a mystical möbius — curating facts, ideas, text, and media to create a contemplative space.
Alright, one last time
—recall: *Integral* = online-Integral
A “safe space” for denying systemic racism?
Is making a “safe space” for denying systemic racism something that’s important to *Integral*?
Significant enough to make absurd claims about it?
Perhaps a koan to evangelize Integral’s ‘are both right’ approach?
I mean, saying “systemic racism doesn’t exist” is quite a bit different than saying “systemic racism is not everywhere.” The latter creates neither the absurdity problem, nor the curiosity/algorithmic-attraction of the former.
A possible analogy
Biggest stumbling block?
…, academic type “problems” have 1 right answer. No culture can teach its language, mathematics, history, science or morals without using primarily single answer, problems. They are absolutely essential. It is difficult to overstate their importance, power and influence in the lives of those growing up in any culture. No single answer problems, no culture.
The bottom line?
Irony: that in practical terms, with *Integral*, the well-meaning all-inclusion of Integral is far from being all-inclusive. Rather, it’s quite exclusive. Much of *Integral* that I’ve observed essentially discounts and dismisses (excludes) the exoteric. In top-heaviness, Integral has a problem.
My concern is the potential collateral damage that is created by such things as *political technologies* that opportunistically exploit esoteric material like kw‘s statement.
As I can make it no plainer (the “Paradox” I described last week), it’s a polemic that is finished for me…. at least for now.
—I surely hope that no one thinks I’ve written this polemic interrogation of kw‘s alleged statement for my own personal benefit in some way, because there have been no personal benefits. Actually, there is one (unexpected one) I can think of right now. As I reported last week: through what I’ve learned in the research process, I was released from a burden in my relationship with my dad. A tremendous blessing, no doubt! However, I had never imagined that it would come from this polemic writing process.
*Integral* excludes the exoteric. That makes *Integral* top-heavy, not necessarily dangerous. Playing “French parlor games” on behalf of those who deny systemic racism is what’s dangerous. Playing with matches we may get burned.
Both sides in this aren’t “right.” Neither appeasement nor protection are helpful here. Unfortunately, *Integral* wants to have its cake and eat it, too.
Plus, a widespread (intersecting) problem of too many people framing complex problems primarily in binary terms. So, yeah.
Next week: January 6… plus one year
[this post ~850 words]
2 thoughts on “Irony: *Integral* exclusion”