Introduction and a rant

[Integral Mystic]

Hi all,

I didn't find a forum for member introductions so I'm making a brief one here.

I am a mid-30's Swedish guy who discovered Spiral Dynamics about a year ago and have studied SD and Ego Development Theory quite a bit since then.

I have looked around for forums and discussion groups, but haven't found much of interest, other than a Facebook group where I have been pending approval for half a year to submit any type of post or comment...

I'm thinking about writing a book about Integral Theory eventually, an introduction to the subject that could help people understand various aspects of the culture wars, gender wars and more from a new perspective. Or even if it doesn't turn into a book, I'm almost certain that will want to present my thoughts about both SD and EDT to a large audience in one form or the other. This forum seems like it could be a good place to discuss and exchange feedback about such ideas!

---

Now for the rant (and the reason why I'm posting this under Society/Politics):

I think it's great when people spread the knowledge about integral philosophy. What is not so great is when they are using those models to promote a very reactionary worldview, seemingly at odds with the entire raison d'etre of integral philosophy in the first place.

Such is the case with the youtuber hoe_math who mixes some insightful observations on relationships and dating with Ego Development Theory with blatant sexism - and I'm sure several of you are familiar with him. 

It is tempting to try to write off such people by saying "This person is not really integral!" Yet he clearly has mastered at least a theoretical understanding of the levels of development. However, what I think is fair to say is that he does not want an integral society. This is clear from the Absolutistic model he shows 1 minute into his video "THE DESERVENING [Right-Wing E-Girl Drama Tier List]", where it is explained how the relationship between God and Man should work and between Man and Woman.

I wrote a lengthy comment where I criticize this. Now, partly because I want to test the waters in this forum and partly because I can't be sure if the comment will stay on, I thought I'd share my comment here in full.

Here goes:

 

I'm late to the party but I want to say that it is VERY sad to see how hoe_math repeatedly projects inferiority onto women in a variety of ways. His vision of a good society is not even one bit integral in my opinion, not if you look at how he wants gender roles to work.

The things that are wrong with this ideology are numerous. Starting from his "Holy Order" chart, it says that "in modern times, people become confused, they think that men and women change when all that really changes is our surroundings."

This is easily debunked by looking at how gender roles, expectations and preferences have changed massively over the course of 100+ years. Women can now hold almost any job in most modern countries and have proven just as competent as men in many fields including the hard STEM subjects. (This doesn't mean that as many women will WANT TO go to STEM, but those who do often excel.)

Further down the chart we read that the first listed thing a woman provides to man / a man deserves from woman is OBEDIENCE. What, are women supposed to stay at stage Blue for all eternity, while the guys try to evolve to Integral and beyond? What kind of Integral man wants a woman who is not allowed to develop like he is, who is not in practice able to even pursue her own career (trust me, a woman who has a career and therefore has a sense of Orange self-worth and a degree of financial independence will not be obedient to hoe_math's every desire)?

It gets better. Not only is it man that "deals with the world so that women and children don't have to", thus lumping together adult women and children into the same category of minors (does hoe_math even believe in Women's right to vote, one wonders?).

Further down we also read:

"Woman supports Man by accepting his guidance, being respectful and grateful, helping him with lighter work so he can focus on providing, and proving that he can trust her to be loyal through good and bad times."

This sounds like a wonderful arrangment FOR A BLUE SOCIETY! It is not evolutionary in the least, it is reactionary. But hey, hoe_math, what if you have a woman who can reason for herself and see the occasional flaws in the man's "guidance", because she is at stage Orange or even Green? How does your Holy Order model deal with just about any situation where the woman is indeed more evolved than Blue?

What is so frustrating about this channel for those of us who want to promote an Integral model of development that is truly evolutionary is that you eventually run into situations where you want to recommend a bunch of resources to people. One such resource could have been hoe_math - but then you have to add this big disclaimer: "Oh yes! He is kind of integral, but he is also a proud member of the American Taliban. But hey, we're all part of the same integral movement!"

Compare hoe_math's Blue, Absolutistic vision of morality and gender roles with the words of a truly integral thinker - Ken Wilber himself, in his book A Brief History of Everything. I quote:

"Part of the new demands of being a woman in today's world is that she has to fight for her autonomy, and not simply and primarily define herself in terms of her relationships. This, of course, is the great call of feminism, that women begin to define themselves in terms of their own autonomy and their own intrinsic worth, and not merely in terms of relationship to an Other. [...]

Q: "So both men and women are working against their biological givens?"

"In some ways, yes. But that is the whole point of evolution: it always goes beyond what went before. It is always struggling to establish new limits, and then struggling just as hard to break them, to transcend them, to move beyond them into more encompassing and integrative and holistic modes. And where traditional sex roles of male and female were once perfectly necessary and appropriate, they are today becoming increasingly outmoded, narrow, and cramped. And so both men and women are struggling for ways to transcend their old roles, without - and this is the tricky part - without simply erasing them. Evolution always transcends and includes, incorporates and goes beyond." (p. 5)

 

I couldn't have said it any better.

[Elliott]

Welcome. Yep, lots of frauds on the internet, good thing is that everyone knows this now.

 

Many Integral theory, Ken Wilber fans here. Not that I'm one of them, but I look forward to reading your posts.

[Sincerity]

Welcome to the forum!

If he indeed says it, yeah, that does sound kinda blue.

A while ago I posted a link to a preview for the book Integral Relationships. I think it sheds some light on the correlation between SD stages and sexual relation development. Here it is again: https://www.integralpsychology.org/uploads/1/5/3/0/15300482/stages_of_sexual_development_and_anima_and_animus.pdf

[Integral Mystic]

Thanks!

@Sincerity that is a nice little book you got, looking forward to reading it.