thanks for the input -your simple question "How do you see this jibing"  has been a real lightning bolt.

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

maryw:

(And imo, "community" implies that we are beyond red and at least into conventional, mythic-membership blue).

To be truly Integral, we would have to include the whole spiral because Integral operates on the premise that all levels are necessary for the health of the spiral not just higher levels. So, yes, there are communities of Beige, communities of Purple, and communities of Red in the Integral world. This is the way it is now, anyway, if you think about it. Though I think the term "community" may be a little inaccurate, or at least misleading here. There are indeed some large, geographical communities (tribes) where members are Beige (well, not so much) or Purple or Red (a few in the US, and certainly lots of them in the rest of the human world, as well as lots in the world of other species, whom we interact with frequently), but the majority of communities that are Beige*, Purple, and Red are social communities - groups of people who get together for work or play. These "affinity groups" - churches, schools, clubs, gangs, or just some friends who hang out together - have values that are healthy and important for the levels of the members, and usually are centered around a single level. An Integral government system would clearly want to encourage these level communities, and give them the freedom they need to explore their world in a healthy way. When a group or individual starts to get unhealthy, someone will complain, and if the community itself can't solve the problem in a satisfying way for all involved, that's when the upper eschalons would step in with their three basic laws. The top level of governnent would offer legally binding conflict resulution processes that would help restore health to the individuals and the community by finding solutions that leave eveyone healthier and happier than they were before the process started. Again the Integral goal is health and honoring the values of the whole spiral.

maryw:

I'm not implying that guidance in this kind of decision-making should be discouraged, but rather that each case exists within its own context, and that context needs to be taken into account.

Yes, each situation is very much different, and if we, as Integral practicioners, understand that every quadrant, level, state, and type is important, then we have to allow for all the differences to be considered when making a decision.

Also, the guidance (structure, authority, whatever you want to call it) comes from those three universal laws:

1. avoid harming others physically
2. avoid threatening other's safety and wellbeing
3. if there is a dispute you must participate in one of the many conflict resolution processes available

No matter what level you are at, if you violate those laws, you will be expected to be responsible for restoring balance.

Obviously this isn't something that's just going to happen overnight. It's a pretty radical governmental system from what we Westerners have now. But, as we know from the history of Integral development, radical changes happen quite regularly in our human societies. So there is every reason for something like this to come about in the not too distant future. Really!

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle

* Remember, I've work in day care centers! I see Beige, Purple, and Red groups all the time... they are so cute!

randomturtle:

there are communities of Beige, communities of Purple, and communities of Red in the Integral world. This is the way it is now, anyway, if you think about it. Though I think the term "community" may be a little inaccurate, or at least misleading here.

I was thinking that if it were a community that was going to standardize some kind of in-group "law" about abortion--and expect conformity to that law -- then it would have to be at least blue . . . But I do see what you are saying. Yes, of course there are tribes / social communities / in-groups that are beige, purple, and red.

(Admittedly I still have problems with spiral dynamics v-memes. Each meme is said to be necessary for the health of the entire spiral, but I have trouble grokking what healthy red would be for a group, for the LL. In the UL, red is the emergence of the ego -- of a "self distinct from the tribe." I can see why that is necessary for development, but I'm not clear on the attributes of healthy red in the LL. A question best left for another thread!)

Gene, in a post way back you wrote:

i can't beat up my neighbor because he disrespected my honor. we do not say "well, that's your values so you should be allowed to do it".  we don't say "it's a difficult and personal decision so we'll stay out of it". that's green crap.  we do not allow purple folks to sacrifice chickens because that's inhumane treatment of animals.

I submit that the abortion issue differs from the examples you mention here because we do not have societal consensus on when the fetus is considered a full human being with all the rights that are granted to the already born. We do have societal consensus on the wrongness of murder, beating up your neighbor, cruelty to animals, etc. -- but not on when human life begins. Even the religious traditions do not agree on this issue. Thus, it seems to me that the best approach is to ensure that women have access to information about all of their options and to encourage them to seek guidance from those whose opinions they respect. If humanity ever arrives at broad agreement on when life begins, laws would likely be revised. But for now, I think it's more than just "green crap" when people say the decision to abort is a personal one. Rather, it's a recognition that people can be rational and moral and still disagree on certain issues.

Thanks all,

Mary

---

Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

~Rumi

maryw:

Gene, in a post way back you wrote:

i can't beat up my neighbor because he disrespected my honor. we do not say "well, that's your values so you should be allowed to do it".  we don't say "it's a difficult and personal decision so we'll stay out of it". that's green crap.  we do not allow purple folks to sacrifice chickens because that's inhumane treatment of animals.

I submit that the abortion issue differs from the examples you mention here because we do not have societal consensus on when the fetus is considered a full human being with all the rights that are granted to the already born. We do have societal consensus on the wrongness of murder, beating up your neighbor, cruelty to animals, etc. -- but not on when human life begins. Even the religious traditions do not agree on this issue. Thus, it seems to me that the best approach is to ensure that women have access to information about all of their options and to encourage them to seek guidance from those whose opinions they respect. If humanity ever arrives at broad agreement on when life begins, laws would likely be revised. But for now, I think it's more than just "green crap" when people say the decision to abort is a personal one. Rather, it's a recognition that people can be rational and moral and still disagree on certain issues.

i fully agree with all of this!  i also wrote that there is a huge consensus about what is wrong . . . and that if we all agreed on when a person actually becomes a "person" . . . the argument is over! does that mean we really really need to focus on that question . . . when does personhood begin?  beats me.

that blurry line, that gray area, is the basis why people will come to their conclusions based on lower level motivations, without higher level guidance.  "i'm not going to let this take away my personal freedom" "my boyfriend says i better have an abortion or else".  

your suggestion about having access to all options sounds like my idea of becoming integrally informed. one aspect of that, i think, is to explore whether any shadow shit is motivating the decision. the difficulty does not come only in the present when the decision to abort is made---more difficulty might arise in the future perhaps dealing with guilt, when a more mature morality has evolved.  is there such a thing as a mother who aborted her first pregnancy, then later raises a family that she loves, who can look into her children's faces and not wonder about the sibling that never was?  i would guess that the answers might fall both ways, as to whether they regret or do not regret the decision. one of the options of becoming integrally informed is to let pregnant women hear the stories from both sides, from those who have gone through it . . . to see which side better resonates--regret or good decision.

as for the green crap aspect---it's green crap to say that the decision is personal therefore we should stay out of it.  doesn't integral say that all holons have an I, we, it?  what does it mean to say that a decision is personal other than shorthand for saying MYOB. 

 

later,

gene

 

randomturtle:

Remember, I've work in day care centers! I see Beige, Purple, and Red groups all the time... they are so cute!

And they are there being held safely in a highly sophisticated, structured and controlled situation of love, care, learning and hope and interest in their development.

 

Consider for a moment the larger AQAL reality.

 

In your daycare, this social community, are the young beige, purple and red members of orange, green and possibly yellow tribes, family-tribes that form individual tribe/subcultures within a larger orange to green community within an orange to green state. They are held safely in a nested hierarchy/holarchy with the highest center of gravity at orange or beginning green. (Massachusetts is primarily orange beginning into green, then, of course with the larger US of A that is orange.) There is a nested hierarchy of agency in communion. And they are, at this point, being given very limited agency. And, of course the reasons for that are simple; left with too much freedom, because they don’t know any better, they will very quickly and seriously harm both others an themselves.

 

 

The actual purple and red "communities" that are not being safely held in communion in a wider holarchy of embrace, but are being given their full “freedom” and agency, would be the warring, legitimate, purple and red tribes in "communities" like Brockton or Roxbury.

 

Are you familiar with what it is to do any kind of care there?

 

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky