How Integral is Wikileaks?

[Christophe]

that's right.

What do you Post Integral guys think of WIkileaks and the current scandal about frontman Julian Assange? Any comments? I'd love to hear some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Are they terrorists? or Techno-Saints? Or terrible, terrible sinners? Or what else.

Is it even safe to talk about this issue? omg

duck and cover:

chris

[Øyvind Solum]

I am not sure if they are so very integral, but even if Julian Assange may be a bad lover and a bit stupid in his ways of handling people, he and Wikileaks are really brave in helping to bring in more transparency.

But the response from US, wanting to kill him, and threathening and stopping VISA, Paypal, Amazone etc to handle their money, while it still is no problem for them that KKK are still using paypal, makes people in Europe ask if US are taking another step towards facism. It's really scary.

Øyvind

[James Barrow]

Hi Chris

I don't think Wikileaks is Integral at all, they don't intend to be or claim to be.

However, I have been persuaded of its importance by this interview with Assange

Thanks for bringing up this important issue Chris.

[Edward theurj Berge]

There is no question this kind of governmental transparency is "integral" to a functioning democracy.

[Christophe]

James, Oyvind,

thank you for your honest comments.

I didn't mean to say that Wikileaks has an Integral Mission or impulse. I am more interested in how Integral (TM) would classify an organization like WIkileaks: by which ethics are they driven? what would Ken WIlbers comment on them be like? your answers here and the comments over at Integral Life give me an idea what this would look like.

And honestly, I don't like what I see. In my eyes, Integral is too much entangled in balancing out ALL the perspectives to really encourage and promote an engaged political emancipatory attitude. Integral is like Opium for the Masses, a comforting lullaby with a promise for a Golden Future and some gymnastics practices. It's a shame, really. I feel embarrassed by the term 'Integral Politics'. Bah! Leave me alone, Integral wussies! Bahlasti! Ohmpeda!

yours,

[Øyvind Solum]

I don't know what Wilber thinks about this. But several of the European green parties have been supporting Wikileaks. I am myself part of the green party in Norway.

I suppose integral politics could also meen to see that all levels are needed. In this situation one might say that some kind of conservative control-element have been to strong. And the state/ government seem to believe they can do what suits them best. Then, in my opinion, some of the whole is lacking, and Wikileaks may help balance some of this out – which could be seen as integral.

But it might be that KW so much wants to be accepted be the political establishment that he feels unable to say this, or even think ut - who knows. But we others may define integral politics different from what he possibly does.

[James Barrow]

Hi guys

There are 2 tasty Integral discussions about Wikileaks happening here and here.

In one of them, Rob Smith, Chairman of Integral Life, Inc. and volunteer CEO of Integral Institute, Inc., calls Assange a terrorist and "merely a criminal aiding other criminals". Hmmm.... Methinks he's just saying this to get lots of hits on his facebook discussion :-)

At one point in the comments, after loads of differing opinions have been expressed, he says: "You are all right. Those are my perspectives, too."

For me, this comment from Robb is a perfect example of the very thing that Chris mentions above: "Integral is too much entangled in balancing out ALL the perspectives to really encourage and promote an engaged political emancipatory attitude."

[Øyvind Solum]

Hm, you may be right. In my opinion it is better to be enganged in the world and supporting growth and freedom as well as one can, and possibly be slightly mistaken sometimes, than stay on the outside, watching, saying everything is fine as it is. Even if it may be, by placing oneself at the outside, being aloof and just an observer, one is really making a big split, which really is not so integral.
I think Wikileaks are doing the civil society a great service, even if they may not be saints themselves. One need not always have the big picture and be evolved on all levels to play an important role. It's the activists that brings the world forward.

[Balder]

I have listened with interest to a few things on the news but haven't sufficiently informed myself yet on this issue, so I've been keeping silent in this discussion so far.  I'll check out some of the discussions and articles you've highlighted later this evening.  At the moment, my (slightly paranoid) suspicion is that Wikileaks' tactics will end up, not (idealistically) inspiring more transparency in world governments, but leading to greater secrecy and perhaps even tightened policing and control of the internet.  Perhaps indirectly, and in the long run, they will have a positive effect, just by highlighting these issues and initiating a worldwide discussion; but more directly and immediately, I expect we might instead experience unpleasant reactionary responses and increased opacity.

[Øyvind Solum]

I am not sure myself, Balder. You may be right. I am also a bit nervous about this. But it may also be that they only expose a reactonarity that is there anyway, and that we now just sees it more clearly. And that they behave the way they behave anyway. The hope would be that people would start to elect more concious and moral people. But so far it seems that most people in Norway are still supporting the same kind of people. And it is still seemingly going in a more conservative direction. The Norwegian Labour-party, which is in powe for the moment, are seemingly going to the right, and it looks like the conservatives will win next time, together with the more populistic far right. I still have a hope that Wikileaks, together with å hopefully greater ecological awareness may bring in more green thinking. People like Eva Joly may point in that direction, but it is hard to be sure.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Robb Smith is infected with kennilingus, the remarkable ability to parrot Wilber verbatim without a hint of independent thought. Said condition is a requirement of being part of the "brand." Remember though that this movement now goes far beyond (i.e., transcends) that one brand. Mark Edwards blogged on the wishy-washy character of this brand of integral in relation to climate change. It also applies to politics and every other domain. He said:

 

"Should metatheorising try to include all views even when those views may be endangering human sustainability? Is the task of integration endangering the responsibility to advocate particualr visions? And what does that mean for the goals and methods of doing metatheory? Are our ideals of being 'integral' rendering us impotent to present a particular way forward? Is the maxim of 'true but partial' reducing integral visions to 'balanced and irrelevant'"?

[Christophe]

Uh-huh. Nothing like a sophisticated mindmap to dismiss inconvenient truths. Again, Integral is stabilizing a failing system, indirectly supporting and enabling the status quo. I feel very helpless about this. this is so... perverted. How can something with so good initial intentions can get so twisted and confused??? God help us all.

Free Julian Assange!

Little Brother PDF

Left of Center

[James Barrow]

Hi All

To be fair to Robb, he does go into much greater detail on his facebook page about his own thinking with regard to wikileaks. However, I find even these fuller expositions well short of convincing. I think he needs to do more research and see what kind of things Assange is helping blow the whistle on - he kind of admits this himself.

 I think I caught a glimpse of Assange's possible shadow(?) aspects in an interview aired on John Stewart's Daily Show when he was asked about his motivations and he said something along the lines of (and I paraphrase here, but it's a close paraphrase) - "I get a deep personal satisfaction out of crushing bastards".

Wow, OK. At least you're honest Julian!

But to me this phrase simply points to a righteous green anger. For too long most people in the UK have been simply shrugging their shoulders at outrageous behaviour by the people in positions of power. It was only through the brave actions of a whistleblower that we found out our MPs were using tax payers money to clean out their moats - I kid you not! After huge amounts of righteous public anger, the law was changed. All down to the this act of whistleblowing, and it would have happened sooner if there had been a channel for other whistleblowers like WL around earlier in the decade.

Personally I think WL is an example of extremely healthy and brave green. The world needs more of it, not less. Many people in power abuse that power on a regular basis. If WL is one way to regulate it then let's use it.