Robert Wright seems to have answered his own question:

…why is it that, so far as we can tell, early religion had no real moral dimension?

Here in his book:

Whenever we look at a “primitive” religion, we are looking at a religion that has been evolving culturally for a long time. Though observed hunter-gatherer religions give clues about what the average religion was like 12,000 years ago, before the invention of agriculture, none of them much resembles religion in its literally primitive phase, the time (whenever that was) when religious beliefs and practices emerged. Rather, what are called “primitive” religions are bodies of belief and practice that have been evolving—culturally—over tens or even hundreds of millennia. Generation after generation, human minds have been accepting some beliefs, rejecting others, shaping and reshaping religion along the way.

The problem is looking at religion as an independent system free from the other pressures of life which spanned multiple eras (each of which have their own life conditions, and their own collective worldviews to adapt to them). As one Redditor put it in response to my suggestion to learn about Levels of Development:

Now, now - refined superstition in chart form is superstition all the same.

Basically equating superstition as equivalent to Religion.  Not that any given religion today doesn’t involve some superstitious content, not my point, rather fundamentalist religion today (the one that gets all the New Athiests in a tizzy) stems from the religion of the Agrarian age, and not earlier.   Imagine trying to “not steal” in a hunter gatherer society come wintertime.  Or to “not kill” in a horticultural age when no one you knew has any form of education, and there is no rule of law to stop an individual or group from pillaging your livestock, your house, or your family.  It wasn’t until a society develops a rigid code of conduct which tempers chaos within a group, that fundamentalism appeared. As Nicholas Wade puts it:

to instill, through group cohesion, morality within a group and hostility toward those outside it. So in very early human societies, groups with strong religious behavior would have prevailed over less cohesive adversaries. We are descended from the religious groups, the argument goes, and that is why everyone harbors a religious instinct. …

Or harbors Blue meme (a developmental stage) in Spiral Dynamics:

Blue - Rule/Role Self - age 7–8 years. Later Mythic
Nation States, Authoritarian - starting 5,000 years ago
Life has meaning, direction, and purpose with predetermined outcomes.
Quest: ultimate peace.
Method: follow the given rules, don’t exceed your role…
Pitfalls: archetypal role identification, script pathology, fundamentalism, fascism,etc

So a basic difference between the religion of the Archaic or Magical (superstitious), and the Mythic one of today’s fundamentalists. Believing in myth to substantiate morals is not the same as believing in voodoo magic to curse your enemy. Ken Wilber:

Laotzu was 900 years old when he was born. According to the Hindus, the earth is resting on a serpent, which is resting on an elephant, which is resting on a turtle. Those kinds of mythic approaches aren’t wrong. They’re just a stage of development. Look at [Swiss philosopher] Jean Gebser’s structural stages of development. They go from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral and higher. Magic and mythic are actual stages. They’re not wrong any more than saying “5 years old” is wrong. It’s just 5 years old. We expect there to be higher stages. There was a time when the magic and mythic approaches years ago were evolution’s leading edge of development. So we can’t belittle them.

Bottom line is that to categorize all belief as belief in magic, superstition or childishness is too much of a generalization.  If one is really a proponent of evolution, then it takes a little intellectual honesty to see that religion itself is evolving right along with humanity.  A problem must be accurately diagnosed to most effectively deliver a solution, and I see too broad of a brush being swept by anti-theists.

How to dealThe ever-controversial Stuart Davis offers up a coping mechanism to deal with what is, in the end (or rather, the beginning), fundamentally (pun intended) a part of us all, and when it’s ugly side rears it’s head in the media:

The ‘answer’ to fundamentalism is not to get rid of Religion, but to get religion to evolve. How can we help Pat Robertson discover his hidden Father Thomas Keating? Will Francis Collins agree to mentor Sarah Palin? I’m kidding. But I’m not. The answer to low levels of religion is higher levels of religion. The real work ahead of us is religious development, not just embarrassing people into forfeiting their belief system (they will just trade it for an equivalent one anyway). If tomorrow, all the religions in the World magically vanished, we’d face the same dangers of low levels of consciousness in high positions of power.

<<Crossposted @ IntegralLife >>

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

In looking at all those sub-prime mortgages and how complicated they are, as well as how dependent the system is on computers, etc., I would think the financial system is definitely at the orange level of development in cognitive function.  However, in seeing how the system was administered toward short term gain and turfing the responsibility to someone else once their money was made, I think the people were more in the red level of morality.

It definitely can be blurry when trying to decipher between Orange and Red, especially when it comes to greed, but I think a starting point in this determination could be in considering the relative cost one is willing to undergo in order to gain financially. Red seems to be much more immediate and does not consider certain legal ramifications or anybody’s opinion-or physical well being for that matter. At first glance this seems to fit the corporate perpetrator’s profile well, but I think true egocentrism’s (Red’s) likely place in this mess was maybe more the predatory lenders perhaps. Those who dealt directly (face to face) with gullible borrowers. I think consequences are a good indicator of what level is being expressed. A Red offender goes to jail, and Orange offender gets a fat bonus while the system collapses. I really don’t think Red can produce the complex culture (LL) required in corporate dealings—there are just too many hoops to jump through, and rules to adhere to, for instance. Orange thrives by:

A). A fraternal-type “Good ol boy” system where we all benefit by helping each other out (LL). This type of culture “It’s not what you know, but who you know,” distinguished by people who are “in” or demonstrate success according to Orange values I.e. High-Status positions, material wealth, “winning” personality, etc. It is this culture that makes possible the “revolving door” political-economical system of corruption (NOTE: the “good-ol-boy mentality, I think originates with Amber, but that’s a whole other post). For example Henry Paulson, Treasury Secretary was Former CEO of Goldman Sachs. We all know how many former CEO’s head up major government committees or sit on governing boards. This culture requires one to do their share of “stepping on people,” “brown-nosing,” “back-patting,” in a non-violent yet sheerly competitive nature. Smearing, and back stabbing are definitely within bounds if you truly want to win. I just don’t think a Red-centered person could ever tolerate this kind of environment without lashing out!

B) Justify with evidence in a rational manner (LR). How many times has it been cited that “Housing prices will always go up?” I would assert (someone correct me if i’m wrong) that there was massive think-tank research reports that documented how this trend is permanent. I know I could–right now–start researching that trends prior to 2007 showed constant increase in real estate value. I would cite the steady increase in population growth in most areas, as well as factor in future projections including future loan purchases which would drive prices up further. These theses could all be backed analytically by the right statistics I’m sure. Thus in the end it was Rational (Orange) to believe that all of this is not just appropriate, but a total win-win situation! “Need more proof?” says the Paulson as Goldman CEO in ‘06, “Look at our ever increasing stock price.” How Orange can we get with this? Way more, because they all gained massive wealth which only Orangely solidified their convictions.

I think Orange saw the whole situation as “win, win”–an Orange ideal slogan in fact. “Regulations, you say? That’s only for for people who abuse the system. We don’t because we create real value!” Who could deny this? Anybody who did clearly wasn’t “in the loop.” And sure enough there were plenty of Representatives and Congress people “in the loop” to deregulate, just help them get elected again. You see, EVERYBODY constantly “wins” if they “play along”!!! Everybody in the “loop” was a “winner.” I think I’m gonna be Orange color blind after this mess! BTW check out Peter Schiff a guy who forecasted the economic collapse up against the euphoric Orange culture that saw no error of their ways.
As far as the UR quadrant I still need to do my homework. I mostly assumed it to be pretty much strictly the bio-physiological quadrant, but then I saw Part One of the recent Integral Life presentation and it gives more. Did you watch it? I found it to be tremendously heady, but I’m stubbornly beginning to accept that the AQAL model is heady by default. All I can say is that the only higher-Level manifestation I did see pertaining to this whole financial mess was in the UR quadrant and you mentioned it: Gucci is clearly the only Indigo brand around.

Plenty of evidence suggests that Wall Street was founded and majority of Wall Street’s culture resides in Orange.  Now, here in the Integral Community, I often hear the loose terms “healthy” and “unhealthy” in describing whether or not a Level is manifesting a pathology in the real world.  So, I think it’s now universally accepted that “unhealthy” Orange has thrived in the financial sector for decades.

This crisis is the logical conclusion of such overblown growth and a culture geared towards maximizing that growth at any cost–or I should say, at any risk? Because it seems that a good way to make a “balloon” is to:

1) create a corporate wide (unhealthy Orange) value system that rewards only profit.

2) base this system on “financial analysis” from top rating agencies like Standard & Poor’s who say nice Orange things like “our formulas show that housing prices can never go down”  etc.

3) Buy some politicians for deregulation purposes and let the predatory lenders do the  ground work–i.e. blow that balloon full of air–by appealing to those that still believe in last century’s (Orange) version of the American Dream.

4) Profit massively for a short while.

We all now know what follows.

Those who played the game responsibly, or participated manifesting their healthy Orange side end up paying for the mess.

…Could it all be a Type duality?  Unhealthy Masculine Orange, ended up screwing Healthy Feminine Orange (pun intended)?

I suppose elaboration is warranted after such a statement:

Masculine Orange will tend toward agency and therefore work to relieve itself of responsibilities in order to achieve it’s end goals (note: this can be healthy when necessary!).  Responsibility was obviously shirked en masse in the financial sector, but more specifically it was legally shirked when risk was removed from the scene and put on the shoulders of the investors.

Enter the devious lie of putting AAA ratings on these horrible sub-prime loans and voila!  People, organizations, or in the case of Iceland, entire countries took on all the risk when they invested in those triple A’s!  Somewhere in there lies a pathology, and no need to look elsewhere than all the pathological men running these firms!  I mean, there’s STILL no accountability!  They’re currently taking bailout money and giving themselves massive bonuses!  These guys continue to make a fortune off the constant repression of  responsibility deep into their Shadow!  I can imagine a conversation in the boardroom:

Bob the risk manager:  “Hey, we can’t take on these $500,000 loans.  The combined income of the applicants is $20,000 a year!”

Ben the CEO:  “What are you a girly-sissy-schoolgirl-whiney-sugar-and-spicey-and-everything-nicey-man?”

Boardroom:  Laughter.

Ben the CEO: “What’s your name?  Bob?  Listen Bob, grow a pair, take the loan, and your percentage for securing it, and go buy some psychiatric help, because that loan is going triple A, baby!!!”

Boardroom: Applause.

Meanwhile most of us at or with healthy  Feminine Orange–meaning in this case taking on responsibility, agreeing to pay our loans, working with the system (because we live in a community damnit!) in an accountable fashion to do what’s best for us AND our family–end up screwed…

Me and my wife bought a home last year, and we’re now wondering not only how hard our resale value took a hit, but if our jobs are now stable and we can even pay our mortgage in the coming years.  We were doing everything right.  Healthy Orange; living within our means, investing appropriately, building a nest egg… well, we’ll see if our eggs are in enough baskets to see us through this thing.

So is there anyone out there working in the financial sector?

UPDATE:  Foreign Policy Magazine has done an article titled: The Death of Macho.  Which seems more than relevant.

I think there are many ready to hear about Integral Theory, but just have yet to.  So much so that all it would take is a hyperlink in a comment section somewhere on the web which would point to something visually stunning and Integrally loaded.  Such visual representations can instantly convey the elegance and wonderment ofAQAL.

It’s images like these that have hooked my attention, leading to hours of wonderment–seeing finally the Integral ’space’ in which all things tetra-arise.  Haven’t you spent many awe-filled moments mentally drawing the lines from one level in one quadrant to the same level in the next using the above middle image?  A thousand words indeed, no?

My proposition stems fro my active involvement in online content aggregating social networks such as Digg and Reddit.  For those of you that are unfamiliar with such sites, I urge you to check them out.  Basically a news article, photo, blog post, video etc. from the internet is submitted and discussed in a forum.  Massive amounts of traffic flow through the content, which generates votes and comments (and votes on comments).  Controversial topics abound and discussions can range fromdegraded and insult-slinging to exquisitely humorous, to impassioned and rhetoric-transcending.  I believe there is a good level of second tier ready for an Integral infusion.  I have acted on opportunities to attempt conveying second-tier perspectives with favorable response.  Yet a good reference to quickly explain fundamental AQAL language would be helpful in spreading the word in these highly active communities.

I propose a large “poster sized” digital image, maybe somewhere to the scale of the Death and Taxes 2008 Poster (note that (at least in my browser) you can zoom in on any part of the large image). This visual aid would have the basics:

-A color coded Levels column on the far left from Infrared to Clear Light

-Aligned to the right, four more columns each representing one of the quadrants–from left to right: I, WE, ITS, IT

-In each level of each quadrant I think we need a detailed explanation–as well as an abundance of examples–of phenomenon that occurthere.

The “I” column would have the individual timeline (ie Red 3-6 years old) and the individual value structures. With examples: Terrible Twos, Teen Angst, etc.

The “WE” column would have the cultural writeup (groups at this level worship “Power Gods” etc).

The “ITS” would have the types of societies and timeline thereof (ie Feudal Empires circa 12,000 years ago; with modern-day examples).

And the “IT” column could have corresponding brain structures (if today’s science has documented it)

At this point I want to state that there are many examples already online and this on (as well as the many others) by FormlessMountain is damn close.

At this point I think all it would take to draw out many potentially Integral thinkers, is active and continuous Integral discussion in Digg and Reddit-type forums all linking to a large colorful in depth visual aid, and get AQAL language (as well as Integral topics, perhaps) floating around those discussions.   That, of course, would require multiple members of the integral community to conspire systematically to inject integral perspectives at the right time in the right discussion forum… Anyone game?

Remember life before the internet? Or the cell phone? When TV, magazines or the newspaper were our primary sources of information? Of course, very few of us bloggers like to dwell on how much more of a hassle things used to be… Admittedly, life was much simpler the further you go back, but was the lack of complication in our lives a necessarily better thing overall?

40,000 years ago we used to hunt and gather as our primary means of sustenance, and existence. Also, given that the average lifespan might have been around 30 years, it’s probably safe to say that life was a little more difficult then, no?

The first major technological breakthrough that made life easier (besides maybe the bow or spear of the lower paleolithic era) was the advent of agriculture, roughly 10,000 years ago, which allowed the human population growth rate increase exponentially. The following simple graph represents the effect of this boom (I love the inclusion of the peak oil-type bell curve in the inset chart!):

So in the move from the forests to working the land, we gained a little more complexity in our lives tending to livestock and the crops, yet this gain in stability is likely a fundamental cause for me and you being here. This chart also shows how the industrial revolution had a similar effect.

I’m not trying to equate progress with population growth explosions, but historically major advancements in technology gave rise to betterment of the human condition. Population growth being only an indicator in these two instances. But life’s complexity increases in each of these instances. The industrial revolution: Clearly life gets more complicated as life gets easier. And by easier I mean life with cars, and washing machines, and computers, etc.–the way we travel, work and communicate is progressively less and less work on an individual basis.

Of course, many want to rebel against the industrial revolution, because of the obvious costs in areas of resources, pollution, environment–not to mention multiple other worldwide consequences of the types of destructive greed which too often thrive in the modern era. The stereotype of old environmentalism rebelling against modernity is not without it’s virtues. In fact, because of historically new problems like peak oil, global pollution, and overpopulation, a paradigmatic transformation looms (or is underway). So far there are two major trends in the mainstream:

1. The projected solution of population reduction and/or massive conservation efforts as indicated/foreshadowed by the movie An Inconvenient Truth.
2. Or… The optimism of the next-generation environmentalism usually referred to as “bright green.”

Optimism versus pessimism. One option is regression to a simpler yet harder life, the other an inspiring reliance and investment in the likely possibility that technology can solve many of the environmental problems we face. Whether it be application of these technologies in a conscious manner in work and life, or the pure economic drive away from an increasingly costly fossil fuel economy, it’s clear this shift must happen.

Don’t get me wrong. Technology alone wont do the job but if the technology we use can be an indication of the level of our collective internal development we’re at or heading to, then much work should be put into examining and scrutinizing our inner worlds and personal lives to see where waste (not just the material kind, but emotional and mental as well) can be curtailed and eliminated. After all, looking at all of these external conditions that threaten the planet as merely an outward reflection of our collective selfishness, or naiveté is half of the equation, I think.

Pondering my last post, I thought it’d be fun to outline a possible approach to “locate” a line in the Lower Right for instance.  As Pelle said:

“All of the UL lines of development have UR correlates”

So given the nature of the Four Quadrants there should be correlates in the lower quads as well, except the complexity there might be even more staggering than in the UR, rendering identification that much more difficult. But what the heck, let’s give it a shot anyway, huh?

So I might venture a scenario to see if I’m on the right track.  Mathematics, for instance would probably have some form going way back to magenta/purple or whenever counting began. Mathematics, however, wouldn’t be any actual line in any quadrant, but more so the holon of interest that is tetra-arising. So would the following assertions hold true?

1. Cognition would be the UL line associated with mathematics (unless theres a “math” line in there also(?)).
2. In the UR, we can easily imagine that whatever part of the brain that does calculations “Biomathematically” would have a line there.

Now, i think since spoken language has its Lower-Right artefacts such as verbal and written words, which forms the foundation for a “language” line in the LR maybe?  Similarly mathematics could be plotted along the levels in a fashion much like this:

1. Red - Basic counting and written numbers - 1,2,3,4…
2. Amber / Blue - Algebra and simple formulas that allow for accounting for instance. 2+2=4, 2-x=-1
3. Orange - Scientific math.  Pythagoras and all those Greek guys up to Newton and calculus and further (experts please chime in if you’re out there).  Allowing for explosions in areas as architecture, investing, astronomy, chemistry, electronics, etc. - insert calc equation.
4. Green - Gets fuzzy for me here. I’ll guess at Einstein with relativity, but then again maybe he was Turquoise or something, and Newton was teal… Clearly we need an integral mathematician to clear up this area–which i’m not…- E=mc^2

But hopefully from this we could agree that there is a likelihood of distinct stages. And all of them have a core “language” or formula structure.  So there is, for lack of a better word, a “socio-mathematical” line in the LR!

As for the LL, well we all know what unkempt-bearded and pocket-protector crowd do on saturday nights (sorry, I admit i’ve worked on algorithms and prime number theories when girls weren’t around before).  But then again, the internal experience of a mathematically expressible revelation is a beautiful thing, so who can blame em?

Whew! Thoughts?

I’m hungry for as many examples of lines of development as possible. Ken says:

“ALL of the major developmental models have actually examined a particular developmental line . Piaget studied the cognitive line; Kohlberg, the moral line; Loevinger, the line of self-concept development; Graves, the developmental line of values; Maslow, the developmental line of needs; Gilligan, the moral line in females; and so on. Each of those developmental lines were shown to unfold in stages or levels.

In Integral Spirituality KW gives ten examples of lines that “appear in the Upper-Left quadrant.” Here they are:

• Cognitive (awareness of what is)
• moral (awareness of what should be)
• emotional or affective (the full spectrum of emotions)
• interpersonal (how I socially relate to others
• needs (such as Maslow’s needs hierarchy
• self-identity (who am I?)
• aesthetic (self expression, beauty, art, meaning)
• psychosexual “which in it’s broadest sense means the entire spectrum of Eros (gross to subtle to causal) <—– !?!?
• spiritual (where “spirit” is viewed not just as Ground, and not just as the highest stage, but as it’s own line of unfolding)
• values (what a person considers most important ie Spiral Dynamics)

I think it would be very interesting to see a plethora of examples like this in the other three quadrants. Any takers?

Also, I feel that i’m fuzzy on how to define the characteristics that make up any given line… I mean, what are the criteria? I can imagine any area of interest–i.e. astronomy–that has contained within it much development over time, but astronomy itself isn’t a developmental line is it? Are there lines within astronomy for example?

Illustrations of the quadrants such as this that sometimes have the correlating lines in each quadrant suggest lines with names like “culture” and “worldview” (Lower-Left), “Social Systems” and “Environment” (Lower-Right), and “Brain” and “Organism” (Upper-Right). Thos are great, but I’d love to see more. I think it would be a great tool that would allow comparison of lines over each of the levels–to be able to stick the cognition line with a summary of all it’s levels next to the brain/organism line for instance…

Aside from that can anyone lend a guy an injunction for spottings lines in any quadrant?

“It all starts here.” Mikey - The Goonies

There’s a fascinating area of research I’ve been into for the last few years or so called developmental psychology which has completely reshaped the way I see the world. I’ll attempt to outline the points of interest here while doing my best to reduce academic headiness, so we’ll see how that goes…

The best place to start as any is with levels of development; which outline the various patterns a person goes through starting at birth, given the appropriate life conditions (or fulfillment of certain needs at specific times in his / her development) that would allow for a continuous and healthy growth process to occur. This is also the core of the popular Spiral Dynamics management approach which demonstrates how someone’s value systems can change over time.

I’m going to stress checking out all of the these links, since I plan on referencing this stuff throughout this blog, particularly the Integral approach. Also, click on these graphical representations for the larger versions, which I think are good at transmitting the big picture (thanks to slark on flickr.com):

Cool huh? I think these concepts can go to all sorts of lengths at explaining, to greater degree of depth and accuracy, anything from current events, to politics, religion, art etc. using these color schemes–which get at why people do the things they do. BTW: If you’ve been perceptive enough to notice slight color differences between the spiral and the lines have no fear! It’s the same scale just a little altered for reasons (ie Don Beck and Chris Cowen vs. Ken Wilber respectively) we might get into later, but for practical purposes just equate the coinciding colors. ie: purple = magenta; blue = amber; yellow=teal; and coral=indigo and thats that.

Whew. That might be a lot to swallow at first (unless of course you feel it naturally describes a lot of stuff you’ve already felt to be true already, in which case welcome to the Second Tier as described in those overviews), but now we have a good set of terminology to dialog with.