Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David MacLeod on December 20, 2011 at 3:47pm

Very good David.  There are many truths that can be explicated from this simple statement. I like how Penny is pointing out that we are not separate from nature, therefore we don't really have a choice about whether or not to design or work with nature. That implies that the decisions come down to how effectively we work with nature, and becoming more aware of what those effects might be.

Integral theory would point out that, yes, we are nature working, and we are more than that.  The statement that "we are nature working" would, I'm guessing, be located in the inter-objective realm (lower right 'social' quadrant in integral jargon).

Now, how can we bring that thought over to the realm of inter-subjective meaning making (lower left 'culture' quadrant)?

Permalink Reply by David Eggleton on December 21, 2011 at 6:20pm

"... we are nature working, and we are more than that."

Can you say more about we are more than that or should I look into it somewhere?

I recently wrote this somewhere else:

Corruption and competition seem rooted in humanity's past in the kingdom of animals. Consciousness and compassion are humanity's future.

Is that relevant to your point/question?

Permalink Reply by David Eggleton on December 21, 2011 at 6:49pm

"The statement that 'we are nature working' would, I'm guessing, be located in the inter-objective realm (lower right  'social' quadrant in integral jargon).

Now, how can we bring that thought over to the realm of inter-subjective meaning making (lower left 'culture' quadrant)?"

Does anyone have an opinion of David's guess?  How does his question relate to the group's primary question(s)?