Globalization Demands Unification

The exponential increase in complexity visible throughout the techno-economic model coinciding with the Globalization of our species demands an emergent, more dynamic context for humanity. In order to address the complexities of an evolving global society there must be a globally unifying social model which brings order to the chaos of the human condition. Any valid attempt to address this urgency is predetermined by the need to recognize a Universal context for humanity.
Before any attempt is made to bring order to the chaos of the human condition the following question must be raised by the Integral community; is it within the capacity of the current Integral worldview to conceptualize and construct a Unifying model for humanity?
When considering the Human Condition, Integrals capacity and effectiveness lies in the differentiation and integration between different value systems, this allows for an acceptance of different limitations found throughout the different stages while building an awareness of developmental capacities. The ability to view humanity through the ascending spiral of development is truly empowering, and for the sake of this argument, the validity of stage development theory and Integral are not in question.
However, by remaining within the current scope of Integral and by relying on stage development theory in order to address the complexities of the human condition the effectiveness of this methodology becomes challenged by the emergence of Global complexities and the need for a Unifying model. In dealing with the human condition the stages of development are essential to an Integral Worldview, but this does not ensure a Unifying model because stages are distinct parts of development and cannot be placed into a unifying context that addresses humanity as a whole unless there is a universality throughout each successive stage. What must occur is confirmation of a universal trait apparent throughout all humanity that distinguishes the uniqueness of humanity as a whole in relation to all other levels of being; there must be a concept for humanity as a whole in order to reach a context capable of addressing the complexities of humanity as a whole.
What is in order is a Universal Worldview for humanity which signifies the capacity to address the complexities of a Globalized social, cultural, techno-economic model. This Unifying Worldview is only possible if we transcend the current scope of Integral and maintain an awareness that distinguishes all the unique stages of human development as the result of an inherent nature that reverberates throughout the whole of humanity. This distinction can be made when we view the differences between levels of consciousness and stages of human development.

Integral maintains the evolution of consciousness as ascending levels of consciousness, this represents the great chain of being which draws the entire phylum of all sentient being. Greater levels of consciousness reflect greater awareness, greater complexity, with the ultimate goal of reaching Unification. If the direction of evolution is towards unification, then ultimately the goal is to reach a context for unification.
The first two stages of development in man, beige and purple, reflect levels of consciousness visible throughout the physiosphere and the biosphere respectively. The following stages of development are unique and are not seen in any other expression of being besides humanity. Distinguishing between the fist two levels of consciousness as present throughout the phylum and the following levels of consciousness as unique stages of human development, we see a discrepancy in using stage development methodology to handle the challenges of a Globalized society. This methodology does not ensure a unifying context for humanity unless it distinguishes a unique trait that emerges and signifies the fundamental nature of humanity.
Human consciousness is signified by the emergence of self-reflective consciousness and the capacity for subjective/objective awareness. This shift in consciousness is indicative of Spiral Dynamics stage red, when the self grounds itself in separation and signifies the emergence of the mental capacity for Duality. Each successive stage of development that emerges as the result of self-reflective awareness distinguishes unique stages of human development. The goal of this ascending path of development is to reach Universal Godhead, Oneness, non-duality, and the Transpersonal. In regards to the evolution of consciousness, the goal to reach unity ultimately lies in the transcendence of self-reflection/Dualism.

By maintaining the tetra-arising nature of Integral, unity in self (UR) must respectively draw a context for unity in other (LL) and unity throughout society (LR.) If there lies the capacity for the non-dual in the individual upper left quadrant, there must be a relative concept for a non-dual social structure in the lower right. This suggest a unifying social context for humanity which reflects a truly justifiable Unifying Worldview. This worldview has yet to be defined or confirmed by the Integral community. This limitation lies in inability to define a fundamental nature in man.
The urgency of our times demands a Unifying Worldview if we are to become capable of handling the challenges of a Globalized society. However, what is also predicted by Integral is that the current worldview will inherently deny the validity of a transcendent perspective. If a Unifying worldview transcends and includes the Integral worldview, then from the scope of Integral, the validity of a Unifying Worldview will be denied. This is already clear in that Integral does not support a proposition for a unifying trait that exists throughout all of humanity which lies as the fundamental ground for all that is unique to human accomplishments. A universality in man will be predetermined as pathologically Green and a violation to the Integral Worldview. This IMO, proves to be Integrals antithesis in its dialectic in progress.
In order to realize the nature of this inherent trait in man (self-reflection) it must be transcend The Integral worldview must become the object of a Unifying worldview in order to reach this confirmation, and at that point the potentials of Integral become grounded in a context that can universalize its effectiveness. The ultimate reality of this proposition is that Integral becomes universally integrated and effective. While extremely challenging to accept, his should not be overlooked by anyone with an Integral consciousness who supports the wellbeing of our species and the evolution of consciousness.
I am readily open to all comments regarding this subject.

Namaste, Brian Assam.

  Every home needs a parent, every city needs a mayor, every country needs a leader, but does humanity need a Global Federation? 

  The ultimate goal of a Global Federation is a governing body that unifies humanity.  In this regard governance should maintain what constitutes the unification of humanity.  Therefore, the first step in validating a Global Federation is to determine what constitutes humanity's unification.  In regards to Holism, unification signifies whole/part synthesis and this synthesis occurs through self-organization of the parts in order to create a unified whole.  In regards to humanity, the human parts must self-organize in order to create a unified social whole.  This self-organization demands open exchange between the parts in order to create a dynamic/emergent whole.  Maintaining the fundamental nature of Holism throughout society is first and foremost to unifying humanity. 

  If we look at its current application, 'imposing' governance will never lead to self-organization; this is because any bias in agenda which does not reflect the whole/part relation inherently disrupts whole/part synthesis.  Whole/part synthesis is fragile to the core!  While the principles of Democracy define governance as representation through the citizens (as parts,) as long as there is any lack of direct open exchange between the citizens (as the parts which represents the whole,) Democracy will never signify true social synthesis... never!  The reason is because the parts (which includes their environment) are exposed to a universal continuum; constant flux.  Therefore, interests, meaning, values and needs are always changing.  A transparent system of continual feedback must be maintained in order for there to be synthesis between the whole/part relationships; otherwise we do not have Holism. There is no way around transparency.

  Since Holism demands transparency, or open exchange between the parts, in order for there to be self-organization throughout humanity what must be determine is; what constitutes human exchange?  While interests, meaning, values and needs represent the internal state of the individual, it is not within the capacity of humanity to directly share (inter-subjectively) the internal nature of ones being.  Our internal nature is our subjectivity, and while it has relative meaning to intersubjectivity, subjectivity cannot be exchanged.  Therefore, we cannot derive a self-organizing context based upon internal values (unless we all have ESP.)

  Human exchange is based upon cognitive thought exchange; the self-reflective process that allows us to create and exchange concepts out of constructs.  Language, literature, art, music, symbols, etc, are all external constructs that are utilized to reflect internal concepts.  We share external constructs in order to form internal concepts, and this creates internal interest, meaning, values and needs.  Cognition creates human value systems (please read between the lines of stage development.)  This cognitive exchange process builds knowledge, expands information, and creates greater awareness throughout society.  The self-reflective capacity for cognitive exchange is the unifying body that constitutes what is unique to humanity; the Noosphere.  Cognitive exchange and the cognitive thought process is universal and unique to humanity; therefore it is the unifying component to humanities self-organization.  How we reach this goal can be supported by a Global Federation, but a Global Federation will never be the determining factor in this process.  Sure a Global Federation might work, but does it ensure the unification of humanity? 

Namaste, B.

   The proposal of a Global Federation inherently brings up complex issues.  First we must determine the goal of Integral's proposition for a Global Federation; is it the formation of Global Governance or is it an attempt to reach a unifying context for humanity?  I personally believe that both must come together, but as I suggested in my blog "Validating a Global Federation," imposed governance will never represent true Holism.  Integral must reach a Holistic context for unifying humanity before it promotes a Global Federation.   
  The limitation of reaching a unifying context for humanity occurs in remaining within the stage development methodology.  This is not an attack on the validity of stage development theory, on the contrary, I 100% embrace it in principle and it is essential to reaching what I am about to propose.  However, questions will increasingly arise in its effectiveness when addressing the complex issues of unifying humanity.   
  Integral maintains the continual ascension of consciousness, an increased in complexity with the ultimate goal of reaching unity; in regards to humanity, increased change demands increased awareness. Stage development is effective in dealing with differences between value systems, however, it does not suggest a unifying context for humanity.  (This 'universality' would inherently be considered a Green pathology.)  Confirmation of stage development emerged before the collective whole of humanity became effected by universal issues such as global warming, the global financial crises, the energy crisis, and most especially, the globalization of information.  In other words, stage development theory has not emerged in response to the complexities that humanity faces as a collective whole; it has emerged in response to different complexities we face throughout different value systems due to differences in life conditions.  The boundries between these differences are increasingly becomming transparent through the universal exchange of information.   
  Addressing differences in value systems is extremely effective in dealing with specific limitations, but since stage development does not provide a 'unified context' it will not meet the need of unifying humanity.  Ultimately, our differences must be integrated through a universal context which draws the synthesis of humanity.  

  What must be confirmed is a universal context for man, an inherent nature that predetermines all that is unique to humanity and signifies the fundamental basis for the stages of human development.  In consistency with the dialectic in progress this would suggest a thesis and an antithesis that must reach synthesis throughout humanity.    What defines the thesis and the antithesis of humanity can be referred to as a polarized nature visibale throughout the evolution of humanity; this constitutes the capacity for human accomplishment along with an inherent dysfunction that leads to the myriad of our challenges.  By remaining within the stage development methodology there is the potential for Integral to inherently deny this fundamental nature; it would seem 'pathologically Green' to identify with a universal nature in humanity, especially a universal pathology.  (I will propose a dialectic in progress for humanity in a later blog.)  In order to reach confirmation of humanity's polarized fundamental nature, we must step outside the scope of stage development theory and expand the current scope of Integral.  This is an audacious proposition to say the least, but by maintaining Integral we must consider the proposition of an expanded view.     

  What is biologically unique to man is the complex neocortex, which reflects the internal condition of self-reflective consciousness.  While other higher level mammals may have a neocortex, self-reflection does not play a significant role in ontological development or the evolution of any other species besides mankind; ontological development that results in evolution only exists throughout humanity.  I may be able to teach my dog behavior, but my dog does not directly pass this behavior on to other dogs for the prosperity of that species.  While many species such as wolves, geese, and whales communicate through sounds, this communication is based upon habitual adaptations that have emerged to fit the needs of the group/family survival.  These behaviors never take on the attributes of self-reflection, which is the subjective/objective capacity that allows for internal concepts to be formed and related through external constructs (such as language, literature, art, symbols, etc.)  These external constructs, which can be referred to as technologies, are formed out of internal concepts.  This capacity is only apparent in the development of humanity, which allows for freewill, self-realization, and the emergence of internal value systems, morals, and meaning (values and needs.)  In this regard the 'unique' stages of human development arise out of the unifying nature of self-reflection. I will suggest that everything within AQAL that is unique to humanity is predetermined by self-reflection-this will be the subject of a later blog.  
  
   If we consider the notion that stage development represents humanities place in relation to the evolution of consciousness we get a subtle misrepresentation that leads to categorical errors.  What has resulted is a misunderstanding of 'what constitutes humanity,' and therefore, what forms the unique basis for human exchange.  This error is apparent in attempting to unify humanity through the self-organization of value systems, because value systems do not represent the basis of human exchange. (Once again see: "Validating a Global Federation,")  
  The great chain of being maintains that consciousness extends itself throughout all levels of existence; this extension shows different levels of consciousness throughout the emergence of form. When we look at these 'levels of consciousness' in relation to 'stages of human development,' we see distinct similarities in the apparent phenomenon of first two stages. (I support the SDi color scheme as represents the oscillating pattern of universal flux between masculine and feminine, warm and cool, individual and collective.)   The first two stages of development (beige and purple,) represent levels of consciousness that are non-unique to the development of man. This discrepancy must be addressed in order to clearly distinguish humanities significance to the evolution of consciousness and to reach a unifying context.  The following is from my proposal "Unifying Humanity through Self-Organization."            

  "The first stage of development signifies a level of consciousness termed by Whitehead as prehension which indicates rudimentary sentience and an initial sense of being; this initiates nexus agency which is necessary in forming all fundamental structures. This level grounds consciousness into being and initially emerges through the fundamental building blocks of the universe; quarks, sub-atomic particles, atomic, etc; and in the initial stage of development which occurs throughout all life.            
  The second stage of development signifies a level of consciousness that is visible throughout biology and is significant to group/family awareness, where instincts, habits and behaviors are formed around group prosperity.             
  While behavior within the first two stages may look significantly different in human consciousness, the essential nature of these stages is consistent throughout different levels of being. What must be considered is that differentiation creates different behavior throughout different levels of being. For instance, a day old gosling is going to show different behavior than a human infant, even though they are both grounded in the same rudimentary level of consciousness. A pod of whales is going to show different behavior than a pack of wolves or a tribe in the Amazon, while the consciousness of all three of these different expressions revolve around the same basic phenomenon found in group/family oriented consciousness.             
  We can say that the first level of consciousness is grounded in rudimentary being which represents itself throughout all form. We can also say that the second level maintains the well being of the group/family and begins to emerge throughout biological life. [I believe this is indicative of planetary consciousness, even though the models do not show group/family consciousness till later in evolution.  This would suggest that transition from beige to purple occurs in the transition from the physiosphere to the biosphere; changes in consciousness always occur gradually.]            
  Not till the third stage of human development (stage red,) the meaning of which is grounded in a self-separate sense of self-expression (personalization,) do we see the unique capacity of self-reflection begin to ground itself in development. This signifies the establishment of self-reflection (and dualism!) into consciousness and initiates the self-separate illusion of self from other that arises out of the unique capacity for subjective/objective awareness. This subjective/objective capacity is traditionally supported by stage development models and signifies the emergence of humanity's uniqueness into the evolution of consciousness.            
  The sequence of pre-personal levels of awareness leading to the unique stages of self-reflective consciousness is supported by Ken Wilber in S.E.S., "...the self has gone from a physiocentric identity (first fulcrum [first stage]) to a biocentric identity (second fulcrum [second stage]) to an early noosphere identity (third fulcrum [third stage])."   Wilber regards the significance of this third stage as "...the ability to take on the role of other," this ability is significant to the subjective/objective capacity of self-reflective consciousness, while reference to the noosphere identity signifies the emergence of thought consciousness that arises out of the self-reflective nature of humanity. Here Wilber is differentiating pre-personal stages of development with the self-reflective stages that follow and indicate the noosphere.             
  We can assume from this point forward that the only levels of consciousness that are unique to human development emerge out of the self-reflective capacity of subjective/objective awareness.   This constitutes the noosphere through self-reflective cognitive thought and creates a significant representation of humanities place in the universal order. This also creates an effective means for addressing the limitations of humanity, for we now have a clear distinction between levels of consciousness that have reached relative order-naturally grounded in the physiosphere and/or the biosphere-and stages that do not flow in accordance with universal synthesis such as the stages of development that emerge out of the self-reflective capacity of subjective/objective awareness.  The inability to flow in accordance with the natural process of universal synthesis is rooted in the inherent pathology of dualism which creates the illusion of self-separation. This signifies a point in evolution where the needs and values of consciousness are defined through self-reflection/duality and the process of cognitive thought exchange. This also signifies a different dynamic to creation in which the creative process expresses itself through the concepts and constructs of man. In order to define a concept for unifying humanity, we must remain within the spherical reference of the noosphere and regard the condition of self-reflection as the basis of unification."      Developmental overlaps between Levels of Consciousness and human Stages of Development; every level 'transcends and includes' the prior levels.                             "...In order to avoid the confusion this developmental overlap may create we must determine the following. While inheriting the unique capacity for self-reflective thought, tribal man is grounded in group/family consciousness. This allows tribal man to form and use simple technologies such as weapons and tools in order to fulfill the values and needs of group survival, but these technologies are not essential to group/family development. While self-reflection is present in all stages of human development it does not play a significant role in group/family development nor is it a significant aspect of group/family consciousness. In other words, group/family consciousness does not require self-reflection to maintain its significance in the universal order, this is apparent throughout the biosphere where group/family consciousness signifies the highest level of biological development. Tribal man may be unique to evolution but tribal consciousness is not. As well, self-reflection may be unique to mankind and the noosphere, but the first two stages of development are not. Self-reflection is universally unique to man while the first two levels of consciousness are not. This represents a developmental overlap issue that may lead to misrepresentation when considering the relation of human development to the evolution consciousness."    

   Through the realization of self-reflection as humanity's distinct nature, we have a context that allows for a unified worldview that 'transcends and includes' the stage development methodology.  This Holistic-Integral view allows for a capacity of awareness that can conceptualize a valid model for self-organizing humanity, this inherently draws human unification.  Of course the dynamics of stage development must still be considered; the transcend and include nature of this view allows for a unifying context which does not deny the values and needs of the different stages, but rather creates synthesis throughout all values.    
  While this proposition demands further discussion, resistance is predicted.  Means for justification have been met through honoring the fundamentals of Integral theory as a benchmark for how this theory does or does not work.  I have yet to reach a valid argument against this proposition, and more than not have found it extremely difficult to get the Integral community to accept and recognize its significance-this is predicted as well.  In order to address the urgency of our current condition a unifying context must be confirmed.  An expanded view must be considered if we are to represent a sustainable model for humanity.      

  For the good of all, B.