Identity Diffusion

[Anansasem]

If you were to fully acknowledge the Integral Theory, would limiting ones own identity with terms such as "Asian," "white," "black," etc., need to become a secondary self-image to embrace the "all of us" aspect that could only be defined as Human Being?

How can I call myself 'black' and still accept that universal aspect, if I identify myself as something that others cannot? How can any of you identify yourselves as 'Asian' when it is a limiting title that cannot be shared by all of humankind?

'Race' is a superficial manufactured social divide, nothing more. It has no genealogical, hereditary, or even religious foundation in the form it is presented. Asians are not always similar only to other Asians, as our perceptions would identify. The diversity and relations spread far beyond that, so if one identifies themselves with such a limiting title then wouldn't they only embrace this senseless social construct that separates us?

I am not immune to the desire to feel as one ‘part’ of a group, though why? Is it nothing more than an animalistic ‘herd’ instinct that pervades through all of us? We see things as separate, when it is only this sight which makes it so. Just because a group of people have occupied a portion of land and given it a name they can all adhere to doesn’t mean it will always be called such, or that the people will continue to identify themselves this way. Will they even retain the same culture and beliefs? Will they even resemble their direct ancestors who lived this way? Even the people themselves won’t exist, as they believe, they never did to begin with. All of us, we are related by no more than an estimated 60-100 generations. How can we perceive ourselves as foreign from each other, if this is the case?

I’m always stressed with these questions, I would truly appreciate it if anyone can explain these concepts to me. I cannot understand it, any of it.

[howstrange]

If you were to fully acknowledge the Integral Theory, would limiting ones own identity with terms such as "Asian," "white," "black," etc., need to become a secondary self-image to embrace the "all of us" aspect that could only be defined as Human Being?


The integral approach is to neither lose or limit one aspect of your identiy for another. You are both black as well as human.

[theme]

The integral approach is to neither lose or limit one aspect of your identiy for another. You are both black as well as human.

LOL. That's comforting.

[howstrange]

lol, I guess that came out wrong...

maybe this example will help clear what I was trying to say:

cells>organs>human>male>black>christian>husband>Married couple>bostonian>american >earthonian/human being>and so on and so forth.

[Anansasem]

Tell me, if you substituted the portions that say 'black' with 'Asian,' this wouldn't be acknowledging the concept of 'race' by placing a superficial divide? Once you reach that junction, can you still continue to hold to that global mindset without losing yourself to Cognitive Dissonance?

I'll say this straight, I'm a mixed Norwegian/Japanese/African American. Though, simply because I retain more of the 'black' dominant traits, I can be perceived as no other way than 'black.' Literally, I have a mostly 'white' heritage, as my mother was 'pure' Norwegian while my father carried the other mixed traits. Regardless of reality, I am relegated to being categorized and labeled with a social, and superficial, subgroup image of a human being.

With the pervading segregated mindset with which this society follows, I could never claim to be 'white' or 'Asian' no matter my cultural knowledge or characteristics.

This is what I'm asking; when you accept these labels into yourself how can you continue to see yourself and others as an undivided aggregation when these labels are opposed in human sociological consciousness?

[lopan]

Anansasem, read this article that D posted a while back. D usually takes an integral approach to issues like these (and therefore the majority of his posts should appear in the Integral Forum). Hopefully you've read it when you signed up (as all good members do -- read our Declarations <sigh>). His post might give you a better perspective on the definition of race -- as it is more than simply a "superficial divide", as you say. Integral Theory encompasses all forms of classification, with (correct me if I'm wrong, D) little hierarchy amongst the classes, so that yes, you can be an American AND a Chinese for example, but neither classification may necessarily trump the other within Integral. In Integral, these definitions are also more encompassing; so that being an "american" is more than simply being born int he US (from a nationalistic or even geographic point of view) -- there are quadrants, or layers of participation that go into making up one's "American-ness".

http://www.thefighting44s.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4341

here's a quote that most directly addresses your point:

Socially-constructed knowledge

There is a school of thought that views race as a “social construct.” This means that race is “constructed” by people in a society: it exists because people agree that it exists. (This is not, incidentally, the way “social construct” is necessarily defined by all academic “social constructionists,” but is the definition by which the term is popularly understood.) There are people, including very prominent social and race theorists, who believe that race should be understood primarily in terms of relationships: as subjective or inter-subjective realities.

This is, in my view, dangerous, because it dismisses the objective aspects of race: that it also has physical, biological, and objective reality.

[Anansasem]

Appreciate it, Lopan. I've already read it, though I found it too structured to the point it felt constraining.

It may be that I only want 'race' to be false and subjective, because it seems I am 'arbitrary' in those perceptions of it.

Using Dialectic's system:

a) Biological: I have no distinct heritage that can be attributed to any of the common perceptions of 'race.'

b) Systems: I am mostly educated in the American system, though I find conflict with the distinct lack of egalitarian adherence. Even though this system defines itself as equitable, I still see apparent favoring and suppression of certain groups. I do not see myself as distinctly American in an institutionalized sense.

c) Mental: How can I perceive myself as any one 'race?' I can't. Those singular concepts are barred with the knowledge that I am, not only biracial, but multiracial.

d) Cultural: My perception is that others see me as 'black.' Though, they seem to have trouble as, I not only lack any distinction there, I commonly display physical and mental characteristics that conflict with that preconception. It is one of the phases that defines me. However, words give people many forms. "Black," "White," Asian, American; All of those are nothing more than phrases that define me. They each define me, yet none of them are me. So far, I can't even define myself in these ways. Stripped of these identifiers I only see myself as human, how can I do otherwise?


Perhaps it is for these reasons, a lack of 'racial' identity, that I desire to strip it from others as well. Though, only in the way it is perceived.

I wish Dialectic would post here, he helped me understand the questions I had in my last thread. He seems to have the best understanding of the Integral Theory, of those here.

[evil_FUX]

Hmm, I'm not sure how much help this will be but it sounds like you acknowledge the external factors that make up your identity but you don't want to accept them. I could be wrong (and yeah D is more well versed seeing as he studied this stuff longer and deeper), but I think being integral towards one's identity is understanding not only the personal experiences and opinions of oneself (internal) along but the opinions, thoughts, and experiences of others (external) as well.

I don't know if you read this thread, but this post from it makes a good point.

http://www.thefighting44s.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12634&postcount=21

[howstrange]

Tell me, if you substituted the portions that say 'black' with 'Asian,' this wouldn't be acknowledging the concept of 'race' by placing a superficial divide? Once you reach that junction, can you still continue to hold to that global mindset without losing yourself to Cognitive Dissonance?[
It is acknowledging the dividing concept of race, because the existence of the "concept of race" is a reality. It may not be right, but it does exist. Keep in mind I am speaking of race as it plays out in America. The concept of race is different is China as it would be in say South Africa.
This is what I'm asking; when you accept these labels into yourself how can you continue to see yourself and others as an undivided aggregation when these labels are opposed in human sociological consciousness?
Now you don't have to accept these labels, you just need to know these labels do exist - which are dependent upon the society you live - so you can better understand and realistically come up with solutions to the questions and obstacles around you.. That said, and to answer your question; you can continue to see yourself as undivided through the understanding that everyone has a unique background, and that it is a mutual empathy towards our differences, that allows us to reach a shared consciousness.

[Dialectic]

If you were to fully acknowledge the Integral Theory, would limiting ones own identity with terms such as "Asian," "white," "black," etc., need to become a secondary self-image to embrace the "all of us" aspect that could only be defined as Human Being?

This question has to do with the development of an individual and a culture's identity, something I'm going to go into with another feature. Thanks for reading the one Lopan pointed you to, and I'll see what I can clarify.

First, let me say that neither integral or the 44s advocate any sort of "limitation" on one's identity. Indeed, I would want you to endeavor your identity such that it covers all manifest existence, resulting in "your enlightenment," or the realization that you're already enlightened. That is, I'd want you to identify with all people of the world, then all sentient beings, then all manifest things, then the nondual unmanifest in which all manifest things arise. Might sound fruity or nonsensical, but the point is, I'd want you to identify with everything that you can, such that limiting boundaries are transcended within your awareness. Identifying with any particular race is fine, as long as it doesn't encompass your whole identity. Rather than calling it "secondary," I would perceive it as an aspect of the greater whole that is you, and that is humanity.

How can I call myself 'black' and still accept that universal aspect, if I identify myself as something that others cannot? How can any of you identify yourselves as 'Asian' when it is a limiting title that cannot be shared by all of humankind?

How can you identify yourself as Anansasem when no one else can be Anansasem? How can you identify yourself as a human when you're but an animal? How can you identify yourself as a male when you undoubtedly have feminine characteristics? How can you identify yourself as an adult when you can still recall and inhabit childhood feelings? How can you identify yourself as a "you" when "you" change from year to year and indeed moment to moment? An aspect of one's identity is only "limiting" when one solely identifies with that. Your identity comprises untold sub-identities, or aspects, and there is nothing wrong with labeling some of those aspects, as long as you don't get too wrapped up in absolute definitions.

'Race' is a superficial manufactured social divide, nothing more. It has no genealogical, hereditary, or even religious foundation in the form it is presented. Asians are not always similar only to other Asians, as our perceptions would identify. The diversity and relations spread far beyond that, so if one identifies themselves with such a limiting title then wouldn't they only embrace this senseless social construct that separates us?

Untrue, for the reasons I stated in the article. "Race" has objective and subjective components. The notion of race actually changes with levels of moral development. A tribal chief's notion of race would be different from the pope's, which would be different from a scientist's, which would be different from a humanity professor's. Also, your statement seems to be somewhat self-contradictory. You state that race is nothing but a social fiction and therefore has no objective, or absolute truth. Yet you yourself propose an absolute or objective truth about race: that it has none. You say that for all people universally, there is no race, which is a universal statement about race. If notions of race are merely social constructs, then isn't your notion a social construct, and therefore just as fictional? What makes your truth an overriding absolute one?

Also, while notions of race would seem to separate, note that as one develops from tribal to mythic to rational to contextual to integral moral structures, the "race" that one is part of, the number of beings one identifies with, expands. That is, identifying "white" and "black" and "Asian" races might seem divisive to you, but it's a hell of a lot better than, say, identifying Germans and French and Italians and Egyptians and Ethiopians and Japanese. Race actually unifies, because it brings together more than what comes before, i.e. tribal identities connected by blood and close kinship. You can now feel for another "American" as opposed to just, say, another Cree.

I am not immune to the desire to feel as one ‘part’ of a group, though why? Is it nothing more than an animalistic ‘herd’ instinct that pervades through all of us? We see things as separate, when it is only this sight which makes it so. Just because a group of people have occupied a portion of land and given it a name they can all adhere to doesn’t mean it will always be called such, or that the people will continue to identify themselves this way. Will they even retain the same culture and beliefs? Will they even resemble their direct ancestors who lived this way? Even the people themselves won’t exist, as they believe, they never did to begin with. All of us, we are related by no more than an estimated 60-100 generations. How can we perceive ourselves as foreign from each other, if this is the case?

I’m always stressed with these questions, I would truly appreciate it if anyone can explain these concepts to me. I cannot understand it, any of it.

All of this is a very long discussion which requires a good deal of reading and consideration from a bunch of perspectives and viewpoints. I doubt my comments will make that much sense to you or many others, and that's okay. I'm glad you're thinking about this stuff.

Very briefly, it seems like you're wondering about how identity works and why it works that way. It's a very tricky subject with lots of opinions, myths, pitfalls, and truths. Put briefly, identity develops. You start your life as a baby caring for nothing but yourself (indeed, you think the whole world is you), then you care for your parents, then your family, then your extended "tribe," then your "people," then all people, then all beings, then all things, then you realize one timeless "thing" permeates all things, then you realize there's no difference (this assumes you develop a lot, no guarantee for anyone. It's good enough if you care for all beings.) That seems to be the way cognition works. You start out at maximum egocentricity, and if things go well, and if your life isn't too disastrous, then you people less egocentric, or you identify with more and more things. Grouping and belonging are actually inclusive behaviors, because things would be worse without grouping and belonging. As for why people can't just be born caring about all things, that's not the way we develop, biologically or socially. It's a part of the maturation process.

[Dialectic]

Appreciate it, Lopan. I've already read it, though I found it too structured to the point it felt constraining.

Integral is actually not rigid or constraining at all. Remember, in it's "weak" form, it's an index of human knowledge. What I didn't mention is that in its "strong" form, it proposes that there is a subjective and objective component to every event in the material universe. That is, all things can be known from the inside and the outside. Integral then simply identifies or labels some important ways of looking at things. How can it be rigid or constraining when it is designed to include, literally, everything?

It may be that I only want 'race' to be false and subjective, because it seems I am 'arbitrary' in those perceptions of it.

You're not alone.

Using Dialectic's system:

It's not my "system," and again, it's more of a "meta-system" which makes room for all the types of thinking anyone's ever considered. It simply states that there's room for all of them, as long as they don't limit knowledge or modes of perception by saying that they're the one true way of seeing things.

a) Biological: I have no distinct heritage that can be attributed to any of the common perceptions of 'race.'

That's fine. That doesn't clash with anything I've said. It means that if scientists were to look for distinct genetic markers of being part of a certain population group, they wouldn't find them. You would probably therefore not be easily identifiable genetically or phenotypically. That doesn't mean race doesn't exist, and that doesn't mean you're "race-less," it just means you're mixed by conventional race standards. No biggie.

b) Systems: I am mostly educated in the American system, though I find conflict with the distinct lack of egalitarian adherence. Even though this system defines itself as equitable, I still see apparent favoring and suppression of certain groups. I do not see myself as distinctly American in an institutionalized sense.

A lot of Americans don't seem to see themselves as distinctly American in an institutionalized sense. That's okay. Indeed, that seems to be part of an aspect of American culture, doesn't it? Also, do you have citizenship? Do you participate in the American economy? Do you contribute to American productivity, to American thought?

c) Mental: How can I perceive myself as any one 'race?' I can't. Those singular concepts are barred with the knowledge that I am, not only biracial, but multiracial.

Neither I nor the integral meta-system have said that you have to perceive yourself as one race. Some people might say that, and their understanding of race would be more limited than yours or mine. A lot of people in history have been multiracial. Remember, I haven't said that mentally, you would define yourself as one race or another. I said that your mental conception of yourself contributes to your "race." Everything you have said so far agrees with and confirms what I said.

d) Cultural: My perception is that others see me as 'black.' Though, they seem to have trouble as, I not only lack any distinction there, I commonly display physical and mental characteristics that conflict with that preconception. It is one of the phases that defines me. However, words give people many forms. "Black," "White," Asian, American; All of those are nothing more than phrases that define me. They each define me, yet none of them are me. So far, I can't even define myself in these ways. Stripped of these identifiers I only see myself as human, how can I do otherwise?

I don't disagree with what you've said. You're not just "black," I'm not just "Asian." But again, it contributes to your "race," doesn't it? If it didn't, it wouldn't bother you so.

My feature wasn't an attempt to limit or give strict definitions on anything. It was a way to index forms of knowing which contribute to "race." Everything you've said contributes to your conception of "race," doesn't it?

Perhaps it is for these reasons, a lack of 'racial' identity, that I desire to strip it from others as well. Though, only in the way it is perceived.

Probably an astute observation on your own desires. Introspection is a prerequisite for wisdom and self-knowledge.

I wish Dialectic would post here, he helped me understand the questions I had in my last thread. He seems to have the best understanding of the Integral Theory, of those here.

I've tried to say what I can, though I've probably muddled you up even more.

Don't worry about integral or any other "theory." The message I'm trying to get through to people is that race is NOT a simple, limiting thing, and a MULTITUDE of factors contribute to it.

Finally, "race" only becomes a reality at the "mythic-membership" or "ethnocentric" phase of development (blue/ level 4) when one starts to identify with an entire "people," and not just one's tribe and family. And before anyone says that that proves notions of race are purely subjective, remember that "science" only becomes a reality at the "rational" phase of development (orange/ level 5), and anyone who says science is just a social construct is talking out of their ass. And as one becomes more mature and developed, one's conception of race becomes more mature and developed, and one realizes it's not as rigid or limited as it was at the ethnocentric level, but that it still does have some objective reality.

[Anansasem]

Integral is actually not rigid or constraining at all. Remember, in it's "weak" form, it's an index of human knowledge. What I didn't mention is that in its "strong" form, it proposes that there is a subjective and objective component to every event in the material universe. That is, all things can be known from the inside and the outside. Integral then simply identifies or labels some important ways of looking at things. How can it be rigid or constraining when it is designed to include, literally, everything?

What I found 'constraining' was the way it seemed to clearly define 'race.' Even though the message states 'race' is far more complex than perceived, it seems nothing like it to me. The 'races' overlap and are falsely labeled to the extent I think it really has no founding except in the human condition of 'Superstition.' I admit I now see the cultural and mental benefits of stereotypes, though it seems to create an 'otherness' in people's mind's to the extent they see themselves as basely different. Perhaps I'm overreacting in saying 'races' don't exist, though in the way they are now, it seems people generally see themselves as truly different 'races' almost as with Horses, Donkeys, and Zebras. (maybe not the best example) Looking at it now, I may even lack the same insight as you of what 'race' truly is.

You're not alone.
Do you mean other multiracial people? Those who are generalized to the point they feel like an extension? Or some others who I just lack the knowledge of? Maybe I'm just whining, heh.

Though, biology seems to be dead-set against the concept of 'race.' Most seem to agree that there is such a small genetic variation, like 6 chains out of 27,000, that the amount of status placed on it is far outweighed by other biological aspects that transcend the concepts of 'race.' Again, I guess I need to first understand exactly what 'race' is. I read most of the ground-text here, though maybe I simply wasn't able to connect it.

Systems; yes, in all of those senses I'm American. Though, are you? What of those who have dual citizenships as well as being multiracial? Would they see themselves as only 'human,' or maybe a "me against the world" outlook? I feel both sometimes.

Neither I nor the integral meta-system have said that you have to perceive yourself as one race. Some people might say that, and their understanding of race would be more limited than yours or mine. A lot of people in history have been multiracial. Remember, I haven't said that mentally, you would define yourself as one race or another. I said that your mental conception of yourself contributes to your "race." Everything you have said so far agrees with and confirms what I said.


Yes, neither you nor the integral meta-system say that. Though, it seems everyone else expects it. Even here, I've begun to just call myself 'black' instead of going into all the conflicts. I almost faced the same level of doubt and aversion here that I do in society? I cannot even begin to talk in these discussion without wondering whether the other posters believe where I'm coming from or not. As for the rest; again, I may not hold a proper perception of 'race.'

I don't disagree with what you've said. You're not just "black," I'm not just "Asian." But again, it contributes to your "race," doesn't it? If it didn't, it wouldn't bother you so.

My feature wasn't an attempt to limit or give strict definitions on anything. It was a way to index forms of knowing which contribute to "race." Everything you've said contributes to your conception of "race," doesn't it?

This is one of my most prominent conflicts, this question; What 'race' am I? What else is left for me aside from human? I doubt the concept of multiracial people really holds much ground in most people's perceptions. I think as the concept of millions of years was beyond the mindsets of people in the classical ages, I think multiracial people are almost like an anomaly or a phenomenon, even, to people who seemed locked into relegating me into a single perception of 'race.' Even if I hold a self-image, in culture I'm still expected to have a defined 'race' in the way it is perceived. Again, it seems it comes to back to what I know that determines 'race.'

Probably an astute observation on your own desires. Introspection is a prerequisite for wisdom and self-knowledge.
At least there is something clear to me, now.

I've tried to say what I can, though I've probably muddled you up even more.

Don't worry about integral or any other "theory." The message I'm trying to get through to people is that race is NOT a simple, limiting thing, and a MULTITUDE of factors contribute to it.

Not muddled, I've just started to look into it deeper.

I now want to know what is that 'multitude of factors' that makes up 'race.' I think it will be variable, probably changing almost completely from culture to culture, decade to decade, or even person to person. Wow, this is beginning to seem like topping a molehill to see a mountain range beyond, heh.

Finally, "race" only becomes a reality at the "mythic-membership" or "ethnocentric" phase of development (blue/ level 4) when one starts to identify with an entire "people," and not just one's tribe and family. And before anyone says that that proves notions of race are purely subjective, remember that "science" only becomes a reality at the "rational" phase of development (orange/ level 5), and anyone who says science is just a social construct is talking out of their ass. And as one becomes more mature and developed, one's conception of race becomes more mature and developed, and one realizes it's not as rigid or limited as it was at the ethnocentric level, but that it still does have some objective reality.
Much of that seems beyond me right now. Though, what is the difference between an individuals concept of 'race' and society, or maybe they are one though not exactly the same. Aeh, I don't know what I'm getting at. I'll have to look far more into all of it, I'm only 18 so maybe I'll have time to discover it myself. Though, I'm not to high for any links or help you can provide.

[Dialectic]

I've said all I can say in this discussion. The points that you bring up are all addressed by my feature and my other posts.

The model I've proposed doesn't try to give a rigid definition of race at all. It lists a set of factors which contribute to race. The model actually agrees with what you're saying. That's why in my piece I list a whole bunch of examples which show how flexible "race" is. The questions you ask in your post are similar to the questions I bring up in my piece. Please understand that it lists contributing factors. The whole point of what I wrote is that one can only identify someone of "pure" race is if a ton of contributing factors coincide; if not, then you're in a "grey" zone. But understand that not everyone is in a "grey" zone.

Finally, the concept of race changes with every phase of moral development. Someone who is very nationalistic or ethnocentric has very set, concrete, and rigid views of race. Someone who understands context, someone who perhaps grew up and never quite fit in, has a better chance of understanding that race is fluid and flexible. All of this is addressed in my previous posts and in the analysis.

[Anansasem]

I'll add this here, instead of starting a new thread.

If 'race' is a cognitive way for human beings to identify and place ourselves, then can it be superseded? If human consciousness is an ever evolving entity then is 'race' only a form of 'level' or 'stage' that we come to acknowledge before moving past?

I see that 'race' does give us a method to provide us with a sense of self, though it seems to hinder all of us when it 'descends' into Othering. http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/rww03/othering.htm
Could we kill ourselves on the scale we do if we weren't able to distance ourselves by making some 'the other?' Though, by creating contention among ourselves, do we also drive our own evolution?

I've come to accept that 'race,' in all it's forms, is a necessary concept for all of us, though doesn't it also 'retard' and hinder the capabilities of the human race? If the nations of the world worked with, instead of against, each other how much more could be accomplished? It may sound like a 'Utopian' and superficial concept, as without conflict and problems what purpose to we have to advance?

'Race,' in the way it's known, vanishes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_the_future Even so, I doubt we would become immune to the problems we face now. Though, I think it is a necessary 'step' to the next stage of our sociological evolution. This is what I hope for, though I'm beginning to think of what will come after. How will we see ourselves, and in relations to others? I have heard it theorized that individual characteristics will take precedence over broad generalizations. This does sound like a higher level of consciousness then pervades currently, though what will humankind face then? Will our descendants still face the concept of 'race' in another way? Or will there be something else, another way of awareness, that will make 'race' erased? As I mentioned earlier, something else that can supersede 'race.'

This question is difficult. Even if it is explained in some of the other threads, I cannot connect it. Are there any other sources, links, concepts, or 'Knowledge Indexes' of the Integral Theory that you could reference me to?

[Ike]

Humans do not all have one collective consciousness. It takes going through all the previous levels of development for each person to to reach the one at which he/she is currently.

The second and third tiers of development, according to D's reading on Altitude, are able to "supersede race". However, there will most likely be people at a lesser-developed level who WILL use race (and other things) as an Othering factor.

Here's a quote of the description of the Teal level, with boldface added for emphasis:
Teal (worldcentric to kosmocentric—able to take a 4th/5th-person perspective): Teal Altitude marks the beginning of an integral worldview, where pluralism and relativism are transcended and included into a more systematic whole. The teal worldview honors the insights of the green worldview, but places it into a larger context that allows for healthy hierarchies, and healthy value distinctions.

Perhaps most important, a teal worldview begins to see the process of development itself, acknowledging that each one of the previous stages (magenta through green) has an important role to play in the human experience. Teal consciousness sees that each of the previous stages reveals an important truth, and pulls them all together and integrates them without trying to change them to “be more like me,” and without resorting to cultural relativism (“all are equal”).

Teal worldviews do more than just see all points of view (that’s a green worldview)—it can see and honor them, but also critically evaluate them.

[Anansasem]

Ike, I was talking in the context of biological and sociological evolution. When the current form of 'race' is gone, what will the concept of 'race' become?

There is a form of a collective human consciousness, have you ever read 'The Nature of Mass Movements?' Trends, fads, idols, goals, words, beliefs, even thoughts and perceptions are like ripples that can spread from a single person to become an all-pervading way among all of us. In this way are we linked consciously. We did not always place such an importance on 'race,' if we do now then we will eventually surmount this perception as well.

What will our perceptions become? Several thousand years ago, people lacked the perception of time and place/space that we hold now. Could it be that in several more thousand years, or just hundreds, that human beings will have an awareness and consciousness that is able to grasp universal concepts that are beyond even the highest stages described in the Integral Theory? That is what I am asking.

[jook]

Though, biology seems to be dead-set against the concept of 'race.'


I am no expert in abstract theories about race. But your statement above is wrong. Biology does acknowledge racial differences.

A couple of times, at my church, this guy comes to register people for the National Marrow Donor Program. He has a relative who has some form of blood cancer, like leukemia. Now I am no medical expert either but apparently, for a patient who has such a disease, they can only be treated with marrow or blood cells donated by someone of their own race. In other words, if you're Asian, you cannot be treated with blood or marrow donated by a White or Black, only another person who is of the same Asian ethnicity. Same for Blacks and Whites. In fact, this is a serious problem of minorities who suffer from blood related diseases that there are too few minorities registered in the donor program.

The documentation that I received upon registering in the program specifically states

"there is a special need for donors who are:
- Black or African American
- Asian
- Hispanic or Latino
- American Indian or Alaska Native
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander"

Nature isn't as color-blind as we'd like to think.

[Dialectic]

Thanks for your thoughts, jook. Yes, as I've repeatedly stated to people on this forum, there is SOME biological basis for race. No, biology/ genetics does not entirely define what race someone is, but it contributes. No one can deny that we find genetic, pharmaco-genetic, and phenotypical patterns in population groups.

Anansasem, our concepts of race will never be "gone." Simple, older concepts get transcended and included into more complex, newer concepts. Your conception of race as a sociological phenomenon, for example, is a relatively new concept which recognizes the older concepts but creates a broader and more complex understanding. The integral conception of race is an even newer and more complex understanding which incorporates the sociological approach but does not limit race to being merely subjective.

Finally, development is not predictable, and there is no guarantee development/ evolution of structures of consciousness will even occur. If it does, the only thing we can bet on is increasing complexity.

It's evident from your posts that you're trying, but you haven't understood what I've been saying.

First, yes, in creating "race" we do engage in a process of "Othering" but what most scholars FORGET is we also engage in a process of "Selfing." Ethnocentrism creates a WIDER and more COMPASSIONATE whole than the tribalism and "familyism" that occurs before it. Didn't it suck for women (and men) when the only way to make peace or own territory was to marry off a daughter or cousin to another family? Creating an ETHNOCENTRIC or nationalistic identity gets RID of that because now you can RELATE to a whole RACE of people instead of just your tribe/ family.

There already exist structures of consciousness which "supersede" race. When you can relate to someone and feel compassion for all other humans, no matter what group they come from, you become "worldcentric" and thus transcend the limitations of race-based identity. Your knowledge and awareness already show indications that they have transcended base conceptions of race; you just have to keep going and understand that it's not just something we made up.

Finally, I'd take what professional academic social scientists say with a grain of salt, because I sense their influence all over your thinking. They're often completely divorced from reality, have lived their whole lives in school, are irrationally anti-capitalist, see agendas everywhere, and believe everything is subjective and relative, except what they're saying, which is absolute.

Case in point, which I've mentioned before: if concepts of race are so subjective and socially-constructed, what makes what you're saying any truer than what anyone else is saying? If true, false. If false, false. What gives you the moral and intellectual right to proclaim universal, objective truths about race when you say they don't exist?

[howstrange]

Is the naive(perhaps irrational) desire to wipe a way all concepts of race, for the hope of having single unifying world without racial differences, in fact early first tier ethnocentrism, especially when that agenda often coincides with scorn towards the characteristics and social interactions that often occurs in a multicultural society. I'm just wondering because I've noticed a certain intolerance by anansasem's towards multiculturalism(a blue characteristic), in favor for a universally ambiguous identity, similar to that of his very own.

[evil_FUX]

^Ooh that is a keen observation howstrange that I didn't even ponder; I'd like an elaboration as well, if there is one.

[Dialectic]

Thanks for that thought, howstrange.

I've tried to avoid talking about people and where they might be "at" because it can come across as demeaning or objectifying. I used to do it a little bit and realized it was a form of aggression in the way I was doing it so I consciously stopped.

That said, I've also realized that it doesn't help to allow non-integral thoughts to run rampant in this particular forum (which is why I keep a tight mod watch on it), at least not without some analysis/ breakdown of those thoughts.

Without saying anything about Anansasem himself, I would say that the thoughts and worldview that he presents here are green. I say this because the analysis he presents shows evidence of a fairly high level of self-other awareness, and a sophisticated understanding of socially-constructed knowledge, and how knowledge and ideas are relative to time and place. His thoughts seem to be very anti-absolutist, and they are always geared toward avoiding labels and generalizations about what he feels are arbitrarily-constructed groups. One of many examples is the way he always refers to race groups in quotation marks, like "Blacks."

This is a fairly classic green worldview: one that is capable of analyzing thoughts and not just things, one which is sensitive to contextual truth, and one which understands that all knowledge has a subjective element, because all knowledge needs a knower.

That's the basic answer.

It can be more complicated, and I'll go into a possible blue/ mythic conformist complication for fun, but I'll say at the outset that I don't think it's happening here in a strong way.

If you grow up in a culture/ sub-culture which has green values, then you will be inculcated with green values from birth. As a result, even when you are at the blue/ mythic conformist stage of development, you will conform unquestioningly to green values, even though you don't truly understand them or have the capacity to analyze or appreciate why they are good values to have. So what you have is blue conforming to green, or blue masking itself as green. A young child, for example, doesn't have much of an appreciation for the social, economic, and emotional effects of colonialism and racism, but she can still be taught to respect and be nice to all people, even though she can't go into much depth as to why.

I don't think that's happening here, as Anansasem's analyses indicates a strong level of introspection and thinking. I acknowledge there may be some "residue" of this, because it seems as though he's been exposed to sophisticated green ideas from a fairly young age, but I think he's demonstrated a keep appreciation and understanding of a green relativist worldview which sees race (and possibly other forms of knowledge) as completely socially-constructed and is vehemently anti-essentialist, since he is strongly against notions of "Blackness" or "Asianness."

(Most greens, incidentally, react very negatively toward my piece, and interpret it as a rigid definition of race, when it is anything but. It's simply an index of contributing factors, including things like power and social construction, which some people think are all there is.)

[Dialectic]

Also, as a follow-up thought, if one is a minority in a population in some significant way (like a visible minority, for example), one is simply not able to conform and be a part of the national "myth" to the same extent as those in the majority. I believe that this forced outsider perspective increases the probability of developing to orange and green, because it increases the chances that the outsider will examine society and his place in society, and engage critical in analysis.

So in Anansasem's case, not only is he not a part of the majority and the national myth (of freedom, equality, justice, opportunity, all the good old American values, which only whites can be participants in, and only really white hetero males), but he's not a part of a common minority either (which is the worldspace many "hapas" find themselves in). As howstrange proposes, Anansasem, being socially and politically sensitive, might naturally be attracted to a worldview which promotes ambiguity and opposes absolutist labeling, which is what green does (and which is why you find green filled with all sorts of people who have been labeled as outcasts in different ways).

I can see why howstrange might interpret some of Anansasem's thoughts as blue, but we must remember, blue conformity is pretty rigid, whereas Anansasem does recognize difference and does appreciate contextuality. What howstrange is seeing is the "conformity" required in ALL levels of the first tier. Remember each stage in first tier can't stand any other stage; this is what makes them first tier. This says, in effect, that each stage of first tier wants the world to conform to its worldview. Blue is simply called "conformist" because the conformity required is very rigid and very obvious, whereas green would have you "conform to non-conformity" which is a more complex conceptual move.

As for a possibility of projecting desire or ego identity on the world, I obviously don't know Anansasem well enough to make any determination, and in any case I'd have to read more about the process myself. Certainly, it's pretty well-documented that people tend to project what they are, and what they want to be (often not their conscious conceptions and desires, mind you) onto the world. This is something we all do, and is perfectly natural. This is why, however, it's so important to have as big and encompassing a worldview as you can possibly have, so that you maximize the probability that you see things clearly and accurately. One way to describe enlightenment, after all, is the ability to "see things as they are."

[Dialectic]

I also want to say something more about the complexity of green. (I realize I'm making this into more of a theoretical discussion on integral theory itself than anything about race or Anansasem.)

Development increases in complexity at each phase. Cognitive functioning becomes more complex, since one is able to take more points of view and perceive more universes (hypothetical ones, for example) as one grows. Moral stances become more complex, since one begins to recognize local values, and one's own values take on a more compassionate, universal tone which accepts diversity within fairly wide bounds.

(It's also important to keep in mind that when we talk about our phases using colors or numbers, we're actually talking about two distinct lines, the cognitive and the moral. Some people disagree with this merged approach, which is understandable, but it's suitable for our purposes. As a side note, the moral tends to lag behind the cognitive by one or two levels, and the moral actually depends on the cognitive, because the cognitive is what gives you the capacity to appreciate points of view. Put another way, if one is at cognitive level 6, one is not necessarily at moral level 6. If one is at moral level 6, one is definitely at cognitive level 6, or higher. Different lines of development are related to different extents and in different ways.)

This increasing complexity results in less predictibility and requires more interpretation to really figure out what's going on. As I understand it, worldviews reach maximum fragmentation when they reach green, because integration of all first tier structures has not yet occurred. In addition, because green appreciates pluralism and relative or contextual truths, and because it sees no integrating pattern, preferring instead ambiguity and the deconstruction of labels and classification, it tends to REACTIVATE lower structures. That is, green can in fact enhance its own red, blue, and orange characteristics, and end up looking very tribal, or conformist, or hyper-rational (in the form of having an early rational obsession with economic development in terms of class/race/gender struggle; in the West, green will hardly ever lean toward capitalism, but rather, some form of Marxism).

Integral Institute actually uses Mel Gibson as an example of this. Despite how some might mock him, it's apparent from his work that he's not a dumb guy. He clearly has some understanding of social structures and problems, and he's shown a high capacity for research and understanding various worldviews. I-I felt that one of the themes of Apocalypto, which I hadn't considered, was that European arrival wasn't all bad. Tribal life was brutal, and the larger societies that were forming were also extremely brutal at the time. I believe both the Mayans and the Aztecs committed mass sacrifices in the thousands at their temples (I think the Aztecs were worse), and whatever bad the Europeans did (which no one is saying was trivial), they at least put a stop to some of the horribly violent tribal/ early mythic behavior they found. I-I interprets this movie as in part a reaction against green's constant attacks on white imperialism and post-colonial society, and green's near-worship of early tribal societies (many greens LOVE natives, which I've seen in academia on the east and west coasts).

I-I thinks that Mel's problem is that even though he sees the weaknesses of green, he doesn't know where to go from there, and society as a whole has no idea (as the public discourse is only going really green now and will undergo more fragmentation before any mass integration will happen, if it does) so he grabs hard onto an earlier structure, in his case strong blue mythic conformist Christianity, and all its attendant weaknesses.

While I'm not sure I entirely agree with I-I's interpretation of Apocalypto, I think they probably have a point about Mel, and it's a very good example of people who see the fragmentation and some very ridiculous ideas taking root around them, and then regress to or reactivate lower structures because they seem more stable, and they offer a way "out" from the current cultural/ social/ economic/ spiritual chaos.

As such, green can actually mask itself as blue.

Going even further, briefly, a person at green who becomes aware of integral theory and intellectually appreciates some of its ideas, can actually mask herself as turquoise (second tier). Remember that the cognitive line can easily be one or two levels higher than the moral, or the overall center of gravity. So one can cognitively appreciate integral ideas and wish to live by them, but still have strong green tendencies (and I'm definitely not exempt from this, as I sometimes get spontaneously and irrationally angry at random white men whose faces annoy me). This green-masked-as-turquoise phenomenon, incidentally, is Wilber's impression of many people who work with him at I-I, and he considers it to be one of I-I's shadow tendencies. He actually had a big meeting with the major I-I showrunners and a bunch of developmentalists, and when he spoke with the developmentalists after, they all agreed that I-I's members were generally at cognitive turquoise and moral (or overall COG, I'm not clear) green. This is something I felt as well when I was in Boulder (because some of these people had some fairly fruity tendencies and worldviews, and many of them didn't know Wilber's work nearly as well as I did) so it's nice to know I wasn't just projecting my insecurities ;P

[howstrange]

Anansasem, I apologize if I offended you with my analysis, which i now realize was off, however, I do sense that your initial probing had a lot to do with learning how your ideas on race sat within the integral framework.

I realize I'm making this into more of a theoretical discussion on integral theory itself than anything about race or Anansasem.

I learned a lot from what you just posted, and that is definitely one of the things I was hoping to get from, thanks!


Integral Institute actually uses Mel Gibson as an example of this.... I-I felt that one of the themes of Apocalypto, which I hadn't considered, was that European arrival wasn't all bad

Funny, I just watched this movie last night for the first time and came to the exact same conclusion. I definitely saw it as Mel Gibson’s way of justifying what the conquistadors did. He even hinted towards a belief that small pox was not brought on by the Spanish. That's assuming what he showed at the end was the moment that the Spanish first landed. The I-I analysis of Mel Gibson is definitely making a lot of sense to me.

[Dialectic]

I'm glad you found my thoughts useful. This is the kind of thing I wanted to see in this forum, but the prob is (and this is nobody's fault), there are not too many people around who are as familiar with this sort of thinking as I am, and I've read and thought about the framework and its implications quite a bit over the last few years, and I keep seeing more and more.

I'm glad your impression of Apocalypto was similar to I-I's; I don't think I was looking as deeply or critically, and I just saw the arrival of the Spanish as kind of the next huge screwjob people were going to do to other people in that place. Thinking on it now, though, your impression and that of I-I is probably close to one of the statements Mel was trying to make.

[Anansasem]

Can the subject on the examination table have a word here?

Howstrange, don't worry about it at all, I can appreciate the difference in perspective.

Dialectic, I don't mind you categorizing my outlook, I appreciate the insight as well as the explanations. The only concern I would have is if you began to do it regularly to the point I, or someone else, would feel alienated for having a lower than average color. Though, I have one question:
(Most greens, incidentally, react very negatively toward my piece, and interpret it as a rigid definition of race, when it is anything but. It's simply an index of contributing factors, including things like power and social construction, which some people think are all there is.)
Does this apply to me, as well?

[Dialectic]

I understand the concern about alienation, which is why I don't engage in this kind of discussion often, though I've been tempted to over the years.

I want to emphasize, that we're also talking about different lines of development, or maturation. That is, someone can be more mature in some areas of life than others. Our focus here tends to be moral development, which is something society doesn't consider much, besides being law-abiding.

I also wanted to point out that, while society has developed in such a way that it sounds alienating or elitist to objectify stages of maturation, all societies and all people in society implicitly acknowledge that these stages exist. To take an extreme and obvious example, a teenager is more mature, cognitively and morally, than an infant. Does this make the teenager "better"? No, it simply means that the teenager is further along in expected maturation. Young children often believe that inanimate objects are alive and can be spoken to, or that unknown spaces are filled presences who have benign or malignant intentions. Adults in North American society generally do not (adults in tribal societies generally do). Are adults "better" than young children? They are not. They are simply more mature, they inhabit a wider and more reasonable worldspace.

Now, this becomes a lot more fuzzy when one is dealing with adults, and adult society at this point does not like to acknowledge that some can be more mature, or developed, than others, at least along certain lines. It's okay, for example, for people to say that one is "better" or more "talented" or more "developed" than another in, say, mathematics or basketball, but it's not okay, or much more controversial, to compare things like morality or certain forms of intelligence.

Nevertheless, gradations, and qualitative and quantitative (observable behaviors) distinctions exist, and deserve a place for discussion, as long as it's done skillfully and in good faith.

[Dialectic]

Incidentally, Anansasem, speaking simplistically, you are in fact "higher" than "average color" and a credit to the American people. The average expectable level of development is somewhere from blue (nationalistic mythic membership) to orange (early rational, hyper-capitalistic), and your cultural sensitivity is a beautiful thing to see.

At the same time, however, you're still young, and there are a lot of ideas in the world you've not yet considered, and our standards and morality here may not be something you have encountered yet.

With regard to your above question, yes, it would seem that you are one of those people, but that alone does not define you, and in any case, there are a great many people at a great many academic institutions who would agree with your impression of race, so there's certainly no obligation to subscribe to mine (although I'll continue to hammer it home on this site).