Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Politics in the 21st Century, Part 1 - Jim Garrison & Ken Wilber

Last post 15 hours, 21 minutes ago by ralphweidner. 3 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  03-19-2021, 7:51 AM 42021

    Politics in the 21st Century, Part 1 - Jim Garrison & Ken Wilber

    The conversation between Garrison and Wilber takes a look the current state of US (and global) politics, including the presidential campaigns.  Lots of food for thought.
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  03-19-2021, 8:29 AM 42021 in reply to 42021

    Re: Politics in the 21st Century, Part 1 - Jim Garrison & Ken Wilber

    Yes!  I loved this dialog - and actually, I've been waiting for a five years to hear another talk between Ken and Jim Garrison.  I loved the two dialogs he did in 2021 ("The State of the World in the Wake of Iraq" and "There Isn't Any Integral Political Out There") and I found his book America As Empire: Global Leader or Rogue Power fascinating, moving, and inspiring.  (He also has some great stuff online at WIE).

    So I was delighted to see that he had this new dialog on IN, and I've listened to it a couple of times.  I agree that there's a lot of interesting data and analysis here.

    I wrote a very rough transcript of a tiny part of this dialog in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are mentioned:


    KW: …we've seen Hillary Clinton, when somebody said “Oh, you're talking about Wilber, that integral view, she said “yes, yes, yes!”

    JG: …Barack Obama, I think he's intuiting his way into integral politics, and I think the big distinction between him and Hillary, for example, [is] I think she remains very firmly rooted in modernist politics.

    KW: yeah, she's…keeping her foot intentionally in orange modernist -

    JG: the delusion of Hillary right now is that she thinks that what you have to do in American politics is go for the center, basically be Republican light,  have a strong military policy - look at her record, she's been as Hawkish on Iraq and Iran as president Bush (except very very recently). [Ken said “right” three times while Garrison was describing Hillary's “delusion.”]  I think somebody at some point - and it may not be Barack, in this election - but at some point somebody is going to jump into the future, into the political north, because they'll realize that if they speak to those values that are beyond orange and green, so to say [?] the rudiments of integral, I think they're going to discover that not only will they get the cultural creatives but there's been a study that's been recently done that's indicating that this new millennium generation, 15-25, has almost the same politics as the cultural creatives, so we're in one of these extraordinary aberrations of history…


    This matches my impressions as to Obama intuiting integral, and Hillary taking a wrong-headed approach that doesn't match the historical moment.

    I highly recommend Politics in the 21st Century.  Part1. Flirting with DisasterBig Smile [:D]

    spiral out,

    Arthur Gillard is managing editor of (supported by donation/sponsorship) and is available for freelance editorial, writing, and other assignments.


    "You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  03-19-2021, 6:40 PM 42021 in reply to 42021

    Re: Politics in the 21st Century, Part 1 - Jim Garrison & Ken Wilber

    what really got me is what jim was saying about the world reaching a chaos point .. for example .. if .. and when ? the iceshelf off of greenland slides into the atlantic .. and sea levels rise four to five feet . . .

    that the technologies to solve these problems ALREADY exist but there currently isn't enough consciousness and political will to be proactive about them

    well not yet anyway .. 


    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  15 hours, 21 minutes ago 42142 in reply to 42021

    Re: Politics in the 21st Century, Part 1 - Jim Garrison & Ken Wilber

    what struck me was all the irony resulting from jim not getting, at least as i interpret it, what ken was telling him: for example, the potential natural disaster you allude to fairyfaye, and the criticism of clinton arthur has so carefully recorded.

    the first makes perfect sense in terms of the flatland we live in that not only absolutizes the RQs to the exclusion of the LQs, but cannot imagine there might be other ways of seeing the world. however, we don't have to fantasize a RQ disaster to make our point, when there are so many other, much worse, LQ disasters that have already actually occurred, and are continuing to occur.

    samantha power, the erstwhile obama advisor who has been one of the fatalities of the obama-clinton fight has written an enlightening history, 'a problem from hell', of one such kind of disaster, namely, genocide. she begins with the armenians under turkish rule, goes on to the holocaust, then cambodia, then iraq under saddam hussein, then bosnia, then rwanda, ...

    these last two occurred during clinton's first term. like other american leaders before him, he failed to act (in consultation with his wife). aqal provides, i think, a simple, at least partial, interpretation of this recurring failure. before clinton, it was a president with an orange worldview pretty much blind to the genocide lower levels can sometimes be attracted to. with the clintons, with what i would interpret as a green worldview, they were, in addition, much more restrained about using force to combat genocide, to the extent that they recognized it.

    perhaps this helped them to transform to 2nd tier. at any rate, this is how i've interpreted the orange stance that hillary clinton has generally taken in the campaign, as well as on occasions before the campaign. she is much better positioned, imo, than obama, who has generally taken a green stance in the primary campaign, for going against mccain in the general election. i'm personally skeptical about all the potential power jim and paul ray seem to think is now within green's grasp. that may hold at wisdom university, and may come to be at, but i can't imagine it having any hope in any of the square states, regardless of how well obama has done in their democratic primaries.

    so that's the other great irony of this conversation, that jim could say he gets what ken is saying, but completely miss his warning about the dangers of orange/green conflict within the democratic party. green calling orange delusional simply is not going to help.

    consequently, i'm inclined to interpret ken's apparent assent somewhat like bill clinton's. he might feel someone else's pain, but it does not thereby become his pain. as sally bedell smith relates in 'for love of politics', people often came away from a conversation wih him believing he had agreed with their point of view, where in fact he had only indicated he fully understood their point of view.

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2021. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help