Climate Change: An Integral Perpsective (?)

Above PICTURE: 23.5 deg. a multiplicity of duality by Integirl

Article Updated Dec. 2, 2007

An integral perspective on Climate Debate

By Jana Espiritu Santo

Inspired by Eliot Bissey

The Global Climate debate reveals the spectrum of humanity, like no other debate; a sparkly clusterfuck. It’s an excellent topic for an integral discussion.

Are you ready for a colorful ride WITHIN?

At the very root survival level [INFRARED] the thought of a global catastrophe naturally arouses our limbic system as survival is our fundamental imperative. Being reminded of our mortality in the fear that our home planet could possibly perish can drive us to action before the thinking mind can even begin to analyze; depth and span principle: the lower the rung the quicker the reflexes. In a magical worldview [MAGENTA], one may understand climate change to be a punishment by the vengeful gods and seek safety from these mysterious forces that threaten existence by binding with a protective tribe. The need to make things right with might and challenge the sky lords, emerges with the individual ego [RED]. The ego believes that it alone (because it’s literally as big as “the world”) can influence global temperature with sheer will and is therefore inclined to fight this crusade that offers a power rush and self-righteous vindication. When the ego begins to seek something outside itself, the sense of purpose emerges with the absolutist-authoritarian structure [AMBER] in the communal space. One such (yin) manifestation is the Mother Earth/Gaia religion of nature worship, where industrialized CO2 emissions are seen as the shameful byproduct of man’s sin, the 21st century apple. Salvation can be found in surrendering to a “spiritual” authority and institutionalized government (legislation), to give the herd security. When the religious myth is transcended with Reason, the autonomous self [ORANGE] emerges and seeks out personal gain and achievement in the debate, like a successful and status-driven leader of the Global Crisis, a more sophisticated (higher harmonic) crusader then the brutal red warrior. With the economic machine, political self-interest parties and big-time corporations jump into to the controversy to have their say with effective propaganda of carefully selected scientific data to support their objectives and profits (i.e. oil companies, politically funded science, outlandish journalism etc.); facts attract the rational mind and using the “right” facts in strategic positioning can potentially control a mind: look at this graph ONLY (but don’t at that graph) magician games. When personal gains are no longer satisfying, the humanitarian sensitive self emerges [GREEN], concern outside the human is rendered and the environmentalist is born to protect all life in caring embrace.

When there is ONLY persona and NO shadow (ego split) this widely extended care may really only extend as far as the self-image. Pathological environmentalism turns against human evolution to value nonhuman life more (deep ecology and retro-romanticism). When the ego infects (Boomeritis) the “I am going to save the world” campaign is joined complying with the  ‘spiritual’ contracts that give life fuzzy meaning and a sense of global identity.

To see all this we must have the courage to look WITHIN as there is an I, we, it to every occasion; if you can SEE it, it is within; in Oprah's terms: "You spot it, you got it." We are the whole spiral fluctuating moment-to-moment and have the need to survive, be safe, have power and purpose, profit and humanitarian concern AND we all have the potential to get stuck somewhere along the spiral when it is not appropriate or healthy. AND we all have the potential to not be aware of any of this (persona/no shadow): the ANIMAL in control of the HUMAN.

In attempting to have an integral approach, we must first meet this debate with understanding, NOT attack (for we would only be attacking ourselves, closing our eyes from the very needs that make us human). And incorporating shadow work, a charge or disturbance is usually the disowned shadow, which should ideally be integrated prior to discussion.

As the spiral of development moves from I/individualistic to WE/collective and back again, we have the rise of activists and leaders along with the rise of camps and “sides” prioritizing 1^st tier bottom-lines over simply LOOKING with open eyes. The BOUNDARY is erected between “me and you”, “us and them” and the witch hunt begins of the projected shadow; the animal chasing its tail. And thus here we have the birth of our extremes: global warming is a joke and global warming is a man-made crisis and they call each other the denial machine against the catastrophists/doomsayers.

The irony is that a “versus” perspective is DEPENDENT on its opposition (there is co-dependency in every war): you better be wrong so I can be right! To remove opposition would entail DEATH. This dependency traps life energy (Eros) and its potential freedom (in the VOID in which BOTH arise).

THE CAR IS BROKE?

My car insurance (esurance) is collaborating with Al Gore's LIVE earth concert so I am going to talk about a CO2 emitting car (hooray for irony!)

If we suspect there is a problem with our car, is it intelligent to panic and then immediately replace the engine in an emotional frenzy with very little data? This is the limbic system hijacking rational thought.  In such a case: THE ANIMAL IS RIDING THE HUMAN. Happens all the time to all of us. Are we aware of this when it happens or do we have a cozy rationalization to nestle in (i.e. well the funny sound was coming from the engine! so...uh...)? Rationalizations make it so much easier to live with ourselves :-P

Theoretically, 2nd tier FIRST sees the whole picture before acting within such binary constructs. Any one down for still gathering the data about this very complex matter and keeping an open mind?

Taken from Spiral Dynamics, p. 289

“TURQUOISE views a world of interlinked causes and effects, interacting fields of energy, and levels of bonding and communicating most of us have yet to uncover. The vMEME liberates a sense of living systems that mesh and blend, flowing in concert with the other. This is another order-seeking system, but the first one that searches for the macroview. ‘Seeing-everything-at-once’ dominates before doing anything specific dominates the thinking process.”

Let’s say that after we suspected a car problem we got the advice from a friend because it was too inconvenient to see a mechanic, or that we diagnosed the problem ourselves because we want to be experts. What if after we replaced the engine, we find out that the problem was the transmission, or that the problem was relatively minor, or that it wasn’t the car but something external like a plastic bag covering the exhaust pipe or that it was the context the car was in (such as the way we were driving it, where we were driving it [rocky terrian]), or that the supposed problem was actually a natural byproduct, or that there was no problem at all and it was projected fear, the need for excitement, attention, and pity. What if we tried to fix the problem ourselves and created more problems with the car, creating more chaos than order? After the fact we realize that we have wasted money, time, resources, and labor feeling quite stupid by our impulsive action.

Being patient, receiving the data, and looking at the whole picture before acting never occured to us.

What if it was a strategic plan, conscious or unconscious, to borrow money for a new car or to receive one as a gift? What if having a broken car made us feel special and we wanted to be known as the "chick with the piece of shit car;" a status-symbol for humility (LOL!).

[I realize that this analogy is very poor and somewhat poorly executed; I could use some growth with my analogy-symbol subline of the cognitive and I know jack shit about cars! can you tell ;-)]

I must say, that in the statistical game of hit and miss, once in awhile stupidly replacing the engine might have been the right thing; random perfection. There will always be 1st tier luck. Every once in awhile the fool appears wiser than the wise man. This rationalization certainly gives fuel (no pun intended) for the 1^st Tier Action-Man, yet the 2^nd Tier Being-Man has no need to gamble in the dark but to see first in the light and will act more in accordance to one's goals and awarness; another depth and span principle: from ‘act more and see less’ to ‘see more and act less’. [The action of 2nd tier is much more efficient and aligned to the many dimensions in the moment, as it builds up energy for a single RIGHT (wholeness) move rather than dissipating energy in multiple wrong moves (fragmentation). There is hastily acting from subsistence needs and embedded frames of reference (as described in the first paragraph) based on assumptions, fuzzy feelings, assertions, close-ended conclusions and then there is postponing action for verification, questioning, testing, and open-ended probability waves (as a conclusion means that a mind has stop working). It is much harder to use the prefrontal cortex than the brainstem….it requires much self-control that says “hold it instincts."

It might be best to take the car to a few mechanics and gather the data first before deciding what to do, especially if we are ignorant about cars; CHECKING OUT THE SITUATION...to become more AWARE. Proposed solutions may actually create more bad than good (more fragmentation) if the problem isn't properly diagnoised.

1^st Tier begins with a perspective/worldview and then seeks out data to support it. The selected content within subjective embeddedness is the reality and truth (my data=truth; but the “my” is NOT seen). In Wilber-5, this is all Zone #1 phenomenology. To INCLUDE opposing data means perspectival death (your data=my death, YIKES!!) as 1st tier cannot see Zone #2 (the structure of perspective).

Are we interested in an integral perspective, OR do we just use rhetoric when it conveniently fits "our" perspective? (I'm gulity as charged many a time!)

In Integral Spirituality, Wilber discusses how the signifier/word “ecosystems” isn’t comprehended (signified/actual reality) until the turquoise worldspace of 2^nd tier cognition emerges (a probability wave NOT a metaphysical given). I do not have the direct experience of this worldspace in my interior, so I study the map of uncharted territory. I speak of turquoise consciousness as an "it", NOT from "I."

The nature of climate change involves complex multi-dimensional interacting systems. This isn’t just (exclusive) systems theory in the environment, collapse to modern “out there” science. Turquoise consciousness can simply hold more of the detail in the territory, aware of the systems within and without (NOT New Age fluff).

Taken from Spiral Dyanmics, p.288:

“Turquoise is far beyond GREEN’S New Age chic and faddish spirituality. It seems that as one really comes to understand pain and bodily signals, the person routinely begins to have a new control over bodily processes, ranging from blood pressure to mental attitude. From the TURQUIOSE perspective, there is nothing so mystical about mystics-a fact with disillusions GREEN to no end.”

Our own bodies are microcosmic ecosystems, and deeper interior awareness can understand our complex processes more deeply. Our technology is not sophisticated enough to predict the weather yet perhaps because our awareness is not yet sophisticated enough to design such a machine. How can make declarative statements of what the weather will be, when the variables are practically infinite? How intune with our own body temperature are? And we think we know about global temperature when our bodies control us more than visa versa. Perspective of ignorance, is incorporating the shadow of knowledge.

Even though rationality emerges in 1^st tier, along with the ability to rationalize, data is still selected according to a contracted objective (no big picture, ecosystem awareness). If we reduce climate change as of consisting of one distinct variable: CO2 and then create a theory-of-connection because both have increased, is using too simplistic of a descriptive model from a vision-logic perspective. [From LR to UR:] This is like saying that body temperature is based ONLY on the correlation of blood vessel size, neglecting to look at more significant factors (i.e. hypothalamus, hormones, body movement etc.).

Can we bear to look? Or would that murder our treasured "spiritual" contracts to "save the planet"? No one wants to look at the lie embedded in one's CRUSADE. The death of crusade is the death of self. And in this is a very special opportunity called growth. Growth demands that we die.

You see, most people (self included) don't LOOK at exteriors, they think about a crude concept about exteriors, the label is NOT the thing. In such a case one may arrive at this incredibly narrow theory:

humans (man-made CO2) created temperature rise

Let's break that theory down with some lousy vision-logic (and I am only an infant at this so there will be errors and redundant complexifications).

Let's say that this is an A & B relationship [A=CO2 emissions; B=climate temperature]

To look at A & B a few things need to be considered such as:

1. holarchical arrangement: what makes up A/B and what does A/B make up? Turtles all the way up and all the way down. A/B is not just singular but also collective (i.e multiple atoms within singular molecules).

2. Measurement/qualities: 3-D shape, size, density of A/B and subA/B (within A/B and beyond A/B).

3. Look at the &; what type of relationship? how does A effect B and visa versa, feedback loops and energetic synergy (type of causality/influence), frequency pattern of interaction, logrhythmic curves, multi-dimensional algorhythms, input-out ratios etc.

4. Time dimension, fluctuations, irrelgularities, chaos-order, duration of interaction, intervals, cause-effect playout in time

5. Relativity: seeing all the components and interaction of A & B as relative to eachother, not a metaphysical given to step outside. This introduces nonlocality and transrational flexibility in thought.

6. Look at the relationship between data and meaning and the sufficient amount of data needed before meaning can be drawn; multi-dimensional statistical analysis....data threshold and meaning groundedness (from shaky conclusion to more accurate conclusions)

7. Heterarchical relationships with other elements, thus adding dimensions to cause and effect and how A relates to B etc.

8. Understanding the limitations/ignorance of our measurement tools/technology [exterior] to our depth of awareness [interior] to dissect 1-7.

Here is some of the data that ‘man-made CO2=temperature rise’ theory excludes:

1. In the medieval period temperature was higher than it is today.
2. In the CO2-temperature relationship C02 lags 100 years behind temperature, revealing that temperature drives CO2.
3. Animals give off 150 gigatons of CO2 and humans give off 6 gigatons.
4. Volcanoes and oceans produce the most CO2; 95% of all CO2 emissions are produced by nature.
5. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (1%). Water vapor is the most.
6. Temperature rose about the same pre-industrial as post-industrial.
7. Surface of the earth is warming; temperature decreases with altitude, which shows that greenhouse gas isn’t fully responsible.
8. Sunspot/solar flare data correlates more precisely to temperature rise than CO2.
9. Clouds and galactic rays also contribute to temperature rise.
10. Global Warming is also occuring on other planets such as Mars and Pluto.
    

For further research (this is just a start):

Additionally, we must not exclude from the composite picture that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 30% postindustrial and has been the highest it has been for 650,000 years, an increase factor of 1.3. This is something to investigate. We must ask from a vision-logic perspective: what is the good/bad ratios for this in the environment (many scientist claim that CO2 increase is actually beneficial to the environment), by how much, where and who is affected and how they are effected and to what degree and then to ask how much is manmade and how much influence do we have that is ALSO on the side of evolving humanity. We may not even have power to control the macrocosm (oceans and volcanoes are much much bigger than the little human carbon unit). Even if CO2 isn’t solely responsible for temperature rise it may be responsible for other negative effects (as well as positive) to the environment. Are we advanced enough answer these questions? And of course there will always be a tradeoff (give/take) to human evolution and its influence on nonhuman habitat.

And from what level of awareness are we answering these questions? Gotta include the interior.

Again, if we are NOT looking at exteriors from turquoise interior then we may not be adequately dealing with the situation. I am certainly NOT qualified.

If we cannot find a mechanic that has developed to the RATIONAL level of consciousness then we are going to have some problems. Let's say the only mechanic we can find is pre-rational (who knows rational rhetoric) and he says our car trouble is based on a negative frequency pull from Mars (a magical explanation) and that we have to purchase an expensive part to filter out Mar's bad rays.

I think I would fire this mechanic. How about you?

[Note: Orange rationality is sufficient to understand a mechanism such as a vehicle that works on static mechanistic principles. However, when understanding the global ecosystem, orange rationality is NOT sufficient because this is a living system with constantly changing variables (the squiggle lines of LIFE in contrast to the linear man-made lines of artificial LIFE.]

Here are various perspectives on the good and bad of CO2 rise (again, just a start):

http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=environment&main=206078&type=post

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

In flew-flow awareness, nothing is purely good or purely bad (infinite depth and span). Good and bad comes from everything including temperature rise and CO2 rise. Below is a good and bad tree (that grew a little crooked) [a better representation is in 3-D]:

                                                    GOOD/BAD

                                                       ^      ^

                                        GOOD/BAD        GOOD/BAD

                                        ^          ^           ^           ^

                          GOOD/BAD    GOOD/BAD   GOOD/BAD   GOOD/BAD

                           ^         ^         ^       ^      ^       ^        ^       ^            ^           ^

  good/bad good/bad good/bad good/bad good/bad good/bad good/bad good/bad

OUCH! Says the binary mind where one thing can be entirely good and another entirely bad.

The above picture I created illustrates that (yin-yang within yin-yang eternally). In flex-flow there is the flexibility to see the varying ratios/degrees of good/bad production as manifested (karma) and as probability (creativity) in varying dimensions (net effect and specific/local effect), constantly taking in more and more data/information. (To be clear, there can be more good than bad (and visa versa) manifestation in any section of the tree, I am not saying that everything is cut into two equal halves).

Here is a really crappy Haiku poem:
 

Temperature rise is good and bad.

CO2 rise is good and bad.

Al Gore is good and bad.

Here is Al Gore's poem:

Temperature rise=BAD BAD! oh, my god horrible.

CO2 rise=BAD BAD! oh, my god so horrible.

ME = GOOD!!! More applause please ;-)

In closing, a 2^nd tier perspective is not necessarily good: good and bad potentials exist on all levels. And this is a sloppy attempt. We must also keep our eyes open to 2^nd tier cognition combined with 1^st tier self system (center-of-gravity) in ourselves and each other. For example, I have the 1^st tier desire to preach this article to 1^st tier, which is meaningless and arrogant, an expenditure of energy for my ego (sadly, I'm a first-tier asshole and fortunately life is being a good teacher beating it out of me ;-) ). A major facet of integral theory is that you cannot move a subjective perspective with objective facts.

UNHEALTHY 2nd TIER and FLATLAND spots in VISION-LOGIC:

2^nd tier cognition combined with 1^st tier self system may be analogous to the puppet masters in Plato’s cave that see the chained 1st tier folks. The puppet masters have not gone outside the cave (1st tier self-system) and fuck with the 1^st tier folks by creating the 2-D images on the walls for the folks to identify with. This manipulation stems from 1^st tier needs (i.e. power, dominance, control, money). Could the Global Warming debate be a partly fabricated crisis of turquoise puppet masters (with their 1st tier self-systems) in media and politics (the New World Order)?

Check out this article, that discusses how the proposed solutions are the carbon tax, which is already in the process of legislation in Britain. Remember, to the politicians, this debate is over and they have no need to synthesize the information of the "other side."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

Can we take the ROLE of the OTHER?

Yeah!....let's cause some anxiety about the weather while we rape and pillage the world and then make some money off of it, while looking like green saints, tugging at all needs in the spiral! A brillant strategy. Many powerful individuals are so good at being bad. Higher consciousness has the potential to create evil TOO! (We seem to forget). Take a look at the devil, the closest to God. Never lose sight of the behind-the-scenes (faceless) evil geniuses.

I don't know much about politics, but it seems like the middle East is the current hell hole NOT temperature rise. People die of heat a lot these days....they are called bomb explosions.

The truth is that worlds are exploding daily in ways that we cannot imagine.

Isn't a HUMAN-BEING a WORLD? Or is the WORLD just something "out there."

(And ironically considering the good/bad tree if global warming was a catastrophe to end all life, well for some people that would be a REALLY good thing...like all the prisoners of war (w/ multiple meanings), who could be freed from their pain and suffering. You gotta lose an "I" to get that one!

Wilber once commented on how Carl Rove, Bush’s brain, who has recently dropped out from the public (a promoted puppet master??) is a turquoise thinker in discussing integral politics… I wonder, what other politicians and people in power are turquoise thinkers?

Don’t you! Hmmmmmmm……

He mentions that at the end of this video on Integral Politics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQRUu_4W2j8

One last thing about the shadow here in VISION-LOGIC (a very limited interpretation). One can look at one situation with v-logic and look at another situation in Flatland (i.e. like if we are bright and alert in one moment and tired and exhausted in the following moment).

Ken Wilber reveals a Flatland SPOT of vision-logic when he says that to have an interest in integral theory and to read it is to have turquoise cognition.

Here is where he makes that claim: http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/51

This is a CLEAR violation of integral semiotics, going AGAINST his own theory; where are the quadratic truth tests? as this is a 1st tier assertion/assumption of an individual's level of consciousness (does Wilber know all his readers and shines a light into their interiors?). Such a statment is based on ASSOCIATION NOT ACTUALITY.

Green and its 'faddish spirituality' can be drawn to integral theory just as it is drawn to fluffy mysticism and can memorize all the "integral" signifiers without the signified worldspace. Green loves the word integral because integrative is a good thing, more flatland expanse and eclectic pluralism to play in.

What's wrong with this? Well telling people that they are at turquoise when they may not be can actually work against growth, removing geneology (the growth process). In such a case certainty, arrogance, and image can superceed the reality. But this is not ALL bad: this may draw more people in the theory and eventual transformation may occur as the cognitive dissonance increases for the break-out phase of growth. Actually some of Ken's carrots drew me in! And I LOVE KEN!!! especially his HUMANITY!

Never forget the good/bad tree. hehe :-P It truly reveals the stuckness of the mind.

And then one asks, but how could Wilber, the MAN himself do this? V-logic is a multiplex space that we can occupy in one moment and then fall out of in the next, I'm rarely there in the mornings and I'm barely there in certain moments of a day (let's keep a day-to-day/moment-to-moment perspective on ourselves, if grounded and geniune growth is our priority). Without a stable v-logic culture to support individual growth it may be a bumpy lumpy ride, as is such on the cutting edge.

Thanks sincerely for your time and energy and I hope you found this interesting.

With love,

Jana