This dude also deserves a thread, a postmetaphysical visionary of an integral paradigm different from the trademarked variety. And quite "spiritual" to boot, if by that we mean creating a more equitable and humane lifeworld in which all can thrive and aspire to their highest potentials. From the integral capitalism thread:


Have you discussed Jeremy Rifkin's notion of "distributed capitalism," based on emergent peer-to-peer technological models, which he discussed in his book, The Empathic Civilization?  I skimmed the thread and didn't see mention of it, so I thought I'd add it to the mix.  Here's a brief article on it.

(An interesting notion of his, which is not directly relevant to this thread but possibly relevant to this forum, is Rifkin's notion of an emergent "dramaturgical self" as a stage of self-making beyond the "existential postmodern self."  I haven't explored it in depth -- I've just been reviewing his book for a class -- but I'll look into it more and will comment further if it's relevant.)


Thanks for these links. I've heard of Rifkin but have yet to read him. I agree with most of what he's saying but he is stretching the definition of the term capitalism beyond its intended meaning. Recall its meaning from the beginning of the thread. Private ownership of the means of production with profit flowing to the top is antithetical to shared, open and distributed ownership of resources and information and P2P relationships, much like selfish concern and cosmocentric morality are so in a moral hierarchy. Rifkin is right to make the connection between the worldview and economic-communication systems, and that the internet correlates with an empathatic, biospheric view necessary for such shared resources and environmental consciousness. But again, capitalism was all about the exploitation of natural resources as if they were infinite with little to no regard for the environmental consequences. Rifkin laments this destruction and rightly analyzes the consciousness and systems that created it, capitalism, yet by keeping that name in his new view of P2P distribution is a functional misfit.

One can also view him speak on his new book at YouTube. Just watching the first couple minutes it seems to be the same info in the text linked above.


I also had posted this video on his work here on IPS awhile back.


Now I understand hybrid systems during transition phases. For example we have hybrid gas-electric cars which are better than just gas-driven. But we know that it is a transition to a full electric car when we develop the technology and infrastructure to make it feasible. That is, we know we must completely leave behind using a limited resource like petrol for a more sustainable energy source. So with economic systems. There are hybrids of capitalism with open source and of course it is a step in the right direction. But like with petrol we know that at some point we will leave capitalism behind in a more equitable, humane and environmental consciousness with correlative political economy.


So for me it says something about our consciousness to which economic system we attach. Given the I-I agenda of a kinder, gentler capitalism it appears to be on the transition of rational-pluralistic and it calls that integral. Hence you get no language or values about open source, distributed networks or P2P. Whereas I think what Rifkin is describing, that ecologic empathy that is growing out of the informational-pluralistic into the internet P2P network, is what we might call integral. And it is open source, not private property. But again, it is currently a hybrid in transition but we know where it is going and what must be left behind.*


*As to worldview and moral level replacement, see the previous thread on ladder-climber-view. Like I said, I don't think it's a strict or clean dividing line between one level and the next, with transitions containing mixes and hybrids. But we see the trajectory of where it's going and what it will eventually leave behind.

You can find Rifkin's website here. Following is an excerpt from the synopsis on his lecture "The age of access":

"The new information and telecommunications technologies, e-commerce and globalization are making possible a new economic era as different from market capitalism as the latter is dissimilar from mercantilism. In the new century, markets are slowly giving way to network ways of conducting business, with far-reaching implications for the future of society....The notion of exchanging and holding on to fixed property becomes an anachronism in a society where everything is continually evolving."

Views: 3504

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And Here is another article on Germany's renewable energy initiative ("Germany's Effort at Clean Energy Proves Complex").  I agree with my friend, one of the smartest men I know (retired nuclear physicist) who said the following when he sent me this article: The true meaning of "sustainability": Use lots less energy, pay lots more, and be ready for periods of no power due to intermittent power sources.  That IS how it will be next century and beyond.  Same with consumption of everything."

amen to that and its absolutly not necessary ,smart technology could give us clean and cheap energy but the new green religion/ideology demands its sacrifices and its devil is the atom and nuclear energy.i live in germany sometimes and whats happening there since the green meme has taken absolute power 15 years ago is sufficently described with just 2 words :complete insanity.or a country gone completely insane.


DavidM58 said:

And Here is another article on Germany's renewable energy initiative ("Germany's Effort at Clean Energy Proves Complex").  I agree with my friend, one of the smartest men I know (retired nuclear physicist) who said the following when he sent me this article: The true meaning of "sustainability": Use lots less energy, pay lots more, and be ready for periods of no power due to intermittent power sources.  That IS how it will be next century and beyond.  Same with consumption of everything."

I inadvertently strolled through this crowd yesterday on the way to the theatre:

I grew up in that culture in Toronto but even i was kind of surprised at how big it was yesterday! I do sign all the petitions to legalize it because that is the least harmful way of dealing with pot out of the two choices available.

I can, though, honestly say that i am not passionate on the issue other than hemps potential for mitigating C02 pollution and using hemp as an alternate bio fuel.

This Krugman post notes that tribal regressives who don't believe in climate change--it's a massive liberal conspiracy--are trying to thwart and roll back renewable energy programs. The Koch brothers are of course one such sun block, as are other usual suspects like ALEC and Americans for Prosperity. Krugman rightly notes that these folks are paranoid.

Unfortunately we also have the RIFTers on the tribal left, also a bit paranoid who don't trust government or tech and thereby add fuel to the regressive agenda and make it all the harder to reverse climate change.

More bad news on climate change. We've not only hit 400 ppm CO2 it's been consistently over this figure in the last month. "This is higher than it's been in millions of years." "And few countries have given any indication that they plan to cut emissions in the near future -- at least, not enough to affect the trajectory the planet is on." They compared government inaction to a patient informed by his doctor that his cholesterol is through the roof, yet denies that it means anything.

This is why government action is critical, since the big polluters simply will not do anything on their own without being forced. Yes, we need to also work from the ground up, but that alone will not be nearly enough. We urgently need government to enact laws developing RE and severely punishing polluters. And to get this sort of government action requires each of us to get politically involved with as much time and energy we can muster. Otherwise we're literally not going to survive as a species. This is not hyperbole.

Bad news indeed (thanks - I've now linked to that article on my blog).  Government action is critical, and yet as the article points out, "few countries have given any indication that they plan to cut emissions in the near future..."

And so, unfortunately, there hasn't been much reward for political action.  That doesn't mean it's not worth trying. But as we say in the Transition movement, if we try to do it alone it'll be too little; if we wait for government, it'll be too little too late; but if we come together as communities in grassroots action, it might be just enough just in time.  Though I hate to say this getting to be a bit late in the game as well.

As David Holmgren has pointed out, the only thing so far that has consistently worked in terms of actual emissions reduction is economic contraction.

Also see this post on an IPCC news release.

Bauwens on Rifkin's new book and the transition to a commons economy.

Andrew, I haven't heard of that book (The Century of the Self). Should I read it?  

 Per your other responses, yes I am really into "spiritual consensus." Finding common denominators which can unite the "spiritual" community. But not "spiritual" joined to the hips with religious organizations and dogma. A broader understanding of spritual as some connective, non-local (quantum field theory), wholeness, capacity which can be expressed in secular terms as well as in traditional religious terms (of various different religions) is needed. A process of deliberation and consensus (a floating consensus which is allowed to evolve) can both operationalize and pool "spirituality" so that it can more effectively serve humankind and all beings. 

In my first (and, so far, only published), my fictional characters in a fictional optimal (and "spiritual") community ("Allsville") reached consensus about 5 main "spiritual principles" by which they proceeded to live their individual and collective lives. These are something I came to by both reasoning and an intuition process (one day I saw/sensed various "elements" which corresponded with each "principle" while meditating on a beautiful early morning scene). Of course they may be added to or altered according to a real consensus process. At least they provide a starting point to help get folks in the so-called "spiritual community" to act like a community. If we don't find a way to get on the same page then "spirituality" will be little more than an academic or theological abstraction which will not significantly improve life as lived in the "world." With deep deliberation and consensus we can harness spirituality (not sweating its exact definition -- if it works, it works) to make the world a much better place and the human race a much better race. 

My current book-in-progress attempts to cognitively frame spirituality in the secular term of a "third nature." I mention in the book that I went this route because some people are fed up with the foibles of organized religion. I suspect that your "mole" theory has some merit, and largely explains why religion has taken a rather nonspritual direction in the last half century. Perhaps religion became a manipulative tool for Plutocrates. Of course tied to oil, but not only big oil money. It is important to clearly define a Plutocrate as meeting ALL three of these criteria: 

1. wealthy

2. uses wealth to affect politics (turns wealth into political power)

3. then uses that political power to rig the game in a way that helps him/her make more money and gain more power. 

or just: wealth, power, selfish rigging

The third criteria, rigging-for-self-interest, is perhaps the most important of all three. The sneaky conservatives like to point out how wealthy liberals throw their money and influence into politics, so there is no difference between ours and yours. But when a person uses wealth to purchase political influence which goes toward a broader distribution of wealth or toward a variety of other power-sharing or democratizing social characteristics, then they are NOT at all "equivilent" to someone who is rigging the game for their own gain. The game-riggers are true Plutocrates. The pro-social, pro-democratic, game changers are not Plutocrates. 

Am I spelling "Plutocrates" right. Perhaps it is "Plutocrats?" without the "e." Neither one looks quite right. My spelling sucks the more I write. Which seems kind of ironic or paradoxical or counterintuitive. One would think your spelling would improve with frequent writing rather than get worse. I think it has to do with processing words more quickly so that less attention is paid to the details (the letters). 

Now that I'm completely off the point, it's a good time to stop! 

Thanks for your comments/response. 


andrew said:

Yup, the Donella  Meadows paper was very good, David! I've been fortunate in my life to be able to hold a high degree of uncertainty and openness within my psyche. 

I've been frustrated for some time now because intuitively i've thought that fibre optics were the way to go. I watched a doc 15 years ago on it and have been disappointed not to see any advancement in that direction. There is one hell of a lot that we might not know about EMF fields and to go full bore ahead with a global infrastructure like that seems a little bit myopic to me. The part of me which is wired into a spiritual 'matrix' thinks that these fields are more damaging to life systems then we are presently aware of. I hope am wrong. 

Hey Darrell, you have many good points and i especially appreciate the ones that point out the unnecessary interpretation within american christianity. I suspect that the churches were infiltrated by petrochemical agents and government moles during the 50's to 70's so as to manipulate large groups within that demographic to buy into the worst interpretations of these religious writings.The churches were progressive through the first half of the century. I've been arguing that that is something that could be remedied because there are sounder was of reading those scriptures. You seem to see that, too. The Century of The Self doc talked about most of your other points as far as how we got to here.

David Suzulki has been recently talking about a war on cars. Once again, i find myself not fond of the framing. The car would be fine if it ran on hydrogen. It's the fuel. Way back when i first started writing on the net i mentioned that each country could choose one day a week to make it law that everyone except emergency services has to keep their vehicles parked. A family day or something. Driving a vehicle shouldn't be classified as a human right. Kilo caps, too, until we get the ppm carbon back down. Myself, i've pretty well given up travel, i stay close to home now. At least once a week if not more i leave it parked. No more than 7000k a year to run my business. I pay through the nose to have the newest vehicle so am not slopping oil all over the roads, and have better emissions.  

This is the 3rd time the video below has been posted in this thread. Given my last post here it bears repeating and another view.

Andrew, That link was right on time for me. The night before yesterday I dreamed of being in a carnival ride that went up and down like a rollar coaster. Then no rail, just me springing up from seemingly nowhere. My wife was with me, but she would not spring up at the same time I did. Turns out, the next day she and I were quite out of synch psychologically, but I was so peaceful and optimistic and resiliant that I took it all in stride as being an off day for her (we all have them and we all need others to accept it). But I was really "on" all day long. I even mentioned during conversation with my wife that there seems to be a skill of being with our thoughts from a preverbal emergence on through their codification into words. And that knowing one's thoughts at that pre-unpacked level seems to allow for both a sense of liberation and for more creative options and flexible use of "thought." I was probably only adding a depth/emergence dimension to Bohm's "proprioceptive thought" (from his book Thought as a System). And yet that very "seeing" of emergent thought seemed to be a sign of why I was so spiritually grounded all day. I was basing my life operations from a deeper zone that day. I was more deeply "centered."  

Greater syncronicity is one of the postive side-effects of the deeper centering. I had processed the concept of "truth" in (what I call) "functional" terms. Theurj appreciated that line of reasoning and attached a perfect cartoon illustrating what I meant. 

Then later in the day I had some extra time (or took it!) and practiced That Which Presents Itself in the specific way of randomly opening up my first book to see what I had to tell (inform, give insight) to myself. The section my fingers randomly lighted upon, touched, and exposed was this (pasted-in below). It was EXACTLY about functional philosophy, the only place in the whole long book where I go into any detail about my concept of functional philosophy. And it dealt specifically with the same kind of "truth" that I described to mm and theurj. Lucky coincidence? Or did my pebble-self radiate a ripple in a quantum field below classical reality, in the "subtle energy" realm/dimension your link alluded to? And then the most informative (as in David Bohm's and Basil Hiley's "active information" or "psi wave") wave-collapsed reality happened? This follows on the heels of my recent re-appreciation of the concept of "dotting the connections" instead of "connecting the dots." Was I practicing what I preached? Did my synchronicity experience represent a dot from my sensing of dotless connections in some subtle energy substratum of (classical) "reality?" 

Ask and it shall be given unto you. (Christ, from Bible)

from pages 404-409 of Allsville Emerging, by Darrell Moneyhon: 

6. Policy: Interface with the “white space”

(the cutting edge of knowledge and ideas).

Practice: Quarterly meetings with The Philosophers.

Plus other communications.

The council will meet once every three months with The Philosophers.

The Philosophers’ blog discussions and their own

monthly meetings will also be summarized and presented to

the council as a written report.

The concept of (and adherents to) “functional philosophy”

will be used to bridge the more esoteric speculations

of philosophy/thinking with the more “doing”-oriented gifts

and tasks, such as social decision-making. The following

description of Functional Philosophy was written by Daren

Miekness, one of the newest members of The Philosophers:

The purpose of philosophy, according to Functional Philosophy,

is to healthfully orient an individual or group of

people. There seem to be two major forms of orientation: “orientation

by identification,” and “orientation by utilization.”

Orientation by identification means “Do the objects of my

philosophical thought offer me characteristics that I can add

to my personality?” It is like the idea of taking a characteristic

from a deceased loved one and incorporating it into my life.

Chances are that much of the intellectual processing of

philosophy involves the mind’s projection of its own qualities,

or longed-for qualities, in the first place. So, why not

ask “Why did my mind go there?” It probably went there for

a reason. In the case of “orientation by identification,” the

mind went there to tell me something about myself.

But the wisdom of the behind-the-mind mind (spirit)

could, I suppose, be clouded by lack of authenticity or independence.

A given philosophical idea could be more a reaction

to someone else’s philosophical idea than it is a proactive

assertion of a mind seeking its own growth, and seeking that

which it truly needs in order to adapt well and to grow.

The idea of “field independence” (from psychology) came

to me. The key is, metaphorically speaking, to learn to keep

from drawing the chimney sideways (while drawing a picture

of a house) because of the angle of the roof. Drawing

the chimney sideways would be the result of reacting to the

immediate visual “field” of the drawing’s slanting roof. The

key is to let the mind find its authentic “ground,” upon which

to orient its various “chimneys” (projections).

An example of orientation by identification would be the

Integral quadrant-mixing idea that humans are “energybased

beings” (rather than “matter-based”). Instead of agonizing

about whether this belief mixes up the two different

perspectives of the upper right quadrant and the upper left

quadrant (see figure 6, in earlier section), why not assess its

merits in terms of this question: “Do the characteristics of

‘energy’ match qualities that would make me a more adaptable,

sustainably adaptable, person?”

As I understand it, Ken Wilber would probably maintain

that simply adopting a “paradigm,” as it is popularly called

(but incorrectly, according to Kuhn’s meaning of the term),

that we are energy-based beings is borrowed from the scientific

realm of the UR and LR quads, and is limited to an “it/

its” view of mind and of mind’s contribution to culture and

society. He would argue that “energy” is still a product of

this outside view of things, such that it will not be able to

speak for inner, subjective, experiences of the mind.

Wilber warns against merely using a paradigm from one

quadrant and applying it to all the knowledge and values

spheres. In the case of “energy,” it is still part of the “flatland”

of over-applying science’s outside view to life. Such

over-application takes away the “depth” of experiences, of

meaning, and reduces everything to objects.

Although energy, and an energy field, has a trans-object

quality which would fit with the outside view of collectives

in the lower right quadrant (see figure 6), it would cause

problems to reduce, say, creative thinking, to energy.

Creative thought, it is argued, is much more (deeper and

richer) than a kind of electrical current. Seeing the brain

activity of chemical or electrical events as being equal to

“creative thoughts” would, according to Wilber, violate a

cardinal rule of using the integral quadrants properly. The

quadrants are to be used in a manner that integrates the different

perspectives, rather than conflates them.

To mix quads in this fashion (of seeing mind as energy)

would reduce the significance and the qualities of human

creativity, because you simply can’t use an upper right integral

quadrant view to understand an upper left quadrant phenomenon

(subjective experience). Such a reductionistic error

would more-or-less turn yet another human characteristic

into an inert thing, and the human being into a machine—a

dynamic, energetic, machine, but a machine nonetheless.

Wilber’s argument carries a lot of weight when using a

denotative meaning of “energy.” But while energy has a

definite (defined by certain sets of operations) scientific

meaning, “energy” also has a connotative meaning for the

everyday man. Energy’s trans-object quality seems to consistently

suggest something else—something potentially useful

and helpful to a “regular Joe.” Energy has a certain “feel” to

it, and the feel seems to orient the mind a certain way.

A jumping-between-and-through-objects quality is one of

the ways that the phenomenon of “energy” presents itself.

One of the concrete images of energy is fire. A fire can burn

from one thing to another. Isn’t that similar to how a person

can share their lives with others, even after they are dead (in

the form of a legacy)?

Functional Philosophy believes that it is quite appropriate

to ask the philosophical question: “What advantages does

this fire-spread offer me as a human being?” It seems it

teaches me something about my capacity for love and for

good karma. I am not merely a matter-like object. I am like

energy, or could be if I only believe it so.

Therefore, if I say I am “energy-based,” it means that that

view functions well for me, in terms of how I see and conduct

my being. It doesn’t automatically reduce me to only a

denotative meaning of the word “energy.” It’s not that I am

only energy, and nothing else.

But the connotative meaning of energy offers me something

valuable. The concept, or model, of being “energybased,”

(as opposed to matter-based), seems to help me

salvage some of my dynamic human qualities. It is a certain

way that I choose to be, as I interact with external reality. I

can still handle reality, but I can do it in a more “alive” sort

of way.

Well, not quite yet. Let me live according to the model,

and then see if my hunch was correct. Did the philosophy of

seeing myself as being like energy work over the long haul

of day in and day out living? If so, it was, for all intents and

purposes, “true.” Ultimately, that which consistently works

is true.

Orientation by utilization, on the other hand, would involve

whether or not the objects I am thinking a lot about are

things or processes that I need to go toward in my environment.

Energy (that is, learning to master it, and to find more

economical and sustainable forms of it) is something toward

which we need to devote thought currently.

We are “practically” (functionally) forced to think about

energy, in order to become energy-independent from middle

east petrol-dictatorships. So, my thinking about my own

energy nature could actually help increase my appetite for

studying energy “out there” in my physical world.

It is a good time to think about energy. Perhaps it is even a

good time to think “like” energy, so I can find better sources

of it, etc. A hunter who can think like his/her prey is more

successful than hunter who cannot. Thinking like energy can

help us successfully hunt down new forms of energy, or new

ways to use existing forms of energy.

The concept of orientation by utilization is illustrated by

the following scenario.

Suppose we lived in the desert where there are no shade

trees. Would a philosophy about life being like a shade tree

make much sense? I would have no way to apply such a philosophy

to my desert “frame of reference,” to my set of experiences.

Such a philosophical idea would fail the functional

philosophy “test” of validity. A philosophy using a cactus as

a metaphor of life, or of some important aspect of life, would

be a truer (more functional) philosophy.

Ken Wilber said that German Idealism (Idealism sees

Mind as being the ultimate stuff of reality) failed to integrate

the different main values spheres and different main

perspectives about reality because it failed to come up with a

way to replicate the transpersonal Mind via meditation, etc.

According to Wilber, German Idealism lacked a “yoga”—a


This critique seems to represent a similar line of thought

as the “functionality” we are talking about here. Did German

Idealism “get the job done?” According to Wilber, almost,

but not quite—“no.” German Idealism, as it was then

conceived, lacked the functionality required to sustainably

integrate the main value spheres of the Good (cultural norms,

and mores, etc.), the True (objective truths about both the

individual things of the upper right quadrant, and the collective

things of the lower right quadrant), and the Beautiful

(subjective mind).

Functional Philosophy believes that the ultimate function

of philosophy itself is to help find that which “works” the

best in the long run for us human beings.

This view salvages much of the value of philosophy. Philosophy

has been devalued in the past, because it was seen

as being preoccupied with esoteric thought. To the rest of the

world, philosophy looked like it was mostly just “counting

the number of angels on the head of a pin.” Functional Philosophy

saves philosophy from appearing irrelevant.


andrew said:

Here is a link on subtle energies . The last line would be of significance here:

The latest information i have is that it appears that the global elites policies are geared towards an exponential increase in Co2. This is what is happening globally and there is massive infrastructure to continue this trajectory. Now, if we combine this fact, with a developing global mesh of EMF frequency pollution that could be  potentially harmful to bio systems, then, perhaps, we start to get a clearer picture of an alternative agenda here. That fact that a fibre optic infrastructure could be used and won't be is of significance; and the fact that the automobile industry coincidentally after 150 years, still can't seem to make an engine run on anything else but petro is also telling us something. 

And that video was in 2011. The new IPCC reports are again confirming the increasing acceleration of this process.

Reply to Discussion


What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2024   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service