The Genesis of Guts

Home , Genesis (2005), Genesis (2009), Genesis (2011)

THE GENESIS OF GUTS

FOREMENTIONS (Foreword & Aforementioned)

OVER THE YEARS A VACUUM HAS REMAINED UNFILLED…

“The critical issues of our time are neither Left nor Right, neither male nor female, neither black nor white. The challenge for new millennium activists is to find the courage to let go of all their old orthodoxies […] and to commit to a “ruthless criticism of all that exists.” And after that, the big challenge is to bring revolutionary consciousness and contestation back into the modern world […].”

—Kalle Lasn, Culture Jam, 1999

“The past [fifty] years have demonstrated that uncontrolled economic power de- stroys the organic basis of human society, causing insecurity, depletion of earn- ings, the unraveling of family connections, the rise of inequality, poverty, violence and crime, and the malignant neglect of our social and natural habitat. We make things worse by blaming each other, attacking symptoms rather than causes, abandoning our principles and ideals, and attempting an impossible return to the past […we need] a more intelligible picture of our world and a more penetrating diagnosis of our malady [… showing] how efforts at reform, including the counterculture and mainstream liberalism, failed not because of unattainable goals but because of reliance on a false map of reality—a map shared with today’s conservatives. Once this map is discarded, we regain our ability to imagine a far better and more hopeful future.”

—Charles Reich, Opposing The System, 1995

“If we are to escape our present downward and destructive course, we must learn from the failure of past efforts at reform, revolution, and renewal. The greatest weakness of the ‘60s [90s & 2000s] protest movements was lack of strategic thinking about how to accomplish its goals. For the nineties as well as for the sixties, the most difficult challenge concerns the means of change. We need an adequate theory of social change. We need to diagnose the malady that afflicts our society, and on the basis of that diagnosis, we need to fashion an appropriate remedy. We need a strategy that understands the obstacles that have been placed in the way of change—a strategy that can overcome these obstacles” [and has been missing for decades if not centuries].

—Charles A. Reich, Opposing The System, 1995 …UNTIL NOW

THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY & STRATEGY (GUTS) A GRAND SYNTHESIS FOR RADICAL EVOLUTIONARY TRANSFORMATION

I. PHASE ONE: CULTURAL EVOLUTION

(Challenges Societal Codes Through A Paradigm Shift For Comprehensive Cultural Change That Supplants Superstructure & Subverts Social System)

A) CONTINUUM X: SEPARATION—Cultural Divergence From Dominant Modernist Status- Quo Society Of Infinite Growth (I, It)

(Change of Consciousness “I,” Behavior “It,” Promote Alternative Culture “We,” & Create Preconditions For Collective Behavior “Its”)

1. Individual Transformation: Inner Departure, Setting Out, Confronting Critics, Values Into New Lifestyle (I, It) 2. Interpersonal Activism: The Revolution of Everyday Living Through A New Integral Life Practice & Path (I, It, We) 3. Redefining Progress Through Experimental Innovations With Cultural, Social, Political & Economic Alternatives (We, Its) 4. Resocialization of Society: Massive Mindshift By Exposing False Map of Reality & To Break Materialist Trance (I, We, Its) 5. Swaying Dissatisfied Leaders: Fostering Discontent Among Intellectuals To Diminish Support For The Govt. (We, Its, I) 6. Raising Expectations of the Masses: Inciting Hope for a Better Quality of Life & Belief To End Their Oppression (We) 7. Resistance & Defiance: Converting Crisis as Illustration of Govt. Illegitimacy But Movements Stuck In MAP Stage 5-Loop (Its)

B) CONTINUUM Y: TRANSITION—From The Great Unraveling Of Empire To The Great Turning Of Earth Community—Consciousness, Code of Conduct, Worldview, Ethos & Culture (I, It, We)

(Dynamic Decalogue Breaks MAP Retrigger Loop By Radically Re-imagining The Future From Late th Sensate To Early Ideational Culture & An Transgenerational Integration To Maximize The 4 Turning)

1. Accurately Assess Our Current Condition/Predicament (Pillar 1) 2. Analyze Categorical Root Causes of Converging Crises (Pillar 2) 3. Identify Obstacles & Opposition Through Integral Mapping National & Local Power Structures & Stakeholders (Pillar 3) 4. Combine Mitigation Methods, Alternative Solutions & Sustainable Models That Form New Integral Memes & Mandates (Pillar 4)

a) Create National Directory/Electronic Database To Map Cumulative Assets Movements for Strategic Planning b) Organize Regularly Scheduled Local, Regional & National Change Agents Summits For Solidarity & Synchronization c) Coordinate All Alternative Communications To Create A Citizen-Based, National Mass Media Network: Print, Television, Radio & Internet (Social Media: You Tube, etc.) d) Decentralize Implementation Of Strategic Framework Through National Network Of Convergence Center Nodes e) Creative Expressions (Visual, Audio & Performance Art) Of What Society Would Look Like In Envisioned Future

5. Combine Problems, Root Causes, Power Mapping, Millennium Mandates Into One Integral Global Goal & Synthesize Change Theories To Create A Grand Unified Strategy (Pillars 5 & 6) 6. Integrate Spiritual Experiences, Secular Knowledge From Past Mythos, Future Scenarios, Post Metaphysical Truths & Intuitive Wisdom For New Cosmology, Ethos & Vision (Pillars 7 & 8) 7. Create Policies, National Unifying Purpose, Interdependent Initiatives, Integral Leadership, Organization, Movement & Campaign As Engine To Enact Cultural Change (Pillars 9 & 10)

C) CONTINUUM Z: INTEGRATION—Convergence Of Evolutionary Change-Agents To Build Logistical Support System For Change (Its)

(Interweave Most Movements To Create Counter-Organizations With Alternative Building Institutions & Sustainable Activist Infrastructure)

1. Create Convergence Centers For Integral Leadership, Organization & Community Resilience Development For A Nationwide General Strike & Creation Of New Integral Culture & Society 2. Build Various Collaborative Infrastructures For Coalescence 3. Cultural Transmission Of Our Values Into Mainstream Society 4. Build An Alternative & Integral Social System Of Art, Activism, Business, Spirituality, Youth & Elderly Alliances For Cultural, Economic, Social & Political Self-Development & Sovereignty 5. Create New Formal Social Institutions To Nurture & Sustain A Unified Mega-Movement Campaign For Comprehensive Change 6. Build New Integral Political Force Outside Of The Two-Party System Based On A Unified Citizen Empowerment Agenda 7. Break The Feedback Loop Of Retrigger Events From Social Movements: Successful Advancement Through MAP Stages 6-8

II. PHASE TWO: STRUCTURAL REVOLUTION (Redesign Social System Into Sustainable Society For 3rd Millennium) (Its)

A) CONTINUUM A: DECONSTRUCTION POLICIES & B) CONTINUUM B: RECONSTRUCTION LEGISLATION

(Systemic Cleansing Of Maladaptive Social Institutions & Reengineer Our Societal Structure Through Jeremy Rifkin’s Post Carbon Third Industrial Revolution)

1. Simultaneous Execution of Ecology, Energy, Economy & Equity 2. The Mass Media 3. The Political System (Creating Crowdocracy) 4. The Legal System 5. The Health Care System 6. Education, Science & Technology 7. National Security & Foreign Policy

III. PHASE THREE: GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION

A) CONTINUUM C: DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM (I, We, Its)—Ecologically Sustainability

1. The Oil Depletion Protocol 2. The Post-Carbon Third Industrial Revolution (TIR) 3. The Venus Project (Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy) 4. The New Millennium Development Project 5. The New Declaration of Universal Human Rights 6. Global Initiative For Creating A New [Empathetic] Civilization 7. The Alternatives For The Americas & New Global Marshal Plan 4

INTRODUCTION

“Protest is broken,” this according to Micah White, former editor of ADBUSTERS magazine, co- creator of Occupy Wall Street and author of the 2016 book, The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution. “Recent years have witnessed the largest protests in human history. Yet these mass mobilizations no longer change society. Now activism is at a crossroads: Innovation or Irrelevance.”

Occupy Wall Street marks the end of protest as we’ve known it and the beginning of a fundamentally different approach. We achieved a global movement that fulfilled all the most difficult requirements that the citizenry of democracies have been told were prerequisites for political change. Occupy was mass, modern, secular (with a universalist spirituality) and overwhelmingly non-violent during its peak. It included people from across the political spectrum, which the sociologist Thomas Greene explains as necessary: “Revolutionary movements do not succeed where only the workers are mobilized, or only the peasants, or only the middle classes. They succeed only when a critical mass of most or all of the major classes in the society is mobilized in the revolutionary process.”[19] We spoke publicly in unison, declaring We are the 99 percent and rallied mostly around a primary demand: Stop the influence of corporate money on our elections! Occupy was nearly a textbook example of a movement that should work—and for a few beautiful weeks, nearly everyone believed it would. And then we were defeated. Activism is in crisis. Occupy was the strongest, most sophisticated and broadly based social movement in fifty years—and yet we were completely unable to sway the balance of power. The lesson of Occupy’s constructive failure goes deeper than our inability to overcome the violence that was deployed against us […]. Activists have always had to overcome well-equipped police and advanced crowd-control techniques. This is particularly true in the years since the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999 and the G20 protests in Toronto in 2010. Armoured police supported by tanks and equipped with tear gas, sound grenades and truncheons have rendered contemporary urban protest tactics are guaran- teed to emerge. The deeper lesson of the defeat of Occupy is the Western governments are not required to comply with their people’s demands, even if those demands are articulated by a historic social movement backed by millions of people in the streets. We have been acting as if the people have sovereignty over their governments when they act collectively. Now it is clear that the people’s sovereignty has been lost. We were wrong to believe that bigger and bigger street protests could force prime ministers and presidents to heed the wishes of the people. Activism, it turns out, has been chasing an illusion. Activists have not been passive. For decades, we have tried every tactic to shift the course of our governments. We have voted, written editorials and manifestoes, donated money, held signs, protested in marches, blocked streets, shared links, signed petitions, held workshops, knitted scarves, learned to farm, turned off the television, the programmed apps, engaged in direct action, committed vandalism, launched legal challenges against pipelines… and occupied the financial districts. All this has been for naught. A new approach to activism and a new kind of protest are desperately needed.1

This is where the “Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS)” comes in to herald the future of activism through a revolution of revolution. I articulate a new unified theory of fundamental and comprehensive change—a whole-system approach to “radical evolutionary transformation.” “Radical” because it identifies and addresses the root causes of our present predicament of the converging crises of climate and civilizational collapse due to global warming, financial failures, peak oil, resource wars, civil unrest, cultural fragmentation and extreme political polarization of modern societies. “Evolutionary” because it does not “throw out” the previous predominant worldviews (Traditionals, Moderns and Postmoderns) “with the “Metamodern (Integral)” bath water, so-to-speak, instead, it builds upon them, by creating a cultural scaf- fold that “transcends and includes,” through the purging of its pathological components and preserving its positive attributes. “Transformation” because our current dire circumstances require no less than swift and sweeping societal transformation on the local, national and global scale, which will only be possible by addressing the categorical causes and solutions within each of the four quadrants (I, It, We & Its) of our individual and collective interiors and exteriors of reality. 5

THE INTEGRAL VISION OF KEN WILBER: An Evolutionary Synthesis That Mends The Intellectual Fragmentation Of Modernity

The search for a “Grand Unified Theory” of everything by incorporating the spiral dynamics model took another major evolutionary leap forward with Ken Wilber who is “one of the great philosophers of our age,” this according to Carter Phipps, author of the 2012 book, Evolutionaries: Unlocking The Spiritual and Cul- tural Potential of Science's Greatest Idea.

He has chosen to stay out of the limelight and the rough-and-tumble talk show culture that is the usual path to fame for our public intellectuals. His work and ideas—he calls it “integral philosophy” but it could just as easily fall under the category of evolutionary philosophy—are quietly affecting the way hundreds of thousands of people think about the world they live in. Ever since publishing his first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness, in 1977, Wilber’s work has chipped away at the philosophical girders of our postmodern age, clearing out contradictions and confusion and articulating new models and maps of reality that may shape the contours of our future. If postmodernism can be defined, as Jean-Francois Lyo- tard famously put it, as “incredulity toward meta-narratives,” then Wilber’s work is a legitimate antidote. With books called A Brief History of Everything and A Theory of Everything, Wilber has sought to create the sort of Holy Grail of grand narratives, a vast philosophical framework that attempts to integrate all categories of human knowledge and the history of human cultural development. He attempts to bring together religion, art, morality, economics, psychology, and all of the major sciences under the umbrella of one theory, one meta-perspective. When Wilber use the world “integral,” he really means it…. Little by little, he has brought forth new, clarifying , and liberating perspectives to help us navigate this chaotic context….[H]is embrace of evolutionarily inspired notions of purpose and progress, and his placement of spirituality at the heart of this philosophical framework, has not endeared him to skeptical Western intelligentsia. But even at the beginning of his career, he knew that his own philosophy would run counter to the dominant intellectual currents of the day: “One thing was very clear to me as I struggled with how best to proceed in an intellectual climate dedicated to deconstructing anything that crossed its path: I would have to back up and start at the beginning, and try to create a vocabulary for a more constructive philosophy. Beyond pluralistic relativism is universal integralism; I therefore sought to outline a philosophy of universal integralism. “Put differently, I sought a world philosophy. I sought an integral philosophy, one that would be- lievably weave together the many pluralist contexts of science, morals, aesthetics, Eastern as well as Western philosophy, and the world’s great wisdom traditions. Not on the level of details—that is finitely impossible; but on the level of orienting generalizations: a holistic philosophy for a holistic Kosmos: a world philosophy, an integral philosophy.” Wilber is not the first to use the term “integral” in this way. That distinction might better be placed at the feet of Indian sage Sri Aurobindo, or Harvard sociologist Pitrim Sorokin, or perhaps Jean Gebser. Steve McIntosh suggests that they all began using it around the same time in the early twentieth century, unaware of one another’s work. Whatever the case, Gebser and Aurobindo have been quite influential on Wilber. Gebser, with his emphasis on the structures of consciousness and culture, helped elucidate the succession of evolutionary unfolding… that Wilber has made central to his philosophy. In other re- spects, Wilber’s body of work resembles Aurobindo’s philosophy of ‘Integral Yoga,’ at least in its comprehensive evolutionary vision. Of course, Wilber is a philosopher, not a spiritual visionary, and his work incorporates many twentieth-century breakthroughs of which Aurobindo had little knowledge. In particular, Wilber made generous use of the tremendous progress in psychology over the last century, becoming one of the first philosophical voices to incorporate developmental psychology as well as depth psychology into an integral framework… [and] his work is always evolving rapidly, picking up new streams of knowledge and integrating them into his overarching model, making any definitive statement soon outdated…. [H]is philosophy helps integrate many of the insights… as well as organize their complexities and contradictions into a more easily comprehensible picture…. [T]here is no more powerful theoretical context than integral philosophy to help us understand what evolution actually 6 means in the internal universe.… [T]his new worldview [can be called] “evolutionary.” [However], Wil- ber… prefers the term “integral.” Each name emphasizes a different dimension or aspect of this emerging stage of culture, but clearly there is enough overlap here to suggest that these terms are pointing at least in the same direction, if not more or less to the same idea. Is Wilber’s evolutionary system integral? Or is his integral system evolutionary? No doubt both are true. Integral practitioner and author Terry Patten describes integral philosophy as “meta-systemic.” It connects the dots, he explains, “when you connect the dots, the single essential story that emerges out of the otherwise bewildering complexity of our world is evolution—the amazing multidimensional story of our universe’s gradually accelerating development—at first cosmic, then biological, then cultural and noetic.” Integral, evolutionary, or both, Wilber’s novel perspectives on the development of “self, culture, and nature” are seminal for anyone seeking to find their way forward in a postmodern world. In the early 1990s, Wilber sat down to write his most comprehensive philosophical work yet, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. It was his first attempt to fashion what could legitimately be called “a theory of everything.” It took him three years, and during this extended writing retreat, he ran up against a major problem. The problem was serious but simple—everybody had a different sequence of stages in their developmental system…. Wilber was looking at hundreds, in multiple fields of knowledge. Every school of thought, every system of knowledge, every field of study seemed to have a different set of assumptions as to what constituted the hierarchies of the natural world and of human culture. “There were linguistic hierarchies, contextual hierarchies, spiritual hierarchies,” Wilber writes in the introduction to his Collected Works. “There were stages of development in phonetics, stellar systems, cultural worldviews, autopoietic systems, technological modes, economic structures, phylogenetic unfold- ings, superconscious realizations…. And they simply refused to agree with each other.” As the days and months went by, Wilber sought to bring order to these multiple systems of knowledge. Working alone, in the days before Google allowed instant access to information, he read and read and read. And as he read, he began to make lists of all the various hierarchies that made up the particular structure of any given system of thinking. Those lists eventually begin to collect like stray pieces of clothing all over the floor of his house, a messy collection data begging for order and clarity, an out- ward manifestation of a very contemporary conundrum—too much knowledge, too little context. Wil- ber describes the scene: “At one point, I had over two hundred hierarchies written out on legal pads lying all over the floor, trying to figure out how to fit them together. There were the natural sciences: hierarchies, which were the easy ones, since everybody agreed with them: atoms to molecules to cells to organisms, for example. They were easy to understand because they were so graphic: organisms actually contain cells, which actually contain molecules, which actually contain atoms….” The other fairly easy series of hierarchies were those discovered by the developmental psychologists. They all told variations on the cognitive hierarchy that goes from sensation to perception to impulse to image to symbol to concept to rule. The names varied, and the schemes were slightly different, but the hierarchical story was the same—each succeeding state incorporated its predecessors and then added some new capacity. This seemed very similar to the natural science hierarchies, except they still did not match up in any obvious way. Moreo- ver, you can actually see organisms and cells in the empirical world, but you can’t see interior states of consciousness in the same way. It is not at all obvious how these hierarchies would or could be related. Archimedes has his moment in the bathtub when he discovered the theory of water displacement; Newton had his legendary moment with the apple; Einstein had what he called the “happiest thought of my life,” an insight that led to relativity theory. The genesis of Wilber’s own breakthrough insight didn’t involve such sudden illumination. In fact, it was more grit than grace (to paraphrase the title of another of his many books). But while Wilber’s own epiphany may have lacked the “flash of insight” of those other great moments in the history of human knowledge, don’t be surprised if, when the dust clears and we can look back with the dispassionate lens of history, his signature insight compares favorably. Little by little, as he put the pieces together, the answer finally fell into place. The answer was called “the four quadrants” and it became the basis for Wilber’s integral theory and evolutionary philosophy. He realized that all the many hierarchies and systems of knowledge could actually be divided up into four major cat- 7 egories. Some of the hierarchies were referring to collectives, some to individuals. Some were referring to collectives, some to individuals. Some were referring to exterior realities, some to interior realities. In fact, it seemed that every hierarchy on his list was referring either to an individual or a collective, and either to interior (subjective) or exterior (objective) dimension or reality. It all fell together as the various schools and systems separated out into their respective quadrant, and soon he had a clear map—one that contextualized and embraced all of these seemingly conflicting schools of knowledge, one that transcended and yet included the cacophony of completing theories and settled them down into an integrated unity. He had started with a complex, confusing amalgamation of fragmented and isolated data from hundreds of disparate knowledge systems, and he had ended up with one relatively simple, coherent map of the cosmos (or Kosmos). For Wilber, every event in the manifest world can be viewed from any one of those four perspectives: individual interior (I), collective interior (We), individual exterior (It), and collective exterior (Its). Let’s take me as an example. I have an individual, interior perspective—my thoughts, psychology, and spiritual experiences would fall under that category in Wilber’s upper-left quadrant. I also have an interior collective dimension, the culture I share with others, including worldviews, values, and belief systems. This is the “we” dimension, the intersubjective domain, which corresponds to the lower-left quadrant. Then I have an exterior, physical dimension—my brain, body, and nervous system, as well as the objective ways I behave in the world—this is the upper-right quadrant. And I participate in collective exterior systems—economic systems, political systems, social arrangements, and so forth, which fall into the lower- right quadrant. And here’s the key. Evolution, according to Wilber, happens in all four quadrants. Let’s use a more mundane example. Imagine that I go through a religious awakening. I’m born again. I go from being a no-good, petty street criminal to a God-fearing, upstanding Christian. I find Jesus and my life is forever transformed. That’s a notable evolution in the self, and it will be reflected in each of these four quadrants. How? First, that religious awakening is a massive shift in consciousness, and my interior world will be transformed. That evolution will mean that my worldview will shift and it will tend to put an upward pressure on the relationships I share with others. I’ll be less likely to hang out with drug dealers and more likely to form a ‘we’ space with those who share my new worldview. The cultural reference points and quality of my personal relationships will be affected, hopefully for the better. Then, in the right- hand quadrants, we would see changes as well. The religious awakening will have effects not just on my consciousness but on my physical brain. New pathways will be created as my behavior shifts and the structure of my gray matter shifts along with it. Researchers talk about “God centers” in the brain. Per- haps I will connect with those aspects of brain chemistry as well. Whatever the case, things will change between my ears, both physically and mentally. Finally, there is the lower-right, the “its” dimension of evolution. How will that be affected by my religious conversion? Well, imagine the society that is created in the ghettos of the inner city as a result of a poverty-ridden, disadvantaged criminal underclass. That creates its own social system, its own economic system, its own power structures, and political order. And they are generally not healthy. But the religious awakening changes that I begin to participate in and support the creation of new and different social systems, economic ventures, and power structures. My transformation starts to exert an upward, positive pressure on the lower-right structures of my chosen neighborhood. As the internal culture I share with others evolves, so do the external social systems I participate in. As always, my evolution is not mine alone; I’m affecting those around me. We are all, always, participating in all four quadrants of reality. We could have long discussions about which quadrant “leads” the evolutionary process. For Marx, economic structures (lower-right) were the key to cultural evolution. Everything else was “superstructure,” meaning that it was sort of a secondary result of changes in economic conditions. For some, consciousness is primary. It all comes down to individuals’ shifts in personal consciousness (upper-left). To change the world, they would say, we must first change ourselves and everything will follow from that. But whatever our particular preference, what is perhaps more important is to see how these four quadrants represent a sort of web of connection, a matrix of interconnected structures. Push upward on any 8

one of the quadrants, and the whole dynamic matrix begins to shift. Change in any one area puts positive evolutionary pressure on the other quadrants as well. Unfortunately, many schools of thought that emphasize one particular quadrant don’t even recognize the existence of other schools of thought, and so we get what Wilber likes to call “quadrant abso- lutism”—people who think their particular corner of reality is the way, the truth, and the light. We see this with certain schools of scientific reductionism—they claim that just about everything can be reduced to the upper-right quadrant. They collapse all the rich realities of the upper-left interiors— thoughts, emotions, psychological structures, spiritual experiences, and so on—into the upper-right (“It’s all just brain chemistry”). Or with schools of Marxism, everything is reduced to economic structures, the lower-right quadrant. And we also see it with schools of mysticism or idealism, which claim that everything can be reduced to consciousness, the upper-left quadrant. We see it with philosophies that hold that all behavior can be reduced to deep social and cultural influences the lower-left quadrant. This basic insight has been a guiding light for Wilber’s work—that most schools of thought are neither right nor wrong but rather “true but partial,” meaning they are right in their own limited corner of the universe but fail to take into account the larger ocean of ideas in which they swim. Thus, even in being right, they can be horribly blind. Even in being true, they can be partial. “The real intent of my writing is not to say, you must think in this way.” Wilber explains, “My work is an attempt to make room in the Kosmos for all of the dimensions, levels, domains, waves, memes, modes, individuals, cultures, and so on ad infinitum. I have one major rule: Everybody is right. More specifically, everybody—including me—has some important pieces of truth….”2

Using this new methodology, my contributing piece to the “truth puzzle” is the development of “The Dynamic Decalogue”—an integral approach to activism for radical evolutionary transformation—a synthesis of the applications of integral theory. My “Quadrivium of Individual & Collective Change Theories” cat- egorizes the post-sixties theories of social movements like Smelser’s Six Determinants of Collective Behavior, Rational Choice Theory, Political Process Approach, Frame Analysis and Bill Moyer’s Movement Action Plan (MAP) that describes the eight stages of social movements—all are allocated within the four quadrant model to clearly classify their emphasis. Once again, this holistic topology of sorts simplifies the often convoluted theories of individual and collective change and acted as a stepping stone for a “Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS)” of comprehensive social change. This led to the development of GUTS, the Integral Meta-Theory Framework for activism back in 2003 (that was affirmed in 2004 by the San Diego Cultural Creatives’ steering committee), which have the AQAL pronouns (I, We, It, Its) designations for each “sphere of influence” (of every 1-7 subsets) of all six sections (continuums X, Y, Z, A, B, C).

Consciousness (I) Change Theories Behavioral (IT) Change Theories

1. Rational Choice Theory (Olson) 1. Behaviorism (Watson, Skinner) 2. Personality Model (Freud) 2. Empiricism (Locke, Hume, Russell) 3. Cognitive Development (Piaget) 3. Pragmatism (Pierce, Dewey) 4. Moral Development (Kohlberg) 4. Integral Work/Career (ILP) 5. 4 Stages of becoming a CC (Ray) 5. Integral Parenting (ILP) 6. 3 Faces of Spirit (ILP) 6. Yoga/Integral Sexual Yoga (ILP) 7. 3-2-1 Shadow Process (ILP) 7. Conscious eating, Balance diet (ILP) 8. Transmuting Emotions (ILP) 8. 3-Body Workout, FIT, Sports (ILP) 9. Integral Values & Ethics (ILP) 9. Strength, Aerobics, Dance (ILP)

Cultural (WE) Change Theories Social (ITS) Change Theories

1. Integral Comm. & Relationships 1. Social Conflict Theory (Marx) 2. New Social Movements 2. Resource Mobilization (Lipsky) (McAdam) 3. Political Process Theory (Tilly) 3. Frame Analysis (Snow, Benford) 4. Sociocultural Evolution (Lenski) 4. Theoretical Paradigm (Kuhn) 5. Modernization Theory (Rostow) 5. Cultural Lag Theory (Ogburn) 6. Mass Society Theory (Kornhauser) 6. Diffusion Theory (Linton) 7. Six Determinants (Smelser) 7. Ideas & Rationalization (Weber) 8. Movement Action Plan (Moyer) 8. Crowd Behavior Paradigm (Lebon) 9. General System Theory (Bertalanffy) 9. Cultural Constructivism (Derrida)

(Figure 1: Synthesis of Individual & Collective Change Theories by Z.X.C.)

CULTURAL EVOLUTION MUST PRECEDE STRUCTURAL REVOLUTION (ITS): A Change Of Consciousness (I), Change Of Conduct (IT) And Change Of Culture (WE)

Classifying most if not all of the individual and collective change theories allowed me to identify a successful sequence of social change echoed in the 1970 book, The Greening of America, by Charles A. Reich. Aside from prioritizing cultural change over structural change, he also identifies three different “Conscious- ness” that exits in America. I’ve come to see some overlap with his categorization of consciousness as I, II and III to Paul Ray’s designation of three different worldviews that he refers to as the Traditionals, Moderns and Cultural Creatives and Spiral Dynamic’s Amber: Mythic Order, Orange: Scientific Achievement, and postmodern Green: The Sensitive Self.

Consciousness I [Traditionals/Amber: Mythic Order] seems to follow the classic Marxist pattern: it rests on the individual material interests of each individual. Consciousness II [the Moderns /Orange: Scientific Achievement] seems to rest on organizational interests—status, prestige, and power, rather than on traditional economic interests. Consciousness III [Cultural Creatives/Postmodern Green: The Sensitive Self] rests on those interests, which the economic and organizational parts of society have failed to supply. Today a member of the present American ruling class might find that purely economic interests dictated one consciousness, but that increasingly another consciousness was competing with the economic. If the new consciousness began to prevail in this individual that would mean that he would no longer have a dominant interest in opposing social change. Of course ‘conversions’ could have taken place in the 19th century (and a few did), but Marx would have discounted these (his own was one, after all) as sentimental or intellectual aberrations; most people's true consciousness would remain with their true interests. Today there is a far more solid basis for a ‘conversion’ to Consciousness III [Cultural Creatives’/Postmodern Green: The Sensitive Self] even by a member of the ruling class. Even a million- aire would in actual fact be ‘better off’ if he chose liberation instead of the plastic world of material

wealth. If he exchanged wealth, status, and power for love, creativity, and liberation he would be far happier; he would ‘make a good bargain.’ The possibility of change of consciousness is therefore not the subject for cynicism it might have been in 1848. Today, in greatly varying degrees, we are all employees of the Corporate State and, what is more, exploited employees who sacrifice ourselves, our environment, and our community, for the sake of irrational production. There is no class struggle; today there is only one class. In Marx’s terms, we are all the proletariat, and there is no longer any ruling class except the machine itself. Thus, it is at least possible that social change can be accomplished without class struggle. The fact that the exploited blue-collar worker is a chief opponent of change is in a sense an optimistic sign, for his consciousness clearly does not rest on economic interest, and is therefore just as clearly subject to change. None of what we have said denies that today in America we have a privileged elite and an underprivileged and exploited many. In that sense, of course, we still have classes; of course, there are still people getting fat on the labor of others; of course, there are still mansions and slums—but that is a different struggle. Our theory, while recognizing the continuing urgency of that earlier battle, contends that in America, at least, the economic class struggle has been transcended by the interest of everyone in recapturing their humanity; this is the meaning of the rejection of class and economic interest by the children of privilege, the new generation. If our theory of change can survive the objections of Marxist doctrine, what about the danger of co- optation, of blunting of radicalism by gradualist reform, of the new culture being taken over by the Cor- porate State and used to pacify people, as Marcuse described in One-Dimensional Man? It is quite true that the Establishment can take over the clothes, the music […] of the New Consciousness [Cultural Crea- tives’/ Postmodern Green: The Sensitive Self]; in an age of technology the Establishment can even copy [what is perceived as ‘cool’]. But the heart of [the New] Consciousness is not in the shape of its [‘cool- ness of rebellion’], but in its liberation, its change of goals, its search for self, its doctrines of honesty and responsibility. The Establishment cannot safely swallow those […]. The activist and political radicals of the New Left are wrong in many ways. Their picture of the world is wrong; they explain America primarily in terms of the desire of the rich and powerful to keep what they have and to exploit the poor, at home and abroad. They fail to recognize that bureaucratic socialism or communism presents many of the same evils as America, and that American capitalism is now only a subordinate aspect of the larger evil of the uncontrolled technological state. They make frontal assaults upon institutions, which could be given changed values and a changed direction instead. They are basically believers in structural change before a change in consciousness; thus they make the same mistake the liberals made in the New Deal, and they ally themselves with Consciousness II [Moderns/Orange: Scientific Achievement] in their belief in the primary reality of structure. They seek to create change by self-sacrifice, by going to endless dull ideological and organizational meetings, and doing endless unrewarding work, by getting arrested, suffering prison sentences, even by the terrible risks of fighting in the streets. Thus, despite their bravery, they fail to offer an example of an affirmative vision […]. And finally, they frighten and make enemies of those who might otherwise be their allies, the workers, and the middle class. The members of the New Left have made their own great contribution to consciousness; some of their tactics have had an extraordinary impact in radicalizing other people, and their life-style provides an inspiration of sorts, if not an altogether happy vision. But they must see that their real target is not a structural enemy, but consciousness. One does not fight a machine head-on, one pulls out the plug.3

The main and first target is Consciousness/Super Structure but there still remains a structural enemy— the Social System. Reich is correct to emphasize that the prevailing worldview, values, and way of life as the dominant battlefield to wage our fight first. The second fight is the fundamental problem of how the way our society is structured but it cannot be altered effectively without first a change of consciousness/paradigm shift within the culture.

Faced with this threat to their very existence, the inhabitants of America have begun, as a matter of urgent biological necessity, to develop a new consciousness appropriate to today's realities and therefore capable of mastering the apparatus of power and bringing it under human control. This new consciousness is based on the present state of technology, and could not have arisen without it. And it represents a higher, transcendent form of reason: no lesser consciousness could permit us to exist, given the present state of our technology. This transcendent reason has made its first appearance among the youth of America [during the 1960s and 70s]. It is the product of the contradictions, failures, and exigencies of the Corporate State itself, not of any force external to the State. It is now in the process of rapidly spreading to wider and wider segments of youth, and by degrees to older people, as they experience the recovery of self that marks conversion to a different consciousness. The new consciousness is also in the process of revolutionizing the structure of our society. It does not accomplish this by direct political means, but by changing culture and the quality of individual lives, which in turn change politics and, ultimately, structure. […] The revolution must be cultural. For culture controls the economic and political machine, not vice versa. Consider production. Now the machinery turns out what it pleases and forces people to buy. But if the culture changes, the machine has no choice but to comply. For the willing consumer of whatever the machine produces is replaced by a buyer who buys only what he chooses. The machine is forced to obey, and the market power of buyers is restored. The machine has to turn out socially sensitive products. But to gain this power, the buyer must free himself from the power of advertising by developing a different consciousness. Once he does, the machine is his slave. Similarly, the employee liberates himself by turning his back on the institutional goals of advancement in the hierarchy, status, and security. He makes himself independent of the organization by a change of values, and the organization then loses the power over his individuality, which it formerly had. Thus, the machine can be mastered. The essential point is that the political structure, the law, and the formal institutions of society are not the creative part of the Corporate State. They are merely its administrative department, and they ad- minister whatever values there are to be administered. They do not have the power to change values; for one interested in basic change, law and political institutions are virtually irrelevant (except as theaters in which to stage exemplary battles of consciousness). Even a great political change, such as the New Deal, can accomplish nothing if there is no accompanying change of consciousness. On the other hand, the government of the Corporate State has proven unable to do anything whatsoever to stem the great cultural changes coming about with the appearance of [the New] Consciousness. The government's complete lack of power over culture, is when it loses the ability to create false consciousness. Government, then, is mere management. Culture is the substantive part of society. Thus social change, instead of beginning at the palace, comes up from below. The law and the government are not the first things to be changed, they are the last. Should Consciousness sweep the country, the federal government could simply be ignored until it became completely isolated from the people of the nation, and had no choice but to change. At that point, the President would have to accommodate to the New Consciousness and go looking for his constituents.4

Reich is writing about Cultural Evolution, leading one to ask: how to best create cultural and consciousness change? How to create cultural evolution?

THE INSTITUTE FOR CULTURAL EVOLUTION (ICE): “Premises And Principles Of The Evolutionary Worldview”

The following insightful passages are from the “white paper” and the new book Evolutionary’s Purpose, by Steve McIntosh, co-founder of a “start-up think tank” called The Institute for Cultural Evolution (ICE).

The Concept of a Worldview

The evolutionary worldview is an emerging cultural perspective—an enlarged frame of reality—that transcends and includes the best of what has come before. The evolutionary perspective can be understood as a distinct “worldview” because it provides an expanded set of values, a new way of seeing, and a discrete sense of identity for those who make meaning using its framework. This conception of the evolutionary perspective as a distinct worldview is clarified through a com- parison with other worldviews and the context of their historical development. For example, the widely accepted concept of the "modernist worldview" consists of a complex structure of value agreements that frame a well-defined view of nature, history, and what it means to live a good life. Modernist values include achievement, prosperity, liberty, democracy, science, and higher education. The origins of the modernist worldview can be traced to the European Enlightenment of the 18th century, which was brought about through the emergence of new forms of science and philosophy. And just as the modernist worldview was born through the rise of powerful new forms of philosophy, the evolutionary worldview is likewise emerging as a result of a new philosophy known as “integral” or “evolutionary” philosophy. Understanding the premises and principles of the evolutionary worldview thus begins with an understanding of the philosophy which serves as its foundation […]. Human consciousness can evolve in a wide variety of ways. It can be raised or evolved by increasing empathy and compassion, by cultivating knowledge, understanding and forgiveness, and by building political will and the determination to achieve social and environmental justice. Consciousness can also be raised by enlarging people’s estimates of their own self-interest, by expanding their notions of what constitutes “the good life,” and by persuading them to appreciate new forms of beauty and truth. The developed world's relatively recent acceptance of women as the social equals of men provides a good example of how the human condition can be improved through the evolution of consciousness. According to integral philosophy, however, the evolution of consciousness is largely dependent on the evolution of human culture. When humans evolve their culture through new agreements or new forms of organization, this results in a corresponding growth in human consciousness. Through the “network effect” of cultural transmission, when one person has a conceptual breakthrough or new realization, this advance can be shared with others. And as new discoveries or new skills are adopted within a larger cultural context, such advances become refined and reinforced. Consciousness and culture—the individual and the group—thus co-evolve together.

The Evolution of Worldviews

This understanding of the co-evolution of consciousness and culture leads to another central tenet of integral philosophy, which recognizes the sequential emergence of values-based stages of human cultural development. Integral philosophy's view of cultural evolution sees history as unfolding according to a clearly identifiable developmental logic or cross-cultural pattern that influences the growth of human society. This developmental logic need not be construed as a "deterministic law of history," or as implying a strictly unidirectional course of cultural development, but it does reveal a recurring theme in humanity's narrative story. The unfolding of this theme or pattern results in a dialectical structure of conflict and resolution, which is created by the interaction of specific worldview stages or levels of historical development. The most obvious and widely accepted example of this stage structure can be recognized in the distinct, historically significant worldview stages known as modernism and traditionalism. Prior to the Enlightenment, the majority of the world's population was divided among the great religious civilizations. These are the cultural worldview structures identified as Christianity, Islam, Hindu- ism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and others. While there were, of course, major differences between these civilizations, there were also many remarkable similarities. And these similarities allow these diverse religious worldviews to be classified together under the general heading of the traditional stage of cultural development. Contemporary traditionalists value family life, lawful authority, self-sacrifice, and 13

the sanctity of their beliefs. Although every traditional worldview has been significantly impact- ed and modified by the developments of ensuing centuries, this stage of cultural development continues to define reality for, and thus hold the allegiance of, billions of people today. Even in the developed world, the traditional worldview remains the cultural center of gravity for significant minorities who give more credence to scripture than to science. However, as noted above, beginning in the 17th century, a radically new, reason-based worldview structure emerged, which is now identify as the modernist stage of cultural evolution. Like the traditional worldviews that preceded it, modernism provides a frame of reality and an agreed-upon set of values that help define the loyalties and identities of those who ascribe to it. Yet the historical record also confirms that there are more than just these two stages of traditionalism and modernism. Prior to the emergence of the traditional stage, which arose through innovations such as written language, law, and feudal forms of government, history reveals several pre-traditional stages of cultural development. These pre-literate, indigenous cultures used kinship-based forms of social organization and employed time-honored survival strategies that kept them closely connected to nature. And remnants of these ancient cultural structures continue to exist in parts of the world today. Although there are many ways to divide up the course of human history, and although there are a variety of competing stage theories, few will disagree that the recognition of the pre-traditional, traditional, and modernist stages of cultural development represents a valid reading of the historical record. Like practically all forms of evolution, cultural evolution unfolds by discrete, emergent steps, rather than along a seamless continuum of growth. To paraphrase Jean Piaget, “there is no development that lacks a structure,” and the development of human civilization is no exception. Integral philosophy uses the words “pre-traditional,” “traditional,” and “modernist” as defined terms to describe these stages of cultural evolution. Yet integral philosophy also recognizes forms of cultural evolution beyond modernism, and the first of these stages is defined using the term “postmodernism.” Unfortunately, the word “postmodern” has become a battleground of meaning. But although it has been used to describe art movements and critical forms of academic discourse, integral philosophy uses the term as a general description of the distinct cultural worldview that has emerged beyond modernism in many parts of the developed world. This large demographic group adheres to a different and distinct set of values that contrasts with both traditionalism and modernism. Although postmodern culture includes a great diversity of outlooks and beliefs, it does cohere as a recognizable worldview structure, showing many similarities to the historically significant worldviews that have preceded it. That is, like modernism and traditionalism, the postmodern worldview provides people with a sense of identity and thus creates strong loyalties to its perspectives. And following the pattern of the rise of previous worldviews, postmodern values stand in antithesis to the values of the existing culture from which they arose. Postmodernists are generally united by their concern for the natural environment, by their sensitivity to those who have been previously marginalized or exploited, and by their desire for self-actualization or spiritual growth. With the rise of postmodern values comes a rejection of the stale materialistic values of modernism, and the chauvinistic and oppressive values of traditionalism. However, as with the rise of modernism and traditionalism, the emergence of the postmodern worldview has also brought new problems and pathologies. Postmodernists can be prone to narcissism, value relativism, a return to magical or mythical thinking, and intense forms of anti- modernism that threaten to undermine the social foundations upon which the postmodern worldview ultimately depends.5

A basic outline of the characteristics of these major developmental stages or worldviews is provided below as adapted from the paper called, “Premises and Principles of the Evolutionary Worldview” from the Institute for Cultural Evolution (ICE).

I. STAGES OF WORLDVIEW DEVELOPMENT A) TRADITIONAL WORLDVIEW: Faith in a higher order, black & white sense of morality, self-sacrifice for the sake of the group.

1. Cultural Contributions a) Sense of duty b) Honors traditions c) Strong religious faith d) Focus on family e) Law and order

2. Examples in Culture a) Traditional religions b) Patriotism c) Conservativism d) Military organizations

3. Types of Organization a) Feudalism b) Dictatorships c) Bureaucracy

4. Exemplary Leaders a) Winston Churchill b) Pope John Paul c) The Dalai Lama d) Billy Graham

5. Potential Pathologies a) Rigidly intolerant b) Dogmatic c) Fundamentalist d) Chauvinistic e) Denies scientific truth

B) MODERNIST WORLDVIEW: Birth of reason, progress through science and technology, rise of democracy.

1. Cultural Contributions a) Science and technology b) Meritocracy c) Middle class d) Belief in progress

2. Examples in Culture a) Corporations b) Modern science c) Mainstream media d) Professional sports

3. Types of Organization a) Democracy b) Corporations c) Strategic alliances 15

4. Exemplary Leaders a) Thomas Jefferson b) Charles Darwin c) Thomas Edison d) John F. Kennedy

5. Potential Pathologies a) Materialistic b) Nihilistic c) Unscrupulous d) Selfish e) Exploitive

C) POSTMODERN WORLDVIEW: Birth of environmentalism, multiculturalism, and a new spiritual sensitivity.

1. Cultural Contributions a) Environmental priority b) Race and gender equality c) Worldcentric morality

2. Examples in Culture a) Progressive culture b) Critical academia c) Environmental movement

3. Types of Organization a) Democratic socialism b) Consensus committees

4. Exemplary Leaders a) Mohandas Gandhi b) Martin L. King, Jr. c) John Muir d) John Lennon

5. Potential Pathologies a) Value relativism b) Narcissism & Nihilism (Boomeritis) c) Denies hierarchy d) Dislikes modernism and traditionalism e) Political Impotence 6

For these reasons, the Integralists/Evolutionaries should accept and promote the term “Metamodern” as the next era to emerge from postmodernism. Which is why we, the Integral Neo-Transcendentalists of Metamodernism for the Society of the Third Millennium (S3K) have taken the initiative to adopt this moni- ker to describe our activist activities and guerrilla art efforts for radical evolutionary transformation as evident with this book and my past two publications for creating the much needed “Grand Narrative,” like “The Ten Philosophical Pillars” of The Dynamic Decalogue and help guide us in the transition through the “Inbetween.” Which is why (at the risk of being immodest) and as one of the forerunners of being an “integral artivists” (holistic artist and activist), I added myself* and S3K** below as one of the “exemplary leaders” and “new organizational structure” in my own description of this emerging new fourth worldview described below as the … 16

D) METAMODERN WORLDVIEW: The leap to second–tier thinking that “transcends and include” the best of previous worldviews and values, while purging their pathologies. Integral consciousness, teal meme (level 7); and Holism, turquoise meme (level 8), evolutionary enlightenment and neo-evolutionism.

1. Cultural Contributions a) Integral Meta-Theory, Framework & Philosophy b) Ontology of Interiors: Internal Universe of Values, Worldviews, Consciousness & Cul- tural Evolution c) Epistemology: Multi-Perspectival Methodology Of AQAL, 6-Property Wicked Prob- lem Model, Integral Coherence, Value Metabolism & Polarity Theory d) Integral Applications in Philosophy, Psychology, Politics, Art, Business, Economics, Ethics, Ecology, Education, Medicine, Health, Addiction Recovery, Spirituality e) The Dynamic Decalogue (Integral Activism) a “Grand Synthesis” of integral theory applications to create a new cohesive vision, strategy, code of conduct, collective identity, culture, mythos, ethos & political force

2. Examples in Culture a) Institutes, orgs, centers, assocs., schools, academies b) Forums, symposiums, conferences, workshops c) Publications: books, magazines, journals d) Social media: internet radio, websites, blogs, forums e) Films, videos, documentaries, training seminars, courses

3. Types of Organization a) Integral Leadership (S3K 1.0)** b) Integral Organizing (S3K 1.0)** c) Holacracy (S3K 1.0)** d) Crowdocracy (S3K 2.0)** e) Cybernetic Governance (S3K 3.0)**

4. Exemplary Leaders a) Ken Wilber b) Steve McIntosh c) Alan Watkins d) Carter Phipps e) Terry Patten f) Sean Esborn-Hargens g) Zevin X. Cruz *

5. Potential Pathologies a) Become existentially detach from human affairs b) Danger of becoming esoteric c) Overly optimistic of humanity’s evolutionary trajectory d) Wishful thinking regarding current state of world affairs e) Little sense of urgency despite dire converging crises f) Preference towards incremental slow-and-steady change g) Politically disengaged from national public offices

As you can see we are a little light on “examples in culture” of section #2 because Metamodernism is a new and emerging worldview that Ken Wilber estimates to be only 5% of the global population. Neverthe- less, history has shown that the tipping point for “critical mass” is usually between 5 to 10%. It is my hope

17 that this book, which serves as a grand synthesis of integral theory applications will help accelerate the cultural emergence of this new worldview through a new (r)evolutionary movement in the United States. Nevertheless, “[h]ere in America, the worldviews of traditionalism, modernism, and postmodernism each vie for the allegiance of the population, with modernists comprising a majority of approximately fifty- percent, and the rest about evenly divided between traditionalism and postmodernism,” writes McIntosh in the paper of the Institute for Cultural Evolution (ICE).

As discussed in the next section, below, these demographic estimates have been arrived at through extensive research on both the psychology of individuals and the sociology of large groups. However, the research of social science is unnecessary to confirm these cultural realities; the culture war is evident on practically every evening’s news broadcast. Notwithstanding the simplified characterizations in the [worldview outline description], it is important to emphasize that these worldview structures are exceedingly subtle and complex. And it is possible for the same person to hold more than one worldview depending on the circumstances. According to integral philosophy, these stages of historical evolution represent an unfolding trajectory of values development. Yet integral philosophy also recognizes additional lines of development, such as cognitive or emotional development, which are not directly tied to the evolution of values or worldviews.

The Evolutionary Authenticity of the Postmodern Worldview

Admittedly, describing the culture of the developed world in terms of a vertical scale of values development is certainly controversial. And claims that postmodern values are somehow more developed or evolved than the values of previous stages may be especially difficult for some to accept. Integral philosophy, however, does not claim that later appearing stages of development are absolutely better in every way. Integral philosophy holds that the values of each of these historically significant worldviews are evolutionarily appropriate for a specific set of life conditions, that the accomplishments of earlier levels are prerequisite for the achievements of later appearing levels, that the core values of every worldview have a crucial and ongoing role to play within the larger culture, and that every one of these perspectives deserves consideration and respect. In defense of its contention that the postmodern worldview is an historically significant form of culture that constitutes authentic evolution beyond modernism, integral philosophy offers the following evidence.

Social Science Research

The academic field of developmental psychology has accumulated a large body of research on individuals, validating the idea that development in both children and adults unfolds according to distinct stages, which show a loose correspondence with historical worldviews. However, while this research has clearly revealed the existence of pre-traditional, traditional, and modernist stages of psychological or cognitive development, the findings usually end with the modernist stage. This can be explained by the fact that the researchers themselves are modernists, so it is unlikely they would be willing or able to identify development beyond their own level. While there are some notable exceptions, such as the research of Robert Kegan and Clare Graves,[1] which does identify postmodern development and beyond, developmental psychology alone cannot be relied on to provide adequate evidence of the course of humanity’s overall cultural evolution. Another body of empirical evidence from the social sciences that validates integral philosophy’s view of the stages of cultural evolution is found in sociology. In 1995, sociologist Paul Ray published the findings of his national survey on the role of values in American life, which was sponsored by the Fetzer Institute and the Institute of Noetic Sciences.[2] Ray’s research drew upon more than 100,000 question- naire responses and hundreds of focus groups, and clearly revealed the existence of three large cultural blocks in America, which he called “Traditionals, Moderns, and Cultural Creatives.” Alt- hough the implicit postmodern orientation of both Ray and his sponsors resulted in a glorification of

18 the “Cultural Creatives” that did not recognize the accompanying shortcomings of this emerging culture, his research nevertheless had a large social and economic influence. During the same period, a less well-publicized but more comprehensive sociological study of values development was published by Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan. This multi-decade international survey cataloged the “basic values and beliefs” of people from 80 different countries, and found abundant evidence for the recent appearance of what was termed “post-material values” in developed countries. Known as The World Values Survey, [3] this research corresponds with and generally confirms the findings of Ray and others. However, like the research of developmental psychology, research from the field of sociology is not sufficient, by itself, for the conclusion that cultural evolution in the developed world is moving toward postmodern values. But what can be safely concluded from the research of the social sciences is that the distinct and dialectically separated stages identified as traditionalism, modernism, and postmodernism do exist as cultural systems of values, and that they have arisen in a historical sequence, with traditionalism being the old- est and postmodernism the most recent. However, when it comes to the conclusion that postmodernism is “more evolved” than modernism, empirical research alone is not sufficient to make this value judgment; human history must also be considered. Thus, understanding how and why postmodernism represents authentic cultural evolution beyond modernism begins with the recognition of why modernism itself is more evolved than traditionalism.

Modernism’s Evolutionary Advance Over Traditionalism

First, it must be emphasized that modernist culture is not absolutely better than traditional culture in every possible sense. Modernists are not kinder or more generous, they are not more loyal or committed, they are not always smarter or even more educated. What makes modernism unquestionably more culturally evolved than traditionalism is that modernists have achieved a more developed level of values in a variety of crucial areas, and this emergence of higher values has led directly to forms of civilization for which people have shown a consistent preference during the last 350 years. As examples, modernism’s more evolved understanding of truth has led to science and economic development, and modernism's more evolved conceptions of morality have led to democracy and the advent of human rights. Ongoing cultural development from traditionalism into modernism (but not vice versa) can be seen in the historical record since the En- lightenment. So regardless of one’s personal opinions of the merits of modernism, this achievement-oriented worldview has been, and continues to be, the goal of billions of people who perceive it as a way to improve their lives. Although not everyone feels this way, most people generally prefer democracy over dictatorships, they prefer scientific medicine over traditional forms of medicine, they prefer higher education over ignorance, and they prefer relative prosperity over poverty. Modernism’s evolutionary advance can sometimes be hard to see due to the presence of what integral philosophy recognizes as “the dialectic of progress and pathology.” [4] As cultural evolution achieves new depths of understanding and new powers over the material world, these very advances carry with them corresponding problems and pathologies that can only be solved by still further evolution. Integral philosophy’s concept of the dialectic of progress and pathology reveals how evolutionary advances and emerging social problems are linked in a kind of indestructible polarity, wherein every step forward results in new categories of problems that are intimately related to the positive features of that same developmental advance. And perhaps equally important is the fact that although emergent stages of cultural evolution result in improvements, some of the benefits conferred by previous stages are often lost in the process. However, when one begins to see how consciousness evolves—how new stages emerge as a result of the dialectical tension of thesis and antithesis—one can begin to detect authentic progress in cultural evolution, despite the appearance of new challenges and setbacks that inevitably accompany the process.

Notwithstanding the horrific problems brought about by modernism, this form of culture is still what the majority of premodern people in the world seem to want.[5] Postmodernists often deny this by contending that traditionalists only aspire to modernism because they have been seduced into embracing empty, materialistic values that will only make them unhappy in the end. Yet there are few educated modernists or postmodernists who are ready to give up their middleclass lifestyles and embrace a mythic worldview and a more traditional way of life. Thus, once it becomes clear how modernism is generally more evolved than traditionalism, this same criteria can then be used to reach the conclusion that postmodernism is similarly more evolved than modernism. Authentic postmodern culture has become a significant demographic only in regions where underlying modernist culture is most successful and well-established. Where people are relatively wealthy and well-educated, where they have already received most of what modernism has to offer, one finds that significant numbers (especially the young) consistently embrace countercultural, “post-material,” postmodern identities. The manifestation of postmodern values can be recognized in the social movements of environmentalism, multiculturalism, feminism, and egalitarianism in general. Postmodernists are at- tracted to organic and natural foods, clothing, and related products, and they evince a strong preference for alternative medicine, alternative spirituality, progressive politics, and peace at all costs. And despite the diversity of views that are embraced within postmodern culture, what generally binds postmodernists together is their agreement regarding the abundant pathologies of modernism. Anti-modernism is thus the hallmark of contemporary postmodernism in practically all its forms […].

Shortcomings of the Postmodern Worldview

Moreover […] there are aspects of postmodern culture that retard, or even prevent, cultural evolution overall. The strident anti-modernist and anti-traditionalist rhetoric of postmodernists can make both modernists and traditionalists defensive, and this defensiveness serves to “pin people in place” culturally, as they develop a resistance to postmodern values of every kind. The irony is that despite being the most evolved form of culture that has yet to appear, the postmodern worldview has in some ways become a kind of “cork in the bottle” that prevents many modernists and traditionalists from adopting the values of environmental sustainability and social justice. Modernists and traditionalists who might otherwise be persuaded by the attractive features of the postmodern agenda find themselves locked in a culture war wherein loyalty to the values of their respective worldviews places them in opposition to the progress offered by postmodernism, which is perceived as being a threat to modernist and traditional values. Thus, because of the polarizing effects of its social agenda, definition of the next steps of cultural evolution cannot be left to postmodernism alone. Humanity’s global problems are becoming too urgent to allow progress in their amelioration to be stymied by the political stagnation that results from the developed world's culture war. For example […] over the past few years consensus about the need to fight global warming has been in decline due to sustained efforts by conservative groups who have sought to discredit climate change science. This largely kneejerk reaction against the environmental movement stems from the deep animosity and distrust that conservatives feel toward anything that is dear to the hearts of postmodernists. And ironically, much of this acrimony began with postmodernism's own militant rejection of establishment values in the 1960s.

The Promise of an Evolutionary or “Post-Postmodern” [Metamodernism] Worldview

Therefore, socially and politically significant evolution in consciousness and culture in the developed world awaits the articulation of a new set of values that can harmonize competing definitions of progress and bring peace to the culture war. And this needed vision is provided by the emerging evolutionary worldview, which offers solutions that are even more progressive than 20 what passes for progressive culture today. Yet in this context, “more progressive” does not mean either “further left” or “further right”; this evolutionary perspective goes beyond the horizontal dimension of liberal and conservative by carrying forward the enduring strengths, while simultaneously pruning away the pathologies, of both positions. According to integral philosophy (as well as other forms of social philosophy), cultural evolution unfolds through the synthetic transcendence of thesis and antithesis, and this is exactly what the evolutionary perspective is attempting to do. […] And the evolutionary perspective can accomplish this by showing how the values of each of these historically significant worldviews have arisen within the dialectical structure of a larger internal cultural ecosystem. Integral philosophy makes clear how each of these worldviews is working to improve a distinct set of problematic life conditions that continue to plague society, and thus why each of these worldviews has an ongoing role to play in the structure of contemporary civilization. In other words, modernism and traditionalism have not been negated or completely outmoded by the emergence of postmodern values. Indeed, the ongoing success of the healthy and enduring values of these earlier worldviews is essential for the viability of postmodernism itself. Elements of the Evolutionary [Metamodern] Worldview

[…T]he rise of the modernist worldview during the Enlightenment was the result of many factors, making a comprehensive analysis of this emergent event beyond the scope of this paper. Yet among the many causes of the Enlightenment, historians are in general agreement that the metaphysical philosophy of Rene Descartes was particularly significant. Beginning in the early 17th century, Galileo's demonstration of the heliocentric structure of the solar system had shown the superi- ority of scientific descriptions of reality over the mythical teachings of the Church. Spurred by these discoveries, Descartes developed an original philosophic foundation for the scientific revolution. His radical philosophy divided reality into a subjective, supernatural world of mind, and an objective, material world of matter. And by doing so he helped inaugurate a new era of reason and scientific discovery. By literally reframing reality using new metaphysical categories, Descartes helped open the eyes of scientists to the “objective” way of seeing and understanding the natural world. A New Ontology

Now, integral philosophy is doing something very similar; it is reframing reality so as to open up the “ontology of interiors.” Guided by the philosophy of Whitehead, Wilber, and others, as well as by the breakthroughs of system science, integral philosophy has discovered that the worldview structures that provide the steps of evolution for consciousness and culture are actually dynamic systems of agreement that resemble the dynamical systems (also known as “dissi- pative structures”) found in nature. These worldview systems have both an exterior, physical expression, and also an interior dimension. On the external side, the features of these dynamic systems of culture are fairly straightforward; they can be found in the various forms of communication and social expression through which worldviews are transmitted and consolidated. Yet on the internal side, in addition to the subjective experience of individuals, integral philosophy has revealed a previously unrecognized collective interior aspect of worldview systems. And it is through its expanded recognition of the collective interiors of cultural evolution that integral philosophy reveals a new ontology. As noted, historically significant worldviews are powerful, multi-generational, large-scale agreements that frame reality and provide identity for those who ascribe to them. And although these agreements are ultimately affirmed and maintained within the subjective consciousness of individuals, there is an element of such agreements that is neither wholly subjective nor completely objective. That is, worldview structures are partially objective, partially subjective, but also partially “intersubjective”—these dynamic systems occupy the “agreement space” that exists in between individuals. Put differently, evolutionarily significant, macro agreements about values occupy multi- 21 ple domains simultaneously: these worldview systems subsist in objective forms of communication, subjective forms of assent and concurrence, and enduring intersubjective forms of connection that make up a large part of the “interior corpus” of these agreement structures. This intersubjective aspect of worldview systems is not merely metaphorical. According to integral philosophy, the intersubjective realm is an interior dimension of reality that cannot be reduced to either objective or subjective categories. And it is by recognizing this collective interior dimension of cultural evolution that integral philosophy provides an expanded reality frame; a fresh perspective that offers an enlarged understanding of the overall developmental structure of human consciousness and culture. Of course, cultural worldviews are not conscious entities, but they do exhibit enduring systemic behaviors that resemble other types of self-organizing evolutionary structures such as ecosystems. Recognizing the similarities between worldview systems and biological systems reveals the “metabolism of values” through which cultural structures maintain their systemic vitality. And just as cells are the micro-systems that make up an organism, agreements about specific values act similarly as the internal micro-systems that aggregate into historically significant worldviews that persist through time. Moreover, as discussed further below, this new understanding of value metabolism can help clarify why some cultures are vibrant and healthy and why other cultures remain dysfunctional. This expanded ontological recognition of cultural evolution thus allows change agents to better see, contact, and work with these worldview systems as never before. Further, integral philosophy’s expanded recognition of interiority avoids the problems of Cartesian dualism by explaining how the subjective category of consciousness (or interiority in general) is not “supernatural”; sentient subjectivity is as real and natural as the external aspects of reality. Building on the work of Whitehead, integral philosophy argues that every naturally oc- curring form of evolutionary organization possesses an interior aspect. While this recognition of pervasive interiority does not imply that structures such as cells or molecules have consciousness per se, it does show how consciousness does not simply “pop out” at the top of the evolutionary scale. This reframing of reality thus helps avoid the mind/body problem, which has vexed materialistic forms of philosophy for over 300 years.[6] So, just as Enlightenment philosophy opened up the external universe to a new era of investigation and discovery through objective science, integral philosophy now promises similar advances within the internal universe of consciousness and culture. Although a thorough description of integral philosophy’s ontology of interiors is beyond the scope of this paper, the sections below consider examples of how this new understanding can be used to diagnose and solve many of the cultural problems that currently plague humanity.

A New Epistemology

The “new way of seeing” that arose with the modernist worldview during the Enlightenment came about through the use of the emergent epistemological capacity of reason. Although premodern thinkers also used reason and logic, they lacked a systematic method of analyzing objective reality from a scientific perspective. Nor could they see how the mythical descriptions of the universe provided by their premodern worldviews were in fact inherently unreasonable, if not completely irrational. It was only through the new objective clarity provided by a thoroughly rational worldview that Europeans were able to “disenchant” their understanding of nature. And just as the rise of modernist consciousness provided a new epistemological capacity, the enlarged perspectives of the evolutionary worldview likewise provide the expanded vision of a new epistemological capacity. This new capacity, which Wilber calls “vision-logic,” arises as one comes to view the world through dialectical perspectives. This dialectical way of knowing can be distinguished from both “formal operational thought” (originally described by Piaget),(7) and “relativistic thought.” Formal operational thinking, which is most often associated with modernist consciousness, usually perceives the world as presenting “right or wrong”

22 choices within a closed system of lawful relationships. Relativistic thinking, which is most often associated with postmodern consciousness, can see the validity of more than one choice, but cannot usually see how such alternatives can be reconciled or synthesized. In contrast to both of these earlier ways of knowing, dialectical thinking always anticipates the possibility of development, and thus perceives the world as a fundamental process of changing dynamic relationships. This dialectical way of seeing thus recognizes how conflicting perspectives can actually work together, mutually supporting each other, even when in apparent opposition, in a manner that can be compared to the function of a tension strut in an architectural structure […]. The emergent epistemological capacity of reason that arises with modernist consciousness is a cognitive capacity of the mind, which involves rational thinking. In contrast, the new epistemological capacity that arises with the evolutionary perspective is an emergent volitional capacity of the will, which comes about mostly through dialectical evaluation. That is, it is usually only by appropriately valuing the elements of a problematic situation that we can correctly perceive the crucial functions of such elements within the situation as a whole. This involves more than simply “weighing the alternatives” and assigning different values to various components; it is a way of understanding and appreciating that requires an intuitive sympathy achieved only by “getting in close”—by identifying with and actually entering into the alternative perspectives that generate opposing values. When one looks at evolutionary processes without this ability, all one can see is conflict. But when one comes to better recognize the unfolding of internal structures through time, one begins to appreciate how they are working together within a larger developmental system, and this allows these structures to be engaged more effectively. Recognizing this, developmental theorist Robert Kegan actually defines dialectical thinking as “the capacity to see conflict as a signal of our over- identification with a single system.” (9) A New Set of Values

According to integral philosophy, historically significant cultural worldviews are made up of discrete sets of values that are related to the problems faced by a given worldview’s “time in history.” Continuing this pattern, the emerging evolutionary worldview also has its own relatively unique values, such as the aspiration to harmonize science and spirituality, an enhanced sense of personal responsibility for the problems of the world, an enlarged appreciation of conflicting truths and dialectic reasoning, and a new appreciation of the significance of evolution in general, and cultural evolution in particular. But unlike older worldviews, this evolutionary perspective also recognizes that every previous worldview contains important values that are necessary for the ongoing functionality of society. As a result of this understanding, the evolutionary view is able to better appreciate and thus better use the healthy values of the entire spectrum of cultural development. And it is by including a wider range of values within its purview that the evolutionary perspective is able to transcend all previous worldviews. In other words, earlier worldviews tend to see each other primarily for their pathologies, discounting the important cultural role that each worldview plays within the larger system of cultural evolution. But the evolutionary perspective can see existing cultural structures within a broader evolutionary context, and can thus more effectively “objectify” earlier values without being repulsed or embarrassed by them. This process of cultural evolution through objectification is described by Kegan’s well-known “subject-object theory.” Kegan explains the evolution of consciousness through the stages of development by observing that a person transcends a given stage when what was previously embedded in that person’s subjective consciousness becomes objectified, or recognized from an external perspective. According to Kegan, “[T]ransforming our epistemologies, liberating ourselves from that in which we were embedded, making what was subject into object so that we can ‘have it’ rather than ‘be had’ by it—this is the most powerful way I know to conceptualize the growth of the mind.” (10) For example, in the traditional stage of consciousness, one’s religious belief system is a part of their subject—the traditionalist’s subjective consciousness is embedded or contained within their belief sys-

23 tem. The objective world is thus perceived and constructed to satisfy the demands of this belief system. However, when a person transcends the traditional stage and achieves the increased epistemological capacity of modernist consciousness, he may still hold the same essential religious beliefs, but these beliefs are now objectified; he can see beyond his beliefs, and thus gains a greater capacity to adopt the perspective of others and see the world through their beliefs as well as his own. As a person’s consciousness evolves he can still “have his beliefs,” but in more evolved stages those beliefs no longer “have him.” Kegan’s description of the process of subjective evolution through expanding objectification also helps explain how the evolutionary worldview makes progress. Unlike previous worldviews, the evolutionary perspective is able to objectify the entire spectrum of established cultural development, and is thus able to achieve an “expanded vertical perspective” that can recognize a new kind of depth. Yet not only does this evolutionary view better objectify previous stages, together with the larger system of which they are a part, it also better subjectifies previous stages by identifying with them more closely. As noted, it is only by “getting in close” to the values of these earlier worldviews that one can begin to separate their “dignities” from their “disasters.” Recall that as a result of the dialectic of progress and pathology, successes are often tied to failures in cultural evolution. And this means that the positive values of a given worldview are accordingly tied together with that worldview’s shortcomings. Recovering the useful and enduring values of previous worldviews thus requires careful attention and a sophisticated form of sympathy. Using the traditional worldview as an example, one can see how the values that society continues to need—values such as honesty, decency, modesty, and personal responsibility—are connected with outlooks that must now be discarded—such as sexism, racism, and religious fundamental- ism. When one views the traditional worldview from the outside, it is these negative aspects that are often most apparent. But when one comes to also see this worldview from the inside, by better identifying with it, this leads to a greater appreciation of traditionalism’s positive values. And this is how the enduring core values of traditionalism can be “teased apart” from its remaining outmoded prejudices, which continue to hold society back. Indeed, by making common cause with the healthy values of every worldview, “they” become “us.”

A Second Enlightenment

As a result of its place within the sequence of historical development, the emerging evolutionary worldview is in many ways a synthesis of modernism and postmodernism. Without the sensitive and pluralistic values of postmodernism, the evolutionary perspective would be somewhat indistinguish- able from cynical modernism. However, although it embraces many postmodern values, this evolutionary worldview also carries forward some of modernism’s important strengths, such as its penchant for problem solving and its focus on progress. Thus, because the evolutionary perspective can be seen as a kind of “higher harmonic” of modernism, the historical context out of which this evolutionary view is emerging shows many similarities to the previous appearance of modernism during the Enlightenment. As mentioned, modernism came about through the rise of powerful new philosophical systems, which were rooted in the scientific advances of the 17th century. Similarly, this new evolutionary perspective is being catalyzed by philosophical advances in the understanding of emergent evolution, which reveal the influence of values and show how evolution is both driving and drawing the development of human consciousness and culture […]. […N]ow at the beginning of what may come to be recognized as a kind of “Second Enlighten- ment,” much of professional philosophy, and especially the philosophy associated with life and evolution, has been similarly compromised by its subordination to scientific materialism. Thus, just as in the first Enlightenment, when philosophy was liberated from the static confines of the reigning establishment, leaping forward like a coiled spring, a similar period of philosophical progress can now be anticipated. In the first Enlightenment, philosophy became separated from

24 mythic religion, and now philosophy is becoming similarly liberated from the confines of scien- tism. Admittedly, the emergence of the modernist worldview and the rise of science was one of the most significant events in the history of humankind, so these comparisons with the Enlightenment may be overstated. Yet the emergence of this new evolutionary perspective could end up having a similarly dramatic impact on history as a result of its ability to produce social progress. Again, modernist science’s power came from its ability to better understand and thus more effectively control the external, material universe. Similarly, the promise of this emerging evolutionary view is that it can better understand and thus more effectively achieve evolution within the internal universe of consciousness and culture. And a significant part of this enlarged ability to help bring about cultural evolution arises from integral philosophy's new insights about values.

Value Dynamics Within Cultural Evolution

Integral philosophy shows more clearly than ever before the nature and behavior of the worldview structures that cohere into the larger internal ecosystem that forms global culture. However, the behaviors of these cultural structures cannot be completely understood from an external perspective. Although the social sciences of anthropology, sociology, and psychology have all contributed to integral philosophy’s understanding of cultural evolution, these disciplines define themselves as sciences, so they cannot see into the internal universe of values with the clarity provided by this new philosophical perspective. Integral philosophy is able to surpass the social sciences in its ability to understand cultural evolution primarily because of its willingness to recognize the metaphysical and even spiritual aspects of values. And as explored in this section, it is through integral philosophy’s expanded insight into the nature and behavior of values in human experience that the realm of cultural evolution is opened up to a new era of investigation and discovery. Values as a Leading Line of Evolution

Integral philosophy recognizes how the evolution of consciousness and culture occurs as a result of both the pull of values and the push of unsatisfactory life conditions. Values are thus defined and animated by their relation to the real and pressing problems faced by people as they struggle to improve their lives. Recognizing how consciousness and culture evolve through both the internal influence of values and the external pressure of problematic conditions under- lines the fact that interior consciousness almost always co-evolves with exterior circumstances. In other words, wherever one finds the interior evolution of consciousness, one also finds a corresponding evolution in the complexity of the exterior structures associated with such interior development. The consciousness of animals generally evolves in lockstep with the evolution of their bodies, but the consciousness of humans can evolve in ways that are partially independent from the physical evolution of their biological brains. In the brief course of historical evolution, humans have thus compensated for the relative absence of external biological development through the creation of artifacts such as language, tools, art, architecture, and social institutions. These external artifacts “stand in” for the lack of appreciable biological evolution and provide the physical counterparts of the mental evolution through which humans have developed beyond the animal level. The evolutionary emergence of human artifacts thus provides a rough exterior indicator of the interior evolution of consciousness. For example, the emergence of organized agriculture and writing are external indicators of traditional consciousness, and the emergence of industrial technology is an external indicator of modernist consciousness. The interiors of consciousness and culture thus always co-evolve with exterior developments in institutions and technology. And just as emerging new forms of consciousness can give rise to new technologies, the growth of external artifacts and organizations can in turn raise the consciousness of the people who use them (at least in some cases). Indeed, one of the valid insights of Marxist philosophy was that the consciousness of people is significantly influenced by 25 their “means of production.” While the material determinism of Marxism ultimately goes too far in its emphasis on external, physical influences, the role of exterior factors in cultural evolution is well appreciated by integral philosophy. Adding to the complexity of the co-evolution of interior consciousness and exterior artifacts is the fact that interior development cannot be reduced to a singular trajectory measured by the growth of one’s values alone. As also discussed above, consciousness evolves through a variety of cognitive and emotional lines of development, each of which can exhibit growth that is relatively independent from the development of one’s values or worldview. Yet even though the evolution of consciousness and culture is a subtle and complex phenomenon involving many influences, it appears that the development of values is nevertheless a particularly significant factor in the process. This is shown by the way new stages of history are most often initiated through the emergence of new truth, new beauty, and new ideals of morality. Although the values of new worldviews only become widely established socially when they result in the creation of new external institutions and technologies, new ideas and new ideals themselves first appear “on the inside,” in the minds of innovators and thought leaders. And the reason why the development of values is perhaps the single most important factor in understanding cultural evolution overall is that it is through the gravity of values that consciousness and culture are drawn toward ever-higher levels of evolutionary development. The Internal Cultural Ecosystem

Although integral philosophy holds that historically significant worldviews are literally dynamic systems of values that can be compared in certain ways to ecosystems, it does not follow that psychosocial evolution can be conceived as, or reduced to, biological evolution. Unlike the apparently blind and partially mechanistic functioning of biological evolution, the cultural realm of evolution is governed more by internal reasons than by external causes. In fact, the gravitational influence of transcendent forms of value shapes the trajectory and structure of cultural evolution by attracting and persuading the outworking of human choices. And because “value gravity” only functions by agreement, because it requires the assent of consciousness to take effect, it cannot be understood as a deterministic law or a physical cause of cultural evolution. But even though the evolution of culture is not entirely “law like,” the structuring influence of values on cultural evolution results in the large-scale historical pattern of dialectical development by stages. And within this stage structure of history, the success of each stage is crucial because the accomplishments of one level are necessarily taken up and used by the next appearing level. Recognition of this “nested” or “Holarchic” (11) structure within cultural evolution thus reveals an important principle that can help bring about further cultural evolution throughout the world.

The “Holarchic Principle” of Cultural Evolution

The rise of historically significant new worldviews depends on both the previous accomplishments and increasingly evident shortcomings of the preexisting culture from which such new world-views emerge. And this is why worldview stages cannot usually be skipped or by- passed, and why the success of later-appearing stages depends, at least partially, on the ongoing health and functionality of underlying earlier stages. This cultural “ecosystemic interdependence” can be readily observed in the relationship among the worldviews of traditionalism, modernism, and postmodernism in America. But this overall “holarchic principle” of cultural evolution is best illus- trated using international examples, where these relationship dynamics are even more evident. For instance, examining the recent history of Russia provides a clear illustration of this holarchic principle of cultural evolution in action. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, many in the West as- sumed that Russia was poised for significant economic growth, like that seen in Germany and Japan after World War II. As a result of this expectation, substantial foreign investments in the Russian economy were made in the early 1990s. These investors did not realize, however, that the modernist culture required for Western-style economic growth did not exist in large segments of the Russian populace at 26 that time. Although Marxism may have originated at a higher level of cultural development than the traditional stage, by the second half of the 20th century, Russian communism had come to resemble other forms of traditional, conformist culture. The communists effectively swept away the Russian Orthodox Church, but then simply replaced it with the "Religion of the State." Then when communism itself was swept away, much of what remained consisted of the underlying structures of pre-traditional, egocentric consciousness. So instead of stimulating sustainable economic growth, foreign investment in Russia in the early 1990s only contributed to the rise of horrendous levels of organized crime. This is due to the fact that the achievement-oriented values that are necessary for the development of modernist econo- mies use and depend on the underlying values of “fair play” and respect for law, which are usually only found where healthy traditional structures are functioning within the society overall. What distinguishes the individualistic orientation of the modernist level from the similarly individualistic worldview of the pre-traditional level, is the inclusion of the intervening and moderating values of traditional culture. This intervening communally oriented stage serves to socialize and restrain the individual by providing a clear sense of right and wrong and by emphasizing the importance of law and order. Without a stable base of traditional culture of one form or another, attempts to evolve into modernism usually collapse back into the chaotic conditions of pre-traditional culture as a result of corruption and conflicts between rival groups. Thus, modernism in Russia did not develop (and still has not fully developed) as hoped, because a crucial stage of prerequisite development was partially missing from the ecosystemic structure of their culture. As another example, the obverse of Russia’s developmental failure can be seen in Japan’s developmental success. Japan was the first non-Western country able to evolve its own homegrown version of modernism because it had previously developed a strong and healthy version of traditional culture, which had been nurtured by two hundred years of self-imposed isolation and unfettered refinement, and which had never been colonized. So when the Japanese made the leap to modernism in the late 19th century, they were extremely successful (even after the devastation of World War II) because their strong base of traditional values served as a supporting foundation for their uniquely Japanese form of modernist culture. These examples show why the success of earlier stages is generally required as a foundation or platform for the subsequent emergence of more developed stages. Just as in biological evolution, where later appearing levels depend on the accomplishments of earlier levels, this holarchic principle also functions in the realm of cultural evolution. And not only does this principle influence the relationship between traditionalism and modernism, it also shapes the relationship between modernism and postmodernism. Moreover, as the following example illustrates, the history of postmodernism’s emergence from modernism reveals how a new level relies not only on the success of its previous stage; each new stage of cultural emergence also requires a degree of discontent, or evolutionary restlessness, stemming from the growing pathologies that are inevitably produced by the previous stage’s successes (as a result of the dialectic of progress and pathology). Although postmodern cultural structures arose in a number of Western countries in the 1960s, America was the clear epicenter of this worldview's emergence. By the mid-sixties, after years of postwar prosperity and middleclass development, America had produced one of the world's most successful forms of modernist culture. And it was from the heart of America's well-educated modernist middleclass that the sixties youth revolution arose. Having grown up with all the advantages of modernist cultural development, the Baby Boom generation eventually became dissatisfied with the “establishment” and embraced the countercultural values of postmodernism in large numbers. Clear- ly, this dialectical move away from the achievement-oriented values of modernism was only made possible because of modernism’s previous success. Postmodern youth came to reject the values of achieving wealth and status because most of them had been raised within a prosperous culture, and thus felt no need to strive for further upward mobility. They were therefore able to recognize and reject the problems and limitations of modernist society because they had already received most of the benefits that modernism had to offer. 27

These examples show how this holarchic principle of dialectical “transcendence and inclusion” functions within the timeline of human history. And because the state of human cultural development throughout the world remains spread out over the last 5,000 years of history, recognizing this principle helps show what can be done to help cultivate and stimulate the kinds of evolutionary emer- gences that are needed to solve many global problems. This is not just a matter of better appreciating the needs and values of each stage, it also involves understanding the formative relationships that continue to exist between the stages. Yet once the dynamics of this larger holarchic structure of history are better understood, this reveals how important the overall health of this larger structure is to the particular health of each individual worldview system. In other words, within this holarchic cultural ecosystem, if the evolution of a given stage has tried to move “too far ahead” in the timeline of development beyond its previous stage, if it gets ahead of itself by not appropriately including the values of its predecessor, it can fail to achieve evolutionary success. This can be seen in the example of Russia, above, where the situation calls for redevelopment of their traditional cultural structures as a prerequisite for the growth of vibrant forms of modernism. Conversely, if a given stage remains “too close” to its previous stage in the holarchic sequence, if it has not adequately transcended its predecessor, it can likewise fail. A good example of social stagnation resulting from dialectically related stages of development remaining too close together can be found in the case of Islamic culture. One of the main reasons why most Islamic countries remain centered within their traditional culture—having failed to produce their own version of homegrown non-Western modernism, like Japan—is that the values of their traditional culture are intermixed with too many pre-traditional values. This can be seen in the significant influence that tribalism continues to exert upon Islamic societies in the Middle East, even after the recent political developments of the “Arab Spring.” The intense fighting between small rival groups that characterizes pre-traditional cultural structures serves to undermine traditionalism's critical function of providing social unity and central authority. The excessive admixture of traditional and pre-traditional values within many Islamic societies can also be seen in the extreme pride that is often demonstrated by these cultures, which contributes to the virulent militancy that continues to plague Islam. While Islam’s problems have certainly been exacerbated by Western imperialism and colonialism, this once-great civilization remains in the backwater of history primarily because its traditional form of culture is currently developmentally handicapped. A similar set of circumstances afflicted Christianity prior to the Reformation. By the beginning of the 16th century, the Catholic Church had become corrupted and was thus sapped of much of its moral authority. This eventually led to the upheavals of the Reformation, which produced Protestant Christianity. This new kind of Christianity, which emerged from the strug- gles of the Reformation, had been largely purified of the negative aspects of pre-traditional values, making it a far more successful form of traditional religious culture. The demonstration of this success is seen in the fact that it was in Protestant countries where the Enlightenment first began to take root. And it is in these same historically Protestant countries where postmodernism is now most well developed. Thus, when history is viewed through the lens of the evolutionary worldview, it provides a prescrip- tion for the cure of many of the world's current ills. This evolutionary perspective shows how the emergence of democracy, prosperity, and worldcentric morality depends on relatively healthy forms of underlying traditional culture to provide a foundation of responsible values. And this perspective also shows that where traditional cultures remain stagnant or unhealthy, some kind of “reformation” will be needed before an “enlightenment” can come about. This new understanding of the nature of cultural development can increase humanity’s ability to solve many of its problems by becoming more effective at stimulating and sustaining the evolution of consciousness and culture. Although promoting cultural evolution is almost always a complex and difficult task, this discussion suggests an opening for a new approach […].7

“A NEW APPROACH: THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY & STRATEGY (GUTS)”

CONSCIOUSNESS (I) CHANGE BEHAVIORAL (IT) CHANGE (Interior-Individual) (Exterior-Individual)

MIND: Personal evolution through higher levels of BODY: Diet, NRT, Exercise—3-Body Workout consciousness and value memes by the following— (strength training, cardio, and stretching /yoga); Bod- Reading & Study; Discussion & Debate; Writing & ywork, Acupuncture, Reiki; Martial Arts, Sports, etc. Journaling; Looking at your meaning making; Integral (AQAL) Framework; Pursuing A Degree, etc. ETHICS: Moral Inquiry, Integral Ethics, Volunteer Work, Social Activism, Professional Ethics, Philan- SPIRIT: Meditation, Prayer, 3-Faces of Spirit, Integral thropy, Heartfelt Service, Voluntarism, etc. Inquiry, Spiritual Community, Worship, Song /Chant; Compassionate Exchange, Subjectivism, Theurgism. WORK: Right Livelihood, Time Management, Profes- sional Development, Integral Communication, Per- SHADOW: 3-2-1 Process (to resolve issues that act as sonal Productivity Systems, Financial Intelligence, etc. obstacles to be a more effective activist and resolve psychological projections that sabotage working rela- RELATIONSHIPS: Conscious Commitment, Week- tionships). Dream work, Journaling, Psychotherapy, ly Check-Ins, Intimacy Workshops, Integral Parenting, Transmuting Emotions, Family & Couples Therapy; Being Vulnerable, Integral Sexual Yoga, etc. Art, Music & Dance, etc. CREATIVITY: Integral Artistry, Practicing, Playing PERSONAL EVOLUTION: 1) Inner Departure, 2) & Writing Music, Dance & Drama, Cooking & Interi- Setting Out, 3) Confronting Critics, 4) Turning your or Decorating, Creative Community, etc. values into a new way of life, etc. SOUL: Solitude, Nature Communion, Discover- EXPERIENCES: Psychological levels, states, beliefs, ing/Living Your Purpose, Depth Psychology, Reso- epiphanies, change your inner reality to change outer. nance with Art, Music & Literature, Theurgism, etc.

CULTURAL (WE) CHANGE SYSTEMIC (ITS) CHANGE (Interior-Collective) (Exterior-Collective)

COGNITIVE ACTIVISM: Comprehensive Philos- INFRASTRUCTURE: Develop alternative institu- ophy (DD), Vision (S3K), Theory & Strategy (GUTS) tions to create an activist infrastructure and organizations that can sustain a movement & activist efforts. WOLRDVIEW: Integral Metamodernism (DD), etc. ORGANIZATIONAL: Citizen & Activist Collec- NARRATIVE: From The Great Unraveling of Em- tives, Groups, Non-Profits, Campaigns, Movements. pire To The Great Turning of Earth Community, etc. INSTITUTIONS: Colleges, Churches, Govt., Courts INTEGRAL VALUES: Ethos of Evolutionary Tran- Healthcare System, Economy, Mass Media, Industries. scendence & Transformation (Dynamic Decalogue). ECONOMIC: Reinvent non-profits traditional role; COLLECTIVE IDENTITY: Becoming aware of Nationwide General Strike, Withdraw political consent our particular role in society as agents of evolutionary transformation—Integral Neo-Transcendentalists, etc. POLITICAL: Integral Governing Dynamics, Crow- docracy, New 3rd Constitutional Convention, etc. VIABLE LIFESTYLES: Community Resilience (S3K 1.0), Empathetic Civilization (2.0), RBE (3.0). LEGAL: New laws, Constitutional Amendments (Economic & Community Bill of Rights); etc. PARADIGM SHIFTS: Change of Consciousness Guerrilla Art Campaigns, Social Media, Culture Jams. EDUCATIONAL: Educate the involved activists (citizens, rebels, change agents, reformers), Populous. CULTURAL EVOLUTION: Challenge Societal Codes, Comprehensive Cultural Change by Supplant- RELIGION: Community support from churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, sangha, tribe, etc. ing Superstructure & Subverting Social System, etc.

(Figure 2: Categorical Components For Evolutionary Transformation By Z.X.C.)

THE TEN THEORITICAL TENETS OF GUTS: A Grand Unified Theory And Strategy (GUTS) For Radical Evolutionary Transformation

Theoretical Tenet #1 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “Cultural Evolution (Phase I) Must Precede Structural Revolution (Phase II) For Global Transformation (Phase III).”

Theoretical Tenet #2 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “Cultural Evolution Goes Thru 3 Major Stages: Separation [Continuum X: 1-7], Transition [Continuum Y: 1-7] & Integration [Continuum Z: 1-7]; Therefore, A Grand Unified Theory Of Evolutionary Transformation Must Be Structured As Such.”

Theoretical Tenet #3 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “In The Separation Stage (Continuum X: 1-7) Cultural Divergence Occurs At Different Degrees Of Departure From The Old World Order & Increases In Intensity.”

Theoretical Tenet #4 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “Revolutions Of The Past Have Been Engines Of Evolution But Modern Movements Continually Get Stuck In A Perpetual Retrigger Event Loop [Continuum X: 7] Leading To Eventual Exhaustion & Frequent Fundamental Failures.”

Theoretical Tenet #5 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “To Breakout Of The Failed Stage Five [Separation—Continuum X: 7] Of The Movement Action Plan (MAP) One Needs To Co-Create A Cohesive Vision, Coherent Strategy & Comprehensive Philosophy (Dynamic Decalogue PP: 1- 10/Transition—Continuum Y: 1-7) Of Integral Activism To Develop A New Way Of Life At A Higher Ecological & Evolutionary Level Of Human Existence.”

Theoretical Tenet #6 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “A Unified Mega-Movement Campaign (UMC) Based On A National Unifying Purpose (NUP) Is Needed (Continuum Y: 7) As The Engine To Create The Necessary Activist Infrastructure For Sustained Convergent Actions (Integration-Continuum Z: 1-7) That Should Serve As The New Foundation Of The Alternative Social System.”

Theoretical Tenet #7 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “Integral Coherent Implementation Is The Local, State & National Application Of The Dynamic Decalogue For Vertical Integration That Will Act As Both A Catalyst & Chain Reaction For Mass Mobilization On Every Level For The Building Of A New Alternative Social System (S3K 1.0/Integration—Continuum Z: 1-7).”

Theoretical Tenet #8 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “A Successful Unified Mega-Movement Campaign Must Democratically Create An Alternative Governing Body (Integra- tion—Continuum Z: 6) Before Taking Power And Clearly Articulate A Political Synthesis Platform Consisting Of A Deconstructive (Continuum A: 1-7) & Reconstructive (Continuum B: 1-7) Agenda For The Structural Revolution Of Phase II Of GUTS.

Theoretical Tenet #9 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “The Grand Imperative To Abolish Empire & Establish Earth Community Is The Integral Planetary Goal To Unite Hu- manity Through A Worldwide Marshal Plan (Global Transformation—Continuum C: 1-7; Dynamic Equilibrium) Like The Post-Carbon ‘Third Industrial Revolution’ (S3K 2.0).”

Theoretical Tenet #10 of Radical Evolutionary Transformation “Any New Integral Vision (S3K 3.0), Worldview, Philosophy Or Grand Unified Theory & Strategy Must Be Malleable And Ever-Evolving Like The Dynamic Decalogue.”

THEORITICAL TENET #1: Cultural Evolution Must Precede Structural Revolution For Global Transformation

I define “Cultural Evolution” as a change in consciousness, conduct and culture and “Structural Revolu- tion” as a transformation of institutions and industries within the dominant social system. In Cultural Evo- lution I consider a “change of consciousness” as a transformation of the individual-interior (“I”) consisting of spiritual beliefs, states of mind, psychological development, cognitive perception, mental model, morality (integral ethics), attitudes and emotional maturity. A “change of conduct” can be seen as an alteration of the individual-exterior (“It”) entailing altruistic actions and healthy behavioral practices of self-development, unique skills, personal performance, optimal foods (integral nutrition) and daily physical exercise. “Cultural change” is the profound paradigm shift of the dominant culture’s collective-interior (“We”) like its worldview, values and lifestyles. It is my hypothesis that past ineffectual efforts by activists to create “social change” (“Its”) in our institutions and industries have failed due to their inability to transcend the mindset that has created the dysfunctional social system. Our consciousness (mindset) influences our conduct (behavior) which impacts our culture (way of life) and vice-versa in a dynamic self-reinforcing feedback loop. It is only by changing culture that the social system transforms, not the other way around like activists having been trying to do for decades. Culture is the superstructure of the social system. And without supplanting the superstructure by transcending its pathologies while incorporating its best attributes, one will never sub- vert the social system enough to cause sufficient amount of systemic stress to force it to evolve into the next civilizational tier of “higher complexity, efficiency and use of information.”8 It creates the necessary pressure point “to hunt for new possibilities, as if the whole system was searching for a new evolutionary level—not just any new level but a more successful way of life than […] before.”9—“Global Transformation.”

THEORITICAL TENET #2: Cultural Evolution Goes Through Three Major Stages: Separation, Transition And Integration

The Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS) for Radical Evolutionary Transformation” is oriented towards a cultural evolution brought about by a change of consciousness as previously mentioned. As such, it encompasses an interdisciplinary approach with many of the social sciences such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, political science, economics, history, spirituality/religion and cultural studies. It also incorporates some aspects of the physical sciences like archaeology, astronomy, biology and physics— all integrated into a new cohesive framework of evolutionary transformation modeled after systems theorists Ervin Laszlo’s “General Evolution Theory.” In their Cultural Creative book, Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson provide a brief but effective explanation of Laszlo’s depiction of human civilization’s different successful evolutionary surges to higher levels of complexity, efficiency and use of information. In such collective leaps from early hunting and gathering tribes to agrarian empires to the modern industrial age, there were transition periods—when a civilization “wanders further and further from equilibrium, it begins to take on chaotic and unpredictable fluctuations […]. The fluctuations seem to hunt for new possibilities, as if the whole system was searching for a new evolutionary level—not just any new level but a more successful way of life than it has had before.”10 Ray and Anderson illustrate how Laszlo’s “Rites of Passage as a Special Case of General Evolution The- ory,” is divided into stages of a collective rite of passage: Separation, the Between [Transition], and Inte- gration.

First, at the stage of Separation, the system undergoes a greater and greater departure from the old institutional supports and social codes. On a global scale, we can expect major losses of wealth, property, population, efficiency, and organizational effectiveness, along with a breakup of old forms: perhaps nation-states, or multinational corporations, or giant cities, or our exploitative relationship to the ecology, or our exploitation of third world poverty. At the same time, capabilities for a new way of life are being envisioned, designed, and developed […]. What makes this passage so critical from the traditional perspective is that we are undergoing it with virtually no

guidance. The wise elders who would be expected to guide our journey are caught up in the crisis themselves. This process is so epochal and so unprecedented that it is bigger than all of us. At the next stage, the Between, [Transition] the system experiences some kind of mega crisis or crises. The planet, or significant parts of it, falls into a hole […]. Tarnas believes that our current rite of passage is a transition to a new worldview, a new vision of the universe and ourselves in it. What is being forged now, he speculates, is a highly autonomous human able to participate in a meaningful universe. Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard has a similar but even more optimistic perspective. We are in a gestation process, she suggests, and if we can see ourselves from the point of view of our whole planetary body, we will recognize that “our crisis is a birth.” Many other thoughtful observers foresee a “global mind change,” an era of awakening or emergence or transformation. They believe that Western world—and in its wake, the Earth itself—is in the midst of a critical passage […]. Laszlo’s model as our map through the Between [Transition] tell us that falling into a hole is neither an automatic disaster nor an automatic springboard to a new level of integration. Rather, it’s a critical opportunity where we can search for a more adaptive and successful human society. As we’ve seen, conscious systems “hunt” and find their stable new levels much more quickly than uncon- scious systems. The question is, what aspects of our social system support an evolutionary surge to a new level, rather than falling short or falling apart? For this process to be successful, many capabilities will probably have to be built up, ones that would not be diminished too badly by the crisis phase. These capacities would probably include our collective memory, wisdom, and technological know-how; our compassion, generosity, imagina- tion, intelligence, willingness to learn, perseverance, and courage. A rite of passage should enhance these adaptive aspects of our collective self. The appearance of the [Neo-Transcendentalists (Integral Metamodernists)] and their worldview might be part of this growing capability, if they become self-aware as a subculture. 11 [Em- phasis and the 7th level, teal meme, NT/(IM) was added by me to replace the 6th level, green meme, postmodern “Cultural Creatives.”]

THEORITICAL TENET #3: Cultural Divergence Occurs At Different Degrees Of Departure From The Old World Order

Once again, Continuum X: 1-7 (Separation) refers to the “degrees of departure” from the dominant society of the western world. It involves “stepping out of the old culture’s entrancement […]. At some point in their lives, most people who become Cultural Creatives let go of what once felt sure and safe and comfortable and venture onto a new life path.” This personal process of transformation is expanded beyond the individual level onto the broader cultural landscape by paradigm shifting, developing the begin- nings of an alternative culture and creating the preconditions of collective behavior for cultural change. I’ve identified seven socio-cultural realms of departure and categorized them as follows: 1) Personal Evolution through an inner departure from the old worldview that leads to a more self-sufficient life and forging a new self-identity as a Cultural Creative (I, It, We); 2) Interpersonal Activism by living out a new way of life and “confronting the critics” as Ray and Anderson describe in their book, The Cultural Creatives (I, It, We); 3) Redefining Progress by experimenting with new forms of cultural, economic, social and political alternatives (I, It, We, Its); 4) Resocialization of Society through a massive mindshift by exposing the false “matrix” of social reality composed of “societal myths vs. societal secrets and official policies and practices vs. actual policies and practices” (I, We, Its); 5) Swaying Dissatisfied Opinion Leaders by fostering discontent among the educated and economic elites (We, Its, I); 6) Raising the Expectations of the Masses by inciting hope for a better quality of life for all (We); and 7) Defiance and Resistance due social strains by illuminating the injustices of the system and its illegitimate governance (Its). However, because most movements rarely get past this stage they end up caught in a repeating cycle of trigger and retrigger events—stuck in a never-ending feedback loop where they fail to get past “Stage 5: Per- ceived Failure” in Bill Moyer’s “8-Stage Movement Action Plan (MAP),” (see Philosophical Pillar VI for

32 more in-depth details). A cycle that has been repeating itself for the past 50 years since the emergence of Martin Luther King’s “Poor People’s Campaign” with Boomers in 1968 later known as the “Economic Jus- tice Movement” (EJM) among Gen Xers during “The Battle In Seattle” of the Anti-Corporate Globaliza- tion campaigns and right on through with the “American Autumn” by young Millennials’ income inequality campaign of the “99% vs. 1%” during the worldwide Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 as inspired by the “Arab Spring.” According to my “Grand Unified Theory of Radical Evolutionary Transformation” the primary reason that these three youth generations have failed to get past Moyer’s stage five is their unwill- ingness or inability to invest the necessary and substantial amount of time, energy and effort to engage in what I am calling “Integral Cognitive Activism,” beyond a weeklong workshop, seminar, symposium, conference or forum in order to develop the much needed cohesive vision, coherent strategy and comprehensive philosophy of “Integral Activism.” Those who acknowledge such a need and aligned themselves to such a method become “Integral Neo-Transcendentalists” creating a new collective identity through the acceptance and practice of what I call “The Dynamic Decalogue: The Ten Philosophical Pillars of Neo- Transcendentalism,” as depicted in Stage Two/Continuum Y: 1-7 within Phase I: Cultural Evolution. The “MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements,” is briefly explained below in Bill Moyer's book Doing De- mocracy.

Successful social movements typically progress through a series of eight clearly definable stages, in a process that often takes years or even decades. The Movement Action Plan’s Eight Stages Model enables activists to identify the particular stage their social movement has reached, celebrate success achieved by completing previous stages, and create effective strategies, tactics, and programs for completing the current stage and moving to the next. As they follow this process, activists are able to develop strategies to achieve short-term goals that are part of the long-term evolution to their ultimate objective. When they achieve the goals of one stage, activists can develop short-term goals, programs, and activities for the next stage, and so forth. This allows social movements organizers and activists to become movement strategists. Social movements usually address big issues, such as civil rights for African Americans, the war in Vietnam, universal health care, or corporation-dominated economic globalization. These noble goals, however, are too abstract to excite and mobilize people to action. Social movement strategies, therefore, divide their issues into a number of specific critical sub-issues and organize a sub-movement for each of them. For example, the anti-corporate economic globalization movement has been made up of numer- ous sub-movements including the sub movement against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the sub-movement against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), the sub- movement in favor of canceling Third World debt, the sub-movement against specific corporations that employ workers in sweat shop conditions, and the sub-movement that organizes fair trade programs, to name a few. The process of social movement success, therefore, involves many sub-movements that are progressing through the MAP eight stages of success. At any given time the overall movement can be identified as being in a specific MAP stage, while each of its sub-movements may be progressing through the eight stages at a different pace. This process ultimately affects the cultural, social, and political climate to the point where it becomes more costly for the powerholders to continue their policies than to change them. Even sub-movements that are defeated can contribute to this building process. Finally, when the whole movement achieves its major goal, many of the other sub-goals are automatically won, while others continue as part of a new movement.12

The following outline succinctly describes in more detail the eight stages of the Movement Action Plan (MAP) with specific guidelines by Moyer, while I provide a few historical and contemporary movement examples.

1. “The Eight Stages of Social Movement Success a) “Stage 1: Normal Times—A critical social problem exists that violates widely held values. Powerholders support problem: Their ‘Official Policies’ tout widely held values but real “Oper- ating Policies” violate those values. Public is unaware of the problem and supports Powerhold- ers. Problem/policies not a public issue.”13

b) “Stage 2: Prove the Failure of Official Institutions—Many new local opposition groups form. Use official channels: courts, government offices, commissions, hearings, etc.—to prove they don’t work. Become experts; do research.”14

c) “Stage 3: Ripening Conditions—Recognition of problem and victims grows. Public sees vic- tim’s faces. More active local groups form. Need pre-existing institutions and networks available to new movement, while 20 to 30 percent of public opposes powerholder policies.”15

d) “Stage 4: Take-Off—Trigger Event (In 1960, it was the students’ lunch counter-sits in the South that launched the Civil Rights Movement).”16 In 1999, it was the “Battle in Seattle” that launched the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement. In 2011, it was the encamp- ment of Zuccotti Park that launched Occupy Wall Street. In my opinion the latter two were re-trigger events of the broader Economic Justice Movement (EJM) spearheaded by King’s “Poor People’s Campaign” in 1968, which ended that phase with the Resurrec- tion City Encampments. “Dramatic nonviolent actions/campaigns take place. Actions show public that conditions and policies violate widely held values. Nonviolent actions repeated around the country. Problem put on the social agenda. New social movement rapidly takes off, while 40 percent of public opposes current policies/conditions.”17

e) “Stage 5: Perception of Failure—See goals unachieved, powerholders unchanged, and numbers down at demonstrations. Despair, hopelessness, burnout, dropout, seems movement ended. Emergence of negative rebel that provokes violence.”18 The Anti-Corporate Globaliza- tion (ACG) movement triggered by the “Battle in Seattle,” in 1999 entered this stage shortly after the 2000 Presidential Election protests during the Republican (RNC) and Democratic Na- tional Conventions (DNC). Attempts to replicate the size and intensity of Seattle failed in subsequent WTO, IMF and World Bank meetings in the United States and around the world. By late 2001, before the terrorist attacks of September 11, the movement as a whole experienced a perception of failure not unlike those within the Occupy movement after their encampments were shutdown nationwide and the activists failed to resurrect it to its formal mass media presence during the “May Day” protests, the July 4th Occupy National Gathering and during their first anniversary on September 17, 2012 (S-17). The subsequent year the same marquee events drew even less participants, solidifying the feeling of failure among many who were in the movement and have since dropped out.

f) “Stage 6: Majority Public Opinion—[This is the current stage of the Economic Justice Move- ment (EJM), which, once again, the Anti-Corporate Globalization sub-movement of the ‘Battle in Seattle’ by Gen Xers and the Occupy sub-movement of Millennials were retrigger events]. During this stage the majority oppose present conditions and powerholder policies. Shows how the problem and policies affect all sectors of society. Involve mainstream citizens and institutions in addressing the problem. The problem put on the political agenda. Promotion of alternatives ensues. The movement counters each new powerholder strategy. Demonology arise: powerholders promote public’s fear of alternatives and activism. Promote a paradigm shift, not just reforms. Re-trigger events happen, re-enacting Stage Four for a short period).”19 The most recent retrigger event for the “Eco- nomic Justice Movement” (EJM) was OWS in 2011 that re-enacted stage four and eventually progressed back to the current stage six, which illustrates that the EJM seems to be stuck in a movement feedback loop as it cycles between stage six back to the stage four re-trigger event 34

like the “Battle in Seattle” by Gen Xers that moved through stages five and six only to recycle back to stage four again by Millennials with the Occupy movement, which has stalled in stage six and now frustratingly awaits its own re-trigger event (like the 2016 Women’s March and subsequent actions against President Donald Trump) back to stage four for a short period of time only to try to move through stages five and six in the hopes of breaking this cycle, a cycle they, like so many activists in the past, fail to recognize by claiming that theirs is a new movement that requires time for further development; therefore, take a slow and steady approach, when in fact they fail to realize it’s been a 50 year feedback loop cycle. There are several reasons for this falla- cy: i) a lack of strong leadership due to being extremely anti-hierarchy; ii) an absence of a new philosophical framework , a common neo-progressive agenda and coherent strategy due to an aversion to grand narratives; iii) the virtually non-existent social change organizations, change of consciousness campaigns, a comprehensive activist infrastructure and a common nonviolent code of conduct as a result of excessive “anything goes” pluralism; and finally; iv) the failure to successfully compose a cohesive vision. In response of such needs I’ve created the integral vision of the “Society of the Third Millennium (S3K 1.0, 2.0, 3.0), and the “Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS) within the new intellectual foundation of “The Dynamic Decalogue.” The question now remains: will activists have the vision to see it themselves?

g) “Stage 7: Success—Large majority oppose current policies and no longer fear alternative. Many powerholders split off and change positions. End-game process: Powerholders change policies (it’s more costly to continue old policies than to change) are voted out of office, or slow, invisible attrition. New laws and policies are introduced. Powerholders try to make minimal reforms, while movement demands social change.”20

h) “Stage 8: Continuing The Struggle—Extend successes (e.g., even stronger civil rights laws). Op- pose attempts at backlash. Promote paradigm shift. Focus on other sub-issues. Recog- nize/celebrate successes so far.”21

2. “The Characteristics of the Movement Process a) “Social movements are composed of many sub-goals and sub-movements, each in their own MAP stage.

b) “Strategy and tactics are different for each sub-movement, according to the MAP stage each is in.

c) “Keep advancing sub-movements through the Eight Stages.

d) “Each sub-movement is focused on a specific goal (e.g., for civil rights movements: restaurants, voting, public accommodation). All of the sub-movements promote the same paradigm shift (e.g., shift from hard to soft energy policy). Public must be convinced three times: i) that there is a problem (Stage Four); ii); to oppose current conditions and policies (Stag- es Four, Six, Seven); iii) to want, no longer fear, alternatives (Stages Six, Seven).”22 [I believe the youth rebellions in the sixties by the Boomers, then Gen Xers’ in the late 1990s and by early 2000s with Millennials’ in 2011 could be indicative of convincing the public three times during three different generational youth uprisings, making us all primed for the next stage for profound social change].

3. “The Strategic Program of Stage 6: Win Majority Public Opinion a) “Massive public education and conversion.

b) “Engagement of grassroots organizations.

c) Redefine the problem to show how it affects all segments of society.

d) “Build a broad-based movement organizational structure. [This is something activists have failed to do over and over and over again.]

e) “Make effective use of mainstream political and social institutions and processes.

f) “Selective use of nonviolent action activities.

g) “Citizen involvement programs.

h) “Respond to ‘re-trigger events.’”23 [This is another problem activists have failed to resolve: how to effectively capitalize on re-trigger events to create a compelling case for the proposed alternatives. The reason for this is the enormity of the endeavor that requires lots of time, energy, pa- tience and perseverance. Not only that but it is not assigned its due significance because it is usually viewed as an unimportant or unromantic effort, therefore, unacknowledged as an activist action like those of street protests and marches.

4. “Strategic Goals Of Stage 6 a) “Keep the issue in the public spotlight and on society’s agenda over time.

b) “Remember that the movement’s primary audience is the general citizenry, not the powerholders.

c) “Identify each of the movement’s key demands and their respective sub-movements and develop separate strategies and tactics for each.

d) “Guide the movement through the dynamics of conflict with the powerholders.

e) “Promote alternatives that go beyond mere reforms and include a paradigm shift.”24 [Once again, this has been our collective failing and one of the reasons we remain caught in this re-trigger event cycle].

5. “Twelve Phases of Stage 6 a) “The issue is put on society’s social agenda—and kept there.

b) “The movement wins a majority of public opinion against current powerholder policies.

c) “The powerholders change their strategy.” [The police crackdown of Occupy encampments nationwide instead of its two month tolerance of occupied public spaces by activists].

d) “The movement counters each new powerholder strategy.” [This is where the past OWS sub- movement was stuck in within the EJM. This is another reason why activists fall short: their inability to create an effective counter-strategy, which it then resorts back to rallies, marches and protests at marquee events and dates like the “May Day” and past movements’ anniversaries or regresses back to its silos and whatever new issue-oriented mini- movements emerge like “Occupy Homes,” “Strike Debt,” and “Occupy Sandy,” which were all noble efforts but, like so many social movements and sub-movements of the past, they do not move the movement forward past stage six].

e) “Many of the powerholders’ new strategies are more difficult for them to achieve, thereby weak- ening their ability to continue their policies in the long run.” [Today, the EJM and current Women’s March sub-movement has yet to reach this stage of collective development. The best way to achieve this phase is to implement the Seven Strategic and Interde- pendent Initiatives (SSII) to be explained later in this section.]

f) “Create strategic campaigns.

g) “Expand the issue and goals. h) “Win solid public opinion against current powerholder policies. i) “Promote solutions and a paradigm shift. j) “Win a majority of public opinion on the movement’s proposed alternatives. k) “Put the issue on the political and legal agendas. l) “The powerholders make dramatic shifts in their positions.”25

6. “Stage Seven Goal For Success a) “Wage a successful endgame strategy to achieve one or more major demands. [This is one of the objectives within S3K, The Dynamic Decalogue, GUTS and the SSII].

b) “Have activists recognize and celebrate their success.

c) “Shift the energy of the movement to create the ongoing conditions for sustained and effective citizen-based democracy on other issues.

d) “Convince both activists and the public about the need to change the fundamental paradigm that underlies the issue.”26

7. “Stage Eight Goals For Continuing The Struggle a) “Follow-up to protect and expand the success.

b) “Re-focus the movement on other demands.

c) “Promote new social consciousness, new issues, and new social movements.

d) “Move beyond reform to social change by: 1) increasing the conscious awareness of people and empowering them to become life-long change agents involved in citizen-based democracy; 2) creating ongoing grassroots action organizations and networks; 3) broad- ening the analysis, issues, and goals of all social movements; 4) advocating alternatives and a cultural worldview or paradigm shift consistent with the transformation from the growth and prosperity era to an era of ecological sustainability and justice.”27

After reading the preceding Map Model for social movements, you can see why I incorporated it into my GUTS framework for radical evolutionary transformation by offering an explanation why modern movements may succeed on the issue-oriented level but fail to bring about fundamental social change that can best be achieved through the holistic cognitive activism and integral coherence implementation of the “Ten Philosophical Pillars of Neo-Transcendentalism—The Dynamic Decalogue.”

THEORITICAL TENET #4: Modern Revolutionary Movements Repeatedly Stuck In A Retrigger Event Loop Leading To Failure

Revolutions in the past have often been engines of evolution especially during the Enlightenment (1650- 1800), which has also been dubbed in art history books as the age of revolutions that supplanted monarchy and ushered in representative democracies in America and rest of the developed world of western civilization as the dominant new form of human governance. However its origins goes further back in time. “The contemporary activist is the culmination of several thousand years of human experimentation in the social techniques of collective liberation,” this according to Micah White, author of The End of Protest: A New Play- book For Revolution. In chapter six titled, “The Point of Protest,” he writes the following passages:

[…] You are a partisan in the revolution: a war that has been raging since the people first demanded democracy over 121 generations ago. The earliest records of our rebellion are 3,646 years old and document when protesters toppled a pharaoh during the Middle Kingdom of ancient Egypt [recorded in] an

37 ancient papyrus known as The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All, written between 1980 BC and 1630 BC…. Activism has existed since the dawn of inegalitarian society. Still, today’s activist is a modern arche- type. The word “activism” is derived in English from the adjective “active,” and the French actif, which originally meant, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “a life or lifestyle characterized by external acts of piety rather than by contemplation.” The emphasis on external acts persists within political activism today. Activism as a concept was popularized by Rudolf Euchen, a German philosopher who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1908. Eucken was the first person to describe his ethical life philosophy as aktivismus. In Eucken’s philosophy, activism was “the theory or belief that truth is arrived at through action or active striving after the spiritual life.”[37] An early commentator on Eucken explained that “activism has affinities with Pragmatisms, especially on its negative side…. Both agree that action is the key to truth.”[38] In 1920, Henry Lane Eno published Activism, a philosophical treatise on the concept that gives a glimpse into often unstated ideological assumptions that have migrated from philosophical activism of political activism. Eno writes that activism is “essentially realistic” and that it “assumes the ‘objective’ validity and ‘real’ being of entities and relations, as well as the fundamental relational com- plexes of space, time, number, and change.”[39] This emphasis on action and change extended to the political arena…. The activist values the material world to the degree that it aids efforts to make change through action. The immediate challenge for the activist is therefore how to be active and what actions to take. The activist seeks tactics and behaviors believed to have the power to manifest revolutionary change.

WHY ACTIVISM?

You were born into a world in which injustice and inequality reign. Activism is the solution. When positive social change is necessary but blocked, suffering grows and so too does the social pressure to break through. Activism is crucial to a healthy society because revolutions drive social progress; as Karl Marx observed, “revolutions are the locomotives of history.”[41] Nearly all the good in this world is the result of hard-fought protest. Without disobedience that spiraled into full-blown insurrection, there would be no democracy. Every right you enjoy today was the result of past activism. As Wendel Phillips, the American abolitionist, said in 1848, “Revolution is the only thing, the only power, that ever worked out freedom for any people.”[42] In other words, no freedom has ever been given freely. Protest is the price we pay for democracy. Progress is made by protest. Since early modernity, and with increasing tempo following the eight- eenth-century French Revolution, protests have inaugurated new phases of the human saga. Revo- lutions—what Victor Hugo calls “the larva of civilization”—are vital for the healthy renewal of the social order.43 Protest release the energy necessary for breaking out of old social patterns, and revolution cement these new patterns into daily life. Protests, like wars and disruptive technological invention, are agents of social change. Revolutions are signs of history being made. Striving toward revolution in one of the few ways that seemingly powerless people can shape the future. Protests are vital to political, social and cultural health. Examining social movements, the sociologist Hank Johnson calls them “integral to keeping political elites attentive.”[44] Suppressing protest is ultimately more dangerous to the suppressor than the people, and revolutions are close at hand whenever power ends the possibility of effective protest. The delay of a necessary revolution is a primary source of transformational violence. Or as John Kennedy famously put it: “Those who make peaceful evolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”[45] Recognition of the positive and productive role of protest has underpinned American democracy since its founding. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third president, was candid about the value of rebellion. “I hold that a little rebellion now and then is good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical,” he wrote in a letter to James Madison in the years preceding the French Revolution. Jefferson then advised

Madison, who played a significant role in drafting the United States Constitution and United States Bill of Rights, to endorse only moderate punishments for insurrections and uprisings: “Honest republican governors [should be] so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much.”46 In a letter to another recipient, Jefferson exclaims, “God forbid we should be twenty years without a rebellion. What country can preserve its liberties if the rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”[47] In fact, this lax view toward punishing protest was widespread among the Founding Fathers. Liberty depends on resistance even when, especially when, resistance threatens to overthrow the status quo. Not just in the United States is the history of democracy the history of revolution. “Representa- tive democracy was not established through a prolonged process of peaceful reform but rather by revolutionary means,” explains the historian Brian Roper in The History of Democracy. He continues: “A series of revolutionary upheavals…. from the first Dutch revolt in 1565 to the end of the American Civil War in 1865, transformed previously existing states and established representative democracy.”48 In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson, writing during the Cold War, the occasional necessity of revolution is “an old American belief.” Jackson writes, “We cannot ignore the fact that our own government originated in revolution, and is legitimate only if overthrow by force can sometimes be justified, and they bravely proclaimed their belief in the document basic to our freedom.”49 The nineteenth president, Ulysses S. Grant, writes in blunt terms: “the right of Revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression if they are strong enough, either by withdrawing from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.”50 As complex societies evolve, social inequalities manifest that lead to imbalance, injustice and conflict. Left unresolved, these societal tensions build toward a dangerous conflagration and ultimately herald the transformation of the social order. The eruption of protests, and the movements that arise when defiance becomes contagious, are a method for the people to resolve these tensions, ushering in large-scale change. The lack of effective forms of protest only brings society closer to civil violence. No technique of suppression can prevent the new spirit from breaking through the degenerating social order. Today’s rulers would be wise to heed the 1786 advice of John Jay, one of the Founding Fathers, to respond to insurrection with reform: “by attacking the ‘disease’ that lies behind them rather than suppressing its ‘symptoms.’” The theorist Lyford P. Edwards concentrates on the crucial role revolution plays in destroying “those institutions of a given society which interfere with the attainment of one or more of the four elemental human wishes.”54 According to Edwards, humans crave new experience, security, recognition and response (touch and love). Protests are the expression of the human spirit desiring these elemental wishes and freeing itself from the fetters of convention. Perhaps the rebellious people are acting out of a desire for a new social experience, a new way of organizing or interacting with each other. Or maybe, as in the case of Mohamed Bouazizi who triggered the Arab Spring, they hunger for economic security and recognition from their government. Underlying every revolution is a wish that is being rejected, ignored or deferred. A century ago, the German political philosopher and influential Communist theorist Friedrich Engels knew this to be true: “wherever there is revolutionary convulsion, there must be some social want in the background which is prevented by outworn institutions from satisfying itself.”55 Those who suppress protest in defense of pre-existing institutions are interfering with a natural (and beautiful) process that is absolutely necessary for the long-term vitality of society.28

As Micah White has demonstrated the overthrow of unjust and authoritarian social systems, through revolution not reform, has been the most expedient approach for swift and sweeping social change. Howev- er, one of the issues concerning activism today is the need to create a common terminology in order to create higher levels of consensus building by clarifying loaded words like revolution otherwise they clutter our ability to clearly define our overarching goal, pace, degree and means of change as they have in the past only 39 to muddy our efforts with endless dialogue, discussions and debate that leads to inaction or worse yet, re- sorting to unimaginative and conventional approaches for change. As such, the word “revolution” has many different definitions from various perspectives. In the realm of sociology and political science, it is define as the violent overthrow of a government regime. During American election years, it is the victory of an unlikely insurgent candidate that wins the presidency like Democratic President Barack Obama in 2008 on the conventional Left and Republican President Donald Trump in 2016 from the conservative Right. In business, it is the invention of a new gadget that supposedly “revolutionizes” the industry. White offers his own definition that is partially aligned with my own.

We live in dangerous times, when large-scale social transformation is necessary. Scientists, technologist, mystics, artists and teachers agree: socio-political change in our lifetime is crucial for the survival of the human species. The constructive failure of Occupy Wall Street teaches the people to invent new forms of protest in order to break out of the stagnation of the period between revolutions. The end of protest is a call to revolutionize activism […]. The preconditions for revolution are present: income inequality, disaffection of intellectuals who are burdened by educational debt, corruption among elites and inefficiency in government, ruling class that has lost self-confidence, looming financial collapse, and the excessive use of force against rebels whenever protests occur.25 But power has adapted to the approaches that have dominated activism for the past half-century or more. The old tactics must be abandoned. The old assumptions about how change is made are leading us astray. This is a problem for everyone who wishes for a better world in his or her lifetime. The solution is innovation. And the reason for optimism is that when activists innovate their tactics, revolutionary moments are often not far behind […].

WHAT IS REVOLUTION?

Revolution is a grand overturning, a magical moment when the status quo is heaved long enough for a new way of being to emerge. Many revolutions last only a minute and take place in the mind as an epiphany that shatters an old way of thinking. Others hold for weeks and the epiphany spreads from mind to mind, taking the form of a social movement. And only a very few revolutions cement into a permanently new social order. Revolutions are a dynamic and complex human phenomenon. Although unpredictable—revolutions tend to appear spontaneous and are therefore notoriously difficult to forecast—they follow discernible patterns and obey physical, psychological and biological limits. Or, as Engels explains, “a revolution is a pure phenomenon of nature, which is led more accordingly to physical laws than according to the rules which in ordinary times determine the development of society.”56 Some of these patterns are eternal and others are transitory. Revolutions share many characteristics while always manifest- ing differently, distinctly throughout history. The study of revolution is therefore complicated by the challenge of defining the subject: What is revolution? Previous studies of revolution distinguish the phenomenon using examples that exclude most of humanity’s historical record. The conservative political scientist Samuel Huntington, for example, argues that “revolution is an aspect of modernization. It is not something which can occur in any type of society at any period in its history. It is not a universal category but rather a historically limited phenomenon.”17 This focus on a “historically limited” concept of revolution justifies an overemphasis on study- ing Great Revolutions, all of which are mass, modern and secular. Revolutions that do not fit this model are ignored. “It is true that one type of revolution, namely the large-scale transformative revolution, is a phenomenon of the modern age, or to give it a proper name, of the age of Europeism,” wrote the Czech-British sociologist Jaroslav Krejei in 1983.” This Europeanist approach is backward- looking, privileges one type of revolution (Marxist-Communist), and is ultimately unhelpful to our eternal pursuit of the next planetary uprising. Rather than narrow the field of study to the preceding 250 years, a robust, unified, general theory of revolution encompasses all of human history: an- tiquity, pre-modernity, modernity and ultramodernity.

The definition of revolution that I advocate was first proposed in 1927 by Lyford P. Edwards, who writes, “Revolution is a change brought about not necessarily by force and violence, whereby one system of legality is terminated and another originated.”59 Edwards’s inclusive definition fits a wider range of human history and draws our attention to revolution’s chief characteristic: the transfer of sovereignty and the establishment of a new legal regime. The revolutionary overthrow of the status quo and founding of a legal system is, by definition, illegal and until it succeeds. Revolutionary activism is any attempt by protesters to make the illegal legal or the legal illegal. Activists may intend to reverse a single unjust law, or their goal may to be overturn a whole system. Sometimes activists may use one law to overturn another. Acknowledging that our purpose as activists is to challenge the legal regime explains why all protesters, even practitioners of unarmed non-violent revolution, are subject to suppression. All societies will fight to resist revolutionary change. The pacifist preacher Martin Luther King Jr.’s tactics of civil disobedience against racial segregation, for example, were equated with high crimes. Even moderate, non- racist whites at the time condemned King’s novel tactics. While imprisoned for protesting against racial segregation, King eloquently defended his non-violent methods in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Asked to explain how he could justify breaking the law, King distinguished between just laws that must be obeyed and unjust laws that must be disobeyed: “You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws…. One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”60 There is no way to fundamentally change society without disobeying unjust laws and disturbing existing social structures. Still, the mature activist acknowledges that misery may result from any sincere attempt at overthrowing the ruling order and that such a step must never be taken lightly. There is no such thing as a painless transfer of power, even if it unfolds without bloodshed. On the path toward revolution there always lies the risk of ruin.29

Although I and the Neo-Transcendentalists (Integral Metamodernists) do not advocate violence, you can see that nonviolent revolutionary movements are integral to cultural evolution. However, part of the problem in the past has been the concept of “revolution” itself. It has a long and convoluted history lending itself to multiple definitions and interpretations, which has led to schisms in different modes of progressive thought and approaches to activism for societal transformation—revolution. And despite Micah White’s own preference for Edwards’s definition “… whereby one system of legality is terminated and another originated,” this is still only a partial characterization—true but partial. For me, a more comprehensive definition of revolution is required—Radical Evolutionary Transformation—which includes at the bare mini- mum the four profound perspectives of reality within Ken Wilber’s IOS/AQAL theory of everything and in doing so, would transform the traditional notion of revolution from strictly a change of the “Social System” (Its) the legal, political, economic industries and social institutions to also include “Cultural Change” (We) the worldview, values and lifestyle to a “Change of Consciousness” (I) of the personal beliefs, principles and intentions to a Change of Conduct (It)of individual behavior and practices. Anything less now is just hollow reform. And although reform in the past may have had its positive impacts (as the next section will illustrate), at this point in time, what is needed now to avoid near-term human extinction is profound societal transformation here and abroad—“to make the world anew.” This is acknowledged in GUTS. But a reassessment of today’s activism had to be done and reflected in Continuum Y: 1-7 (Transition) which illustrates the degree of reevaluation of our current society or the “amount of analysis,” used for integral cognitive activism. In addition, I’ve identified and synthesized seven psycho-social spheres of analysis and categorized them as follows: 1) Integral Assessment Of Our Present Pre- dicament to determine the pace or rate of change required (Philosophical Pillar I); 2) Integral Analysis For The Crux Of The Converging Crises in order to identify the depth or type of change required by analyzing the root causes to avoid creating symptoms-oriented-solutions (Pillar II); 3) Integral Power Mapping To Deconstruct The 41

Dysfunctional Social System To Determine Common Opposition & Obstacles (Pillar III); 4) Integral Solutions, Strategies & Sustainable Action by acknowledging all stakeholders and developing New Millennium Memes & Mandates to avert apocalypse (Pillar IV); 5) Integral Global Goal—“Abolish Empire & Establish Earth Community”—The Grand Imperative to mend the fragmentation of neo-progressive forces everywhere (Pillar V); 6) The next five pillars concentrates in the “how to” beginning with development of an Integral Theory & Grand Unified Strategy (GUS) For Radical Evolutionary Transformation (Pillar VI); 7) Next, is the development of the Integral Myths & Ethos of Evolutionary Transformation by researching past visions, mythos, future scenarios, metaphysical truths, intuitive wisdom to integrate best aspects of spiritual and secular perspectives of reality to form a new “cosmology”(Pillar VII); 8) Integral Envisioning & Exhibition of Earth Community as the new vision for a “Society of the Third Millennium (Pillar VIII); 9) Integral Proclamations, Policies & Plans and for global, national and local implementation (Pillar IX); 10) The development of a Unified Mega Movement-Campaign (UMC) by developing integral leaders and organizations (Pillar X). It is my belief that by “synthesizing the synthesis” of Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory and its applications from the subsequent emergence of various “Integral Fields and Disciplines,” that the “Dynamic Decalogue” and “GUTS” attempts to integrate them, creating what I am calling the “Metamodern Method of the Second Enlightenment.” It also synthesizes such synthetic works of fellow integral evolutionaries like Steve McIntosh’s application of “Polarity Theory: The Principle of Polar Interdependence” to depolarize American politics by creating an evolutionary approach, “Value Metabolism,” which “persuades people to add new values to their existing set of values,” to break the political impotence of (green meme) Postmodernism, much like the “scientific method” of Modernism (orange meme) broke the constrains of the “the oppression of extreme law and order” (mythic- amber) Traditionalism, which ushered in the first Enlightenment and the “Age of Revolution,” when humanity transcended monarchy as the dominant mode of human governance with the emergence of representative republics. Now we stand at the threshold of going beyond the evolutionary staging post that is democracy.

THEORITICAL TENET #5: Continuum Y: 1-7/PP: 1-10 Solves The Stage 5 Retrigger Event Loop Of The Movement Action Plan (MAP)

Continuum Z: 1-7 (Integration) alludes to the “units of unification” to create community convergence centers with Cultural Creatives who have now become Neo-Transcendentalists by adopting the results of Con- tinuum Y: 1-7 otherwise known as “The Dynamic Decalogue” to build a sustainable infrastructure for cultural change and launching a unified mega-movement campaign for profound political transformation by consolidating our resources to continue and accelerate the development of the following seven sustainable action-structures: 1) Create communities of social change with convergence centers of art, business and spirituality for post-carbon relocalization and in preparation for a nationwide general strike. 2) Build various collaborative infrastructures for coalescence. 3) Implement the comprehensive plan for cultural transmission of our values into mainstream society. 4) Construct a new integral social system based on cooperatives in art, activism, permaculture, business, spirituality, youth and elderly alliances for cultural, economic, social and political self-development. 5) Create new social institutions to nurture and sustain the movement for fundamental change. 6) Develop a national grassroots political force based on a common citizen agenda of Deconstruction/Reconstruction. 7) Launch a Uni- fied Mega-Movement Campaign that breaks the retrigger feedback loop of Bill Moyer’s MAP stage 5 of social movements by the successful advancement through stages 6, 7 and 8. The Dynamic Decalogue (PP: 1- 10/Transition—Continuum Y: 1-7) of Integral Activism solves the failed stage five [Separation— Continuum X: 7] of the Movement Action Plan (MAP) by developing a new way of life at a higher ecological and evolutionary level of human existence through the co-creation of a cohesive vision, coherent strategy and comprehensive philosophy of evolutionary transformation. And so, how do we translate this information into a plan to produce a profound paradigm shift that changes the dominant society’s values? In essence, a “Social Synthesis Strategy” for cultural evolution that precedes the structural revolution necessary.

THEORITICAL TENET #6: A Unified Mega-Movement Campaign (UMC) Based On A National Unifying Purpose (NUP) Is Needed

A Unified Mega-Movement Campaign (UMC) is a Neo-Transcendental crusade to unify both the consciousness and social movements and their overlapping constituency called the Cultural Creatives—the 80 million Americans who adhere to the green meme, postmodern worldview of pluralism, relativism, diversity, multiculturalism, deconstruction and antihierarchy but are ready to transcend it’s existential problem of political impotency by accepting the Dynamic Decalogue to make the leap from first-tier consciousness to second-tier, teal meme, metamodern, integral thinking. However, a National Unifying Purpose (NUP) is needed (Continuum Y: 7) as the engine to create the necessary activist infrastructure for sustained convergent actions (Integration—Continuum Z: 1-7) that will serve as the new foundation of the alternative social system (S3K 1.0). We begin with Big Hairy Audacious Goals that is “commitment to challenging, audacious—and often risky—goals and projects toward which a visionary group [the Integral Neo-Transcendentalists] channels its efforts to [stimulate democratic and ecologically sustainable progress].” A BHAG is clear and compelling and serves as a unifying focal point of effort—often creating immense team spirit. It “engages people—it reaches out and grabs them in the gut. It is tangible, energizing, highly focused. People ‘get it’ right away; it takes little or no explanation… It has a clear finish line, so the organization can know when it has achieved the goal; people like to shoot for finish lines.” A perfect example was U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s proclamation on May 25, 1961, “that this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.” According to the authors, “Given the odds, such a bold commitment was, at the time, outrageous. But that’s part of what made it such a powerful mechanism for getting the United States, still groggy from the 1950’s and the Eisenhower era, moving vigorously forward.”30 All of the proposed integral solutions can be rolled into one major strategic initiative with multiple rip- ple effects that acts as the marshaling power of an awe-inspiring National Unifying Purpose (NUP). It has the potential of bridging the divide that usually fragments progressives within the 4 different activists roles (rebel, reformer, citizen, change agent), and the five different activist parameters (local interest, idealism versus pragmatism, radical change versus moderate, militant versus moderate advocacy, and the six types of thought processes: socioeconomic, identity politics, environmentalists, civil libertarian, spiritual, and antiauthoritarian). Not to mention the potential of creating a conservative and liberal convergence ex- pounded by Ralph Nader’s book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance To Dismantle The Corporate State. What could mend this division—the Apollo Alliance Project reconfigured as S3K 2.0—The Post-Carbon Third Industrial Revolution as advocated by Jeremy Rifkin and already begun by Germany (which gets 75% of the energy from renewables) and other European countries in 2008.

THEORITICAL TENET #7: Integral Coherence Implementation Is The Local, State & National Application Of The Dynamic Decalogue

“Integral coherence” is defined by Alan Watkins, co-author of Wicked & Wise, as “… applying the integral map in a coherent fashion … coherence between the interior and exterior, between all four quadrants. It’s applying integral understanding into effective implementation.” I take this concept a bit further by making it a designation of degree of integral implementation—the local, state and national vertical development and integration. Building a new alternative social system (Integration—Continuum Z: 1-7) requires applying the Dynamic Decalogue at the local, state and national levels—Integral Coherence Imple- mentation—that acts as both a catalyst and chain reaction for the mass mobilization of society. So where to start? And what existing mechanism, organization or movement generally operates in all three levels? The best is the current “Transition Towns” UK movement or “Transition US,” as it is known in America. With 161 initiatives in over 37 states its best positioned to usher in the fundamental pillars of S3K 1.0—“Community Resilience through Post-Carbon Relocalization.” However, to maximize their mission, create a greater sense of urgency and aligned itself with the current socio-economic concerns of income inequality, the corruption of money in politics and re-

43 lated issues of the social and economic justice movements they should partner up with the remnants of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). In similar fashion, Transition US could provide Occupy with the components missing like a nascent activist infrastructure with their 161 initiatives in the 37 states. And to help increase those numbers both movements could partner up with spiritual progressives all across America by sharing spaces in their churches, organizations and networks like Society of Friends (Quakers) and Unitarian Universalists (over 1,000 churches throughout the United States). All three can converge to launch Occupy 3.0 as mentioned before to fulfill all of the overlapping values, objectives and goals. However, once again, all this will require a catalyst to create a chain reaction. The general definition of critical mass refers “to the size or amount of something that is required before an activity or event can take place,” this according to Wikipedia.

In social dynamics, critical mass is a sufficient number of adopters of an innovation in a social system so that the rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining and creates further growth. It is an aspect of the theory of diffusion of innovations, written extensively on by Everett Rogers in his book Diffusion of Innovations.[1] The term is borrowed from nuclear physics and in that field it refers to the amount of a substance needed to start a chain reaction. Social factors influencing critical mass may involve the size, interrelatedness and level of communication in a society or one of its subcultures. Another is social stigma, or the possibility of public advocacy due to such a factor. Critical mass may be closer to majority consensus in political circles, where the most effective posi- tion is more often that held by the majority of people in society. In this sense, small changes in public consensus can bring about swift changes in political consensus, due to the majority-dependent effectiveness of certain ideas as tools of political debate. Critical mass is a concept used in a variety of contexts, including physics, group dynamics, politics, public opinion, and technology. The concept of critical mass was originally created by game theorist Thomas Schelling and sociologist Mark Granovetter to explain the actions and behaviors of a wide range of people and phenomenon. The concept was first established (although not explicitly named) in Schelling's essay about racial segregation in neighborhoods, published in 1971 in the Journal of Mathematical Sociology,[2] and later refined in his book, Micromotives and Macrobehavior, published in 1978.[3] He did use the term "critical density" with regard to pollution in his "On the Ecology of Micromotives".[4] Mark Granovetter, in his essay "Thresh- old models of collective behavior", published in the American Journal of Sociology in 1978[5] worked to so- lidify the theory.[6] Everett Rogers later cites them both in his important work Diffusion of Innovations, in which critical mass plays an important role.31

The tipping point another term to describe “critical mass” but in a more psycho-social context. Once again, according to Wikipedia, “It is that magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire.”

The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference is the debut book by Malcolm Gladwell, first published by Little Brown in 2000. Gladwell defines a tipping point as "the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point".[1] The book seeks to explain and describe the "mysterious" sociological changes that mark everyday life. As Gladwell states, "Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread like viruses do".[2] The examples of such changes in his book include the rise in popularity and sales of Hush Puppies shoes in the mid-1990s and the steep drop in New York City's crime rate after 1990. Malcolm Gladwell describes the "three rules of epidemics" (or the three "agents of change") in the tipping points of epidemics. "The Law of the Few", or, as Malcolm Gladwell states, "The success of any kind of social epi- demic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social

44 gifts".[3] According to Malcolm Gladwell, economists call this the "80/20 Principle, which is the idea that in any situation roughly 80 percent of the 'work' will be done by 20 percent of the participants" (see Pareto Principle).[4] These people are described in the following ways: Connectors are the people in a community who know large numbers of people and who are in the habit of making introductions. A connector is essentially the social equivalent of a computer network hub. They usually know people across an array of social, cultural, professional, and economic circles, and make a habit of introducing people who work or live in different circles. They are people who "link us up with the world... people with a special gift for bringing the world together".[5] They are "a handful of people with a truly extraordinary knack [... for] making friends and acquaintances".[6] Malcolm Gladwell characterizes these individuals as having social networks of over one hundred people. To illustrate, he cites the following examples: the midnight ride of Paul Revere, Milgram's experiments in the small world problem, the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" triv- ia game, Dallas businessman Roger Horchow, and Chicagoan Lois Weisberg, a person who understands the concept of the weak tie. Gladwell attributes the social success of Connectors to the fact that "their ability to span many different worlds is a function of something intrinsic to their personality, some combination of curiosity, self-confidence, sociability, and energy".[7] Mavens are "information specialists", or "people we rely upon to connect us with new information".[4] They accumulate knowledge, especially about the marketplace, and know how to share it with others. Gladwell cites Mark Alpert as a prototypical Maven who is "almost pathologically helpful", further adding, "he can't help himself".[8] In this vein, Alpert himself concedes, "A Maven is someone who wants to solve other people's problems, generally by solving his own".[8] According to Gladwell, Mavens start "word-of-mouth epidemics" due to their knowledge, social skills, and ability to communicate.[9] As Malcolm Gladwell states, "Mavens are really information brokers, sharing and trading what they know".[10] Salesmen are "persuaders", charismatic people with powerful negotiation skills. They tend to have an indefinable trait that goes beyond what they say, which makes others want to agree with them. Malcolm Gladwell's examples include California businessman Tom Gau and news anchor Peter Jen- nings, and he cites several studies about the persuasive implications of non-verbal cues, including a headphone nod study (conducted by Gary Wells of the University of Alberta and Richard Petty of the University of Missouri) and William S. Condon's cultural microrhythms study. The Stickiness Factor: The specific content of a message that renders its impact memorable. Pop- ular children's television programs such as Sesame Street and Blue's Clues pioneered the properties of the stickiness factor, thus enhancing effective retention of educational content as well as entertainment value. The Power of Context: Human behavior is sensitive to and strongly influenced by its environment. As Malcolm Gladwell says, "Epidemics are sensitive to the conditions and circumstances of the times and places in which they occur".[11] For example, "zero tolerance" efforts to combat minor crimes such as fare-beating and vandalism and the New York subway led to a decline in more violent crimes city-wide. Gladwell describes the bystander effect, and explains how Dunbar's number plays into the tipping point, using Rebecca Wells' novel Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, evangelist John Wesley, and the high-tech firm W. L. Gore and Associates. Malcolm Gladwell also discusses what he dubs the rule of 150, which states that the maximum number of individuals in a society or group that someone can have real social relationships with is 150. [12] Scientific: Some of Malcolm Gladwell's analysis as to why the phenomenon of the "tipping point" occurs (particularly in relation to his idea of the "law of the few") and its unpredictable elements is based on the 1967 small-world experiment by social psychologist Stanley Milgram.[16] Milgram distribut- ed letters to 160 students in Nebraska, with instructions that they be sent to a stockbroker in Boston (not personally known to them) by passing the letters to anyone else that they believed to be socially closer to the target. The study found that it took an average of six links to deliver each letter. Of particular interest to Gladwell was the finding that just three friends of the stockbroker provided the final link

for half of the letters that arrived successfully. [17] This gave rise to Gladwell's theory that certain types of people are key to the dissemination of information.32

However, much preparations and groundwork needs to be done and integrated on the local, state and national levels like dominoes being set up, to make sure that the “spark” does not fizzle out but instead “catches fire” all across America by applying the ten philosophical pillars of the Dynamic Decalogue as tem- plate for vertical development and integration in all three areas.

THEORITICAL TENET #8: A Unified Mega-Movement Campaign (UMC) Must Democratically Create An Alternative Governing Body

As stated before, Phase II: Structural Revolution refers to a massive social reengineering of our entire societal structure through the most ambitious and awe-inspiring public policy agenda since the founding of our country. First, through a national cleansing of all the maladaptive institutions as depicted in Continuum A: Deconstruction, then a profound rebuilding from a new sustainable foundation described in Continuum B: Re- construction in the “Grand Unified Platform (GUP): A Common Ground Agenda for the People” as described in detail in the Appendix. Continuum B: Reconstruction will continue the foundational reengineering of our economy by building upon the new economic pillars. This dramatic downscaling of the war machine to its orchestrated obsolescence will yield billions of dollars of surplus funds to finance the building of a new renewable energy infrastructure for the Post-Carbon “Third Industrial Revolution” (S3K 2.0). All of this can only be carried out through the formation of an alternative governing body—the Continental Congress 3.0—consisting of 870 (one male, one female) Independent citizens in the House of Representatives, 100 senators, nine new Supreme Court Justices, President, Vice-President and it’s government cabinet like the Conservative/Libertarian 2009 Continental Congress, the Progressive Continental Congress 2.0 and the Green Shadow Cabinet. All of which, could be publically announced by such a new political force conven- ing a new Constitutional Convention to reinvent government by drafting new amendments to get money out of politics, rectify income inequality and provide a new national mission to reengineer our social system.

THEORITICAL TENET #9: The Grand Imperative To Abolish Empire And Establish Earth Community Is The Integral Planetary Goal

We need a worldwide Marshal Plan (Global Transformation—Continuum C: Dynamic Equilibrium) like the Post-Carbon “Third Industrial Revolution (TIR),” with one all-encompassing global goal to survive the converging calamities coming our way. It must be a fight of the first order, much like the wicked and moral- ly reprehensible problem of slavery. This new “Grand Imperative” must become the equally predominant purpose for all people throughout the planet: to abolish Empire and establish Earth Community. What makes this the “Integral Global Goal” is that it addresses and encompasses the four quadrants of Pillar One “Inte- gral Identification of Problems,” Pillar Two “Integral Analysis of Root Causes of Problems,” Pillar Three “Integral Power Mapping of American Empire,” and Pillar Four “Integral Solutions, Memes and Mandates.” David C. Korten, author of The Great Turning, describes the source of our aberrant system as “the destructive and oppressive nature of the global corporate economy,” which is “merely one manifestation of […] ‘Empire’: the organization of society through [dominator] hierarchy and violence that has largely held sway for the past 5,000.” Korten elaborates on this concept of Empire and offers the alternative option of Earth Community:

Empire organizes by domination at all levels, from relations among nations to relations among family members. Empire brings fortune to the few, condemns the majority to misery and servitude, sup- presses the creative potential of all, and appropriates much of the wealth of human societies to maintain the institutions of domination […]. There are those who say that the violence and greed of Empire are defining characteristics of our human nature that consign us to a destiny of ruthless competition for power and material goods. They say our impulses must be disciplined by central authority or market competition, choices that create hi- 46

erarchies of power that consign the majority of humans to lives of desperation and suppress the creative potential of the species […]. Earth Community, by contrast, organizes by partnership, unleashes the human potential for creative cooperation, and shares resources and surpluses for the good of all. Supporting evidence for the possibilities of Earth Community comes from the findings of quantum physics, evolutionary biology, developmental psychology, anthropology, archaeology, and religious mysticism. It was the human way before Empire; we must make a choice to re-learn how to live by its principles. Developments distinctive to our time are telling us that Empire has reached the limits of the exploitation that people and Earth will sustain. A mounting perfect economic storm born of a convergence of peak oil, climate change, and an imbalanced U.S. economy dependent on debts it can never repay is poised to bring a dramatic restructuring of every aspect of modern life. We have the power to choose, however, whether the consequences play out as a terminal crisis or an epic opportunity. The Great Turning is not a prophecy. It is a possibility. A five-thousand-year history of rule and expropriation by rulers’ intent on securing their privilege and pampering their egos by any means. In an earlier time, rulers were kings and emperors. Now they are corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers. Wall Street is Empire’s most recent stage…the destructive and oppressive nature of the global corporate economy is merely one manifestation of Empire: the organization of society through [dominator] hierarchy and violence that has largely held sway for the past 5,000…. The source of most of the economic, social, and environmental pathologies of our time—including sexism, racism, economic injustice, violence, and environmental destruction—originate upstream in institutions that grant unaccountable power and privilege to the few and assign the majority to lives of hardship and desperation…. Although elite factions might engage in ruthless competition with one another, they generally aligned in common cause to se- cure the continuity of the institutions of their collective privilege, often using intermarriage as a mechanism of alliance building. If many of the patterns associated with ancient kings, pharaohs, and emperors seem strangely familiar to our own time of the democratic ideal, it is because…the dominator cultures and institutions of Empire simply morphed into new forms in the face of the democratic challenge— [today in the form of] a “constitutional plutocracy with an agenda of imperial expansion.…We now have the imperative and the means as a nation and a species to end the era of Empire and liberate ourselves from a needless tragedy.”33

Within Phase III: Global Transformation there is Continuum C: Equilibrium that perpetuate the principles and ideals of peace, freedom, equality, justice, democracy, commitment to the common good, ecological sustainability and prosperity for all. This will involve an integral approach to synthesize and implement the following global initiatives: 1) the Oil Depletion Protocol, 2) the Post Carbon Third Industrial Revolution (TIR), 3) the Earth Charter, 4) the (New) Millennium Development Project, 5) the (New) Declara- tion of Universal Human Rights, 6) the Global Initiative for Creating A New Empathetic Civiliza- tion, and 7) the Alternatives For the Americas, to name a few. As mentioned before, these are just a few of the global efforts highlighted in the book. However, this book purposely has an U.S. centered bias, which admittedly is somewhat counter-intuitive considering it’s espousing a global evolutionary transformation agenda. The reasons for this are three-fold. One, this book aims to function on a multitude of levels, one of which is to act as a jumping off point to encourage further collective contribution from global change agents into The Grand Synthesis 1.0 (TGS) that will continually re- formulate the Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS). Two, the San Diego Cultural Creatives (SDCC) realized that it would be virtually impossible to include all efforts, groups and projects from around the world in a static medium that the parameters of print publication are bound, thus, the need to create an online Cultural Creatives’ convergence database otherwise known as the Grand Synthesis Project (GSP). Three, if there was ever a country that can act as a catalyst for a global domino-effect among all the industrialized nations of the western world it is the United States, thus, making it the best choice to focus our efforts on. “The values of the modern Western worldview based on notions of excessive individualism, over reliance on ‘science and technology,’ ‘freedom’ (at the point of a gun) and ‘progress’ (at the cost of our animals, environment 47 and our even our or own existence) now dominate the global dialogue, in parallel with the political and economic power, which that worldview has unleashed.” As the crown of cultural imperialism wielding the specter of economic dominance, the United States has reigned as the sole superpower of the world for decades. Its enormous military, technological and economic power impinges upon the entire globe. “Yet it is this same worldview that is largely responsible for many of our global problems, from environmental degradation to human exploitation, which in turn trig- gers population growth. It also causes a pervasive sense of powerlessness and alienation in those very people who are its supposed beneficiaries. It is the [U.S.] that is most in need of the ‘new modes of thinking’ that Einstein demanded.”34 Most would perceive that the dominance of global affairs from any one nation, such as the United States, as an unfortunate emergence. However, if we choose to use a little cognitive judo, it’s actually an ad- vantage for positive change agents that seek to make a significant impact by using the influence of America as a global leverage point to change our world from one that values cooperation rather than extreme individualism, Earth Community over Empire, cooperation over excessive competition, preservation of the in- terconnectedness of life over destroying our life-support system. If we can change America into a new integral culture with an ecologically sustainable economy, the rest of the world would follow. This awe-inspiring vision of the Society of the Third Millennium that incorporates the transformative venture of creating the worldwide Jeremy Rifkin’s Post Carbon Third Industrial Revolution solely with renewable energy (S3K 2.0) coupled with the advocacy of community resilience by The Global Transition Movement (S3K 1.0) to mitigate the catastrophic consequences of peak oil, climate change and economic collapse to finally end up with a Resource-Based Economy (S3K 3.0) as depicted in the third Zeitgeist film: “Moving Forward,” all comprise the grand unifying mission that change agents have been searching for during the past fifty years. For this reason mentioned before, we should boldly pursue the promising possibilities of the “Grand Uni- fied Theory & Strategy (GUTS) for Radical Evolutionary Transformation.”

THEORITICAL TENET #10: A Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS) Must Be Malleable And Ever-Evolving (Dynamic Decalogue)

In Alan Watkins and Ken Wilber’s book, Wicked & Wise: How to Solve the World’s Toughest Problems, they create a definition of a wicked problem for the 21st century as possessing six key properties that must be understood before real progress can be made. This “Six-Property Wicked Problem Model” is incorporated in- to the first four philosophical pillars of the Dynamic Decalogue. However, for the sake of brevity and to describe this tenth theoretical tenet, I will only address the last characteristic (#6) since it pertains to why any new integral vision, worldview, philosophy or GUTS must be malleable and ever-evolving because wicked problems are constantly evolving and therefore so must our consciousness and culture in order to develop and redevelop a new dynamic approach.

Trying to solve a wicked problem is often like trying to hit a moving target. Paradoxically solving wicked problems requires us to appreciate that we really can’t but try anyway. We are only able to get a handle on a challenge at a given point in time. Any solution therefore will probably be out of date or even obsolete by the time it’s evaluated and implemented. And yet instead of attempting, failing and turning away from the problem, we need to attempt, fail and turn back to the problem armed with fresh insights and a new, better understanding of what we face. There is no end, or as Rittel and Webber called it, “no stopping rule,” because the landscape is evolving so quickly that it’s impossible to know when we’ve “finished” or been successful. The fact that there is no end is itself not a bad thing. Evolution has no end yet we still consider it to be a powerfully positive phenomena. And just because there is no end does not mean we can’t engage now in useful activity that is constructive and beneficial to many. Even if we reach a point where we think we’ve nailed it because the symptoms of the wicked problem have abated and we hubristically think we’ve solved it, all that’s usually happened is the problem has become dormant (or simply shifted elsewhere). The mistake is that often we think we’ve solved it but we

haven’t really. Or it simply pops up somewhere else in a different form. In most cases there is no definitive test to determine if the solution has been successful or not—can’t easily be undone, so trial and er- ror is not really possible with wicked problems. Again this is due to the complex interdependencies— known and unknown—that are the hallmark of wicked problems. Tackling wicked problems is like playing that “whack a mole” game at a funfair. As soon as you whack one mole, another two pop up somewhere else! Plus how can we ever really nail anything if the environment in which we are implementing the solution is changing all the time? And that’s the ultimate paradox if we are ever to really solve wicked problems: we need to accept that we will never solve wicked problems! We will only ever be able to solve and re-solve over and over again. This constant evolution is part of the very fabric of life. We don’t need to be scared of it; we just need to embrace it—with, of course, a wider understanding.35

This is what makes the Dynamic Decalogue within GUTS such a unique grand synthesis of integral theory applications—it too has been designed to be an ever-evolving framework for radical evolutionary transformation. Such a strategy was also partially derived through a brutally honest evaluation of our present progressive efforts—in essence—an accurate assessment of our current state of activism. And it began for me with a self-analysis as an activist. In the following page is a quadrivium, which was adapted from the “Four- Quadrant Treatment Assessment” in John Dupuy’s book Integral Recovery regarding holistically treating substance abuse and addiction. I’ve adopted it to address questions in all four terrains of activism or more specifically the individual activist. In the end, it served not only as a self-assessment but a starting point to begin thinking about other questions to conduct evaluations and an in depth critique and analysis of various forms of activism, non-profit organizations and social movements, as I do in my third edition of my first book, THE SUM. I encourage all activists and readers in general who want to engage in whole-system-change to do a similar self-assessment by asking themselves the questions organized along the four quadrants to continue to contribute to GUTS or begin to develop their own and when done let us compare notes. Until then…. Finally, I want to close with Micah White’s words from the introduction of his book, The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution: “The lack of protest is perilous for society. Protest is a symptom of the need for social change, and the people in the streets are harbingers of greater democracy. The absence of effective protest is a warning sign of impending civil strife. Whether you support or suppress protesters, history shows that dissent is necessary for social growth and collective renewal. Revolution grants us the social freedom essential for humans to break old habits and reach their collective potential.”36

“When things reach the end They return to the beginning.”

T’AI KUNG, The Six Secret Teachings, c. 475-221 BC

A Four-Quadrant Activist Self-Assessment

“I” “IT” INTERIOR-INDIVIDUAL EXTERIOR-INDIVIDUAL

What are the psychodynamic issues facing you, as an Do you have any biological imbalances that need to be activist? addressed to be more an effective activist?

Are there unresolved issues that act as obstacles to be What is your current state of physical health and how a more effective activist? (Psychological projections does it affect your activism? sabotaging working relationships). Are there genetic factors involved and do they com- As an activist, are you experiencing feelings of failure, promise your efforts towards social change? fear, cynicism or even depression? (Burn out syn- drome leading to fatalism). What is your current diet and is it impeding your activist performance and conduct? What are the narratives that you as an activist are telling yourself about the world? What is your exercise regimen, if any? This could be great stress reliever and enhance one’s health. What value meme do you identify with as an activist? If you are not full-time paid activist, does your other What does a psychograph of your current condition as occupation align with your values? Does it pay the an activist reveal, with special attention to the spiritual, bills? Is it fulfilling? Does it offer opportunity for cognitive, value and emotional lines? growth?

Does any of this make you, as an activist, more pre- Do you engage in acts of property destruction and dispose to hatred & violence towards the power elite? violence? If so, why? Is this counter-productive to the long term goals of sustainable activism?

“WE” “ITS” INTERIOR-COLLECTIVE EXTERIOR-COLLECTIVE

What is the current condition of the activist’s family, Are there monies available to finance social change friendships, and intimate relationships? endeavors?

Is there support among family & friends? What about If so, how much change can the group, organization within the movement or activist community? or movement afford?

What other community supports are there? If there any involvement with the economic, political, social and legal system? How does the activist’s circle of relationships view their particular role in society? Will activist organizations pay activists for their efforts? Are salaries mutually exclusive from revolution? Are violent acts committed by activists counter- productive to the movement? If so, how and why? If How does one, as an activist, earn a living to survive? not, explain. How do non-profits provide financial assistance to What is the current state of activism? activists? Can or will they fund radical change? What have been our successes? Why? What have been our failures? Why? How does social change affect activist’s employment What are our obstacles? How do we overcome them? or schooling? Is this a needed sacrifice for change? How do we define winning, social change, revolution? What are long term goals? Short term objectives? Do violent acts committed by some groups actually What do we stand for? Principles, values, worldview? encourage the power elite to negotiate with nonviolent What is our narrative, do we have an alternative story? groups with the movement more likely? Ot is this false Should we have a common code of conduct & ethos? rationalization to justify expression of angry violence?

(Figure #3: Adapted From John Dupuy’s book Integral Recovery)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Zevin X. Cruz is a “Third Wave Metamodern” philosopher, author, artist and activist. He has been a lifelong advocate of the oppressed and for the past 20 years has fought for economic justice and fundamental social change. 51

As a Metamodern philosopher, he founded “Integral Neo-Transcenden-talism,” which is a holistic approach to art and activism (“Integral Artivism”). His “Ten Integral and Neo-Transcendental Philosophical Pillars for Radical Evolutionary Transformation” otherwise known as “The Dynamic Decalogue” is based on Ken Wilber’s “Theory of Everything—the AQAL Model (All Quadrants, All Lines)—serving as an In- tegral Operating System (IOS) for humanity. As an artist, Cruz has pioneered a bold and new Metamodern Art movement called Integral Neo- Transcendentalism: Culture Jamming, Trans-Genre Recontextualization, Community Co-Creation, Vision Building and Mission Oriented Strategic Art. The latter consist of guerrilla art projects known as “cultural interventions” on controversial public spaces that received some public notoriety through print and local television media coverage. As an author, Cruz was a newspaper reporter in 2006 for the Dryden Courier, Lansing Ledger and Groton Independent in upstate New York. In California, Cruz wrote freelance articles for the Light Con- nection and Street Light where he honed his skills to become an ambitious author and an advocate for bold and transformative change. During his college years he went undercover as a homeless person for a week and later in jail as an inmate for 10 days to write about what it is like to live in both worlds if only for a brief moment. He also writes “conceptual poetry” fused with experimental art, which typically begins as a con- crete poem that “evolves” (transcend limits and include features) through six other different artistic genres only to be integrated into a grand, seventh holistic piece. As an activist, Cruz was in the Natural Leaders Initiative, former Founder and Director of the San Die- go Cultural Creatives (SDCC) in 2002, which in 2005 its steering committee voted to approve his “Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS) of Evolutionary Transformation.” John Falchi, an elder in the activist community and former steering committee member of SDCC, referred to Cruz’s work as “Genius. Pure genius.” The writer was a member of the World Future Society (WFS), the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), the National Organizers Alliance (NOA), Independent Progressive Politics Network (IPPN) and the Ithaca Unitarian Universalists Church. He trained with the Ruckus Society in preparation and participa- tion for the “2001 Biodevastation Protest” in San Diego. Cruz has been featured on WS Internet Talk Radio and Blog Talk Radio, community newspapers, a panelist in community dialogues, given lectures and conducted workshops on comprehensive efforts for fundamental social change. Cruz’s formal education consist of two AA’s in Journalism and Philosophy, BS in Criminal Justice, Mi- nor in Sociology and Master’s in Human Services: Organizational Management and Leadership from Spring- field College in California, where for his doctoral community project thesis at Springfield College he founded and led the SAN DIEGO CULTURAL CREATIVES (SDCC): A Convergence of Change Agents For Unified Strategic Action that led him to create his “Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS),” which his academic graduate advisor, Gil Ontai, called such work as a “new take and advance to Karl Marx’s thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis model.” And Jeevan Sivasubramaniam, senior managing editor of Barrett-Koehler Publishers, referred to Cruz’s “Dynamic Decalogue” as “a new activist philosophy for humanity.” Cruz has also participated in the 2012 “Transition U.S. Weekend Training in Kingston, New York,” and the 2010 and 2007 U.S. Social Forum. He formed the "Cognitive Work Group" of Occupy Cortland (a local OWS think tank in upstate New York) and collaborated with Occupy Ithaca. Cruz has visited Zuccotti Park during the early weeks of the occupation and was an active member in the NYCGA's online work groups and think tank. His series of seven books is a synthesis of all of his experiences and work with these various groups and diverse people. Cruz is a bilingual, Mexican-American, born on 1970 in General Hospital at Los Angeles, California and the eldest of three brothers and one sister. Both parents emigrated legally from Mexico in the late 1960s. His father graduated from diesel mechanic school in Baja California before getting a job with Delta Lines in Los Angeles. His father taught himself English through a home course of audio records in the evenings. Zevin’s mother was a house wife and later worked at nursing homes. He grew up in Pico Rivera, California (just a few miles from East LA) for about 10 years (1975 to 1985) before moving to San Diego, California (1985 to 2005) living there for 20 years then strategically relocating with his wife to a more rural and sustainable re- gion of upstate New York in the small town of Virgil in Cortland county for 12 years and counting.

At age 12, in Pico Rivera, California, Zevin took his first steps as an activist by leading a school walkout at Miller Junior High for announcing its permanent closure of where he was a seventh grade student. He saw the collective efforts of the students stalled when teachers, administrators and security quarantined the school by blocking all exists and entrances. Seeing that the popular student organizers of the walkout were stumped by such a lockdown, he quickly took the initiative and proceeded to find an alternative exit through the cafeteria and up the stairs and exit stage left onto the outside school parking lot where the entire student population watched and cheered then soon overwhelmed the school staff by climbing over the 18-foot fences and leaped into freedom. A student protest ensued with makeshift signs for a few hours until police showed up and culled the students back to classes, whereas Zevin and his band of “school insurrectionists” left the premises to celebrate. However, months later the school did close. At age 17, in San Diego, California after a philosophical debate with his English teacher as a senior at Montgomery High School, Zevin founded the SEARCHERS FOR TRUTH: A Theological and Philosophical Student Association, to seek out answers with his fellow students to life’s most enduring questions: Who are we? What is a life? What is the meaning and purpose to life? Does god exist? Is there life after death? Is there a true church and religion of god? His spiritual development evolved from being a Catholic to a Southern Baptist and then as a non-denominational Christian in the “Worldwide Church of God.” Then in college his religious beliefs became more ecumenical and finally developing to a spiritual progressivism by a becoming a member of the “First Unitarian Society of Ithaca” in 2007. In his twenties, he was the founder and leader of three other groups in San Diego: 1) TOURING FORCE: A Sports Bike Touring Association to advocate motorcycle safety among young riders of “crotch rock- ets” and organize a cross country run to attempt a new Guinness World’s Record; 2) DETONATION: A Muscle Car Club consisting of young car enthusiasts of classic hot rods to create safe spaces for street racing; 3) The SOCIETY of the THIRD MILLENNIUM (S3K): An Integral Guerrilla Art Collective made up of Gen Xers “artivists” who seized public spaces without permission to erect site-specific art installations without property destruction or graffiti in order to bring attention to often neglected political, social and cultural issues. While working to put himself through college he worked a lot of blue collar jobs as an assistant diesel mechanic, auto parts driver, UPS loader, armed security officer, and campus police. As a student of South- western Community College, he wrote articles for the Southwestern Sun newspaper, published a few avant- garde poems in the school’s literary magazine and as mentioned before, wrote freelance articles for The Light Connection and Street Light. During this time period he went undercover as a both a homeless person (for two weeks) and later an incarcerated inmate (also for two weeks) to write about these subject matters through firsthand accounts in what is commonly known as the New Journalism. In upstate New York (2005 to present) Zevin became a graduate of Ithaca’s “Natural Leaders Initia- tive,” which is part of the Cornell Community Extension program. There he introduced his SUM STRAT- AGEM to Dorothy Cotton, a leader who talked and marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in the 1960s African-American Civil Rights Movement not to mention a member of the inner-circle of one of its main organizations, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and arguably the highest ranked female member of the organization, commented in class that Zevin’s strategic vision was “beautiful.” In 2009, Zevin helped form a community group to repel the closure of our neighborhood elementary school in Virgil by uniting both conservative and liberal neighbors in voicing our disapproval at several local town halls and school board meetings. He even offered and wrote political campaign strategies to two of the three local school board candidates that won. In 2009, during the Tea Party movement, Zevin volunteered to run for one of the New York representative seats for the 2009 Continental Congress sponsored by the conservative-libertarian foundation called “We The People.” He was a supporter of the 2008 Ron Paul presidential campaign but voted for Independ- ent presidential candidate Ralph Nader during the general election (he has voted for Nader since 2000 and voted for Green Party Presidential candidate, Jill Stein, in 2012 and 2016). Zevin has attended the 2007, 2010, and 2015 Atlanta, Detroit and Philadelphia US Social Forums where activist from all over the country and world converge for movement building workshops and activities. In 2011, he visited Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park during the second weekend of the movement and 53 joined several online work groups of the NYCGA website like the “Vision & Strategy” group and the “Think Tank.” In his local community, he formed an activist think tank called the “Cognitive Work Group (CWG)” of Occupy Cortland. In addition, he collaborated with other affiliates like the “Education Work Group” of Occupy Ithaca and participated in creating their OWS pamphlet by contributing his own writ- ings. In 2012, Zevin attended and participated in both Occupy National Gathering and the 99 Declaration’s Work Groups’ Continental Congress 2.0. (CC 2.0) in Philadelphia, where he worked to co-create a unifying vision with Occupy and a political platform with CC 2.0 over the four-day period. In 2015, he self-published his first book, THE SUM: A Cohesive Vision, Coherent Strategy & Comprehensive Philosophy Of Integral Activism For The Cultural Creatives’ Convergence of Movements, (http://www.48hrbooks.com/Book/13468) and launched it at the 2015 US Social Forum when he present- ed a workshop to activists called “THE SUMMONING: A 2016 Sum Stratagem Of Unified Mega- Movement Campaign For A Citizen Accountability Purge Of The Economic Oligarchy Through A National General Strike.” In 2016, he self-published his second book, THE SUM II: A Critical Analysis Of The Current State Of Activism To Create A Cohesive Vision, Strategy & Philosophy Of Neo-Transcendentalism, (http://www.48hrbooks.com/Book/7LG6vp3w). Jeevan Sivasubramaniam, senior managing editor of Bar- rett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., referred to his “Dynamic Decalogue” as “a new philosophy for activists and humanity.” He was scheduled for his book launch at the 2016 LEFT Forum but instead he opted for a more unconventional one month book tour between mid-August and early September of 2016. On Friday, August 12 at the site of the first “Women’s Rights Convention” at Seneca Falls, New York, we launched the “CROSS COUNTRY CHALLENGER QUEST (C3Q),” an art poster campaign in all 48 lower continental states in America to establish a new Guinness World Record. Ideas and actions go hand in hand in order to have any reasonable shot at changing the world. And while most people day dream or talk about doing remarkable things, we do them. Case in point: we travelled 11,600 miles in 21 days to post at least one art poster in all 48 lower continental states of America—living out most people’s fantasy vacation, while driving in many American’s dream hot rod. However, this was no vacation and the modern American muscle car—the Dodge CHALLENGER—served as a fitting symbol for setting up the future dominos for nonviolent resistance, revolt and revolution against the corrupt, exploitive, self-destructive, status quo system and surveillance state of American Empire. During this quest, we’ve met people we would not ordinari- ly meet and felt things we would probably never feel again. We’ve seen things most people will never see like the velocity blur of a Nebraska landscape, while driving a predominantly phantom black Challenger SRT8 over 175 mph before running out of road on our way to poster junked-vehicles at the outdoor, art installation “Carhenge.” We’ve done things most people will never do like overlooking three states while hiking along the rim of a dormant volcano only to descend into its charred, molten, cooled rocky center in New Mexico. We’ve experienced the extremes of living out one’s passionate purpose in collaboration with the unconditional love of a life partner, while at times during intense difficult moments in the trip also experienced contempt for each other and yet coming out the other end as stronger steel, forged from the fires of triumphs and tribulations (perhaps in preparation for more grandiose and ambitious projects yet to come). On top of everything we have unofficially established a new Guinness World Record (review of our records is still pending) by being the first guerrilla artist to place at least one art poster in every state in the continental U.S., documented by credit card statements and receipts; along with pictures, video and a log book filled with witnesses’ names, signatures and contact information to confirm our whereabouts. 268 art posters were placed in 48 states, 60 cities at 106 sites in 3 weeks’ time. All posted in different locations without authorization, permissions or permits—guerrilla art at its simplest, speediest and grandest. Placement of posters ranged from the conventional like college bulletin boards at Yale University, all variety of power and electrical traffic boxes (tall vertical ones to short wide ones and different colors: green, pink, salmon, stain- less steel, black, white and beige) to strange sites like statues, busts, dumpsters, gas stations (trash cans, fuel pumps and pillars), signs (state visitor centers, pedestals, back of billboards), utility rooms, abandoned shacks, sheds and buildings, baseball stadiums, outdoor art projects, graffiti-ridden junked cars, a green plastic dinosaur, in front of a police department, behind of a fast food chain order speaker board, on a freeway overpass, highway bridges, pillars and pedestals, a steel train bridge, a Grand Canyon gift shop, a cowboy 54 straddling a rocket on top of a firetruck, a giant water tank on a Montana hilltop that can be seen for blocks, inside the largest book store in the country at Portland, Oregon, in the foyer of a Denny’s in Indiana, and behind a national park sign like John Brown’s at Harpers Ferry in West Virginia—an American abolitionist who believed armed insurrection was the only way to overthrow the institution of slavery in the United States. In July, 2017, he attended the 1st National Gathering of Transition US (www.tranisitionus.org). For four days he participated in intensives, workshops, general assemblies, leadership retreat and strategic sessions to expand this movement for community resilience through post-carbon relocalization. On August 21, the day of the “Great American Solar Eclipse, he will be conducting a bi-partisan performance art happening called the “Path to Totality Project (PTP).” He describes this artistic endeavor on his Facebook page: “The cross-country trip of the century—for celestial bodies” will take place, as “the moon will pass completely in front of the sun” and “for the first time in nearly 100 years, its shadow will traverse the U.S. from coast to coast, making this eclipse one of the most highly anticipated and widely visi- ble total solar eclipse in history,” this according to TIME magazine’s July 10, 2017 article, “The Great Amer- ican Eclipse.” The article goes on to say, “Although the entire country will be able to see at least a portion of the moon glide across the sun, the sweet spot (known as the ‘path of totality’ where 12.2 million people lie within some 70 miles wide along with 47 million or 15% of the U.S., are within a two-hour drive) will be along a route that stretches from Oregon to South Carolina. This is where the moon will block all sunlight, leaving the ground below in darkness. Only during this period will it be safe to view the eclipse with the na- ked eye. If the weather cooperates, stars will appear in the sky in the middle of the day. Complete darkness will be brief, lasting only about two minutes, depending on location […].” This is the celestial canvass on American soil, which we integral artists and activists (Metamodern Neo-Transcendentalists) or “artivists” wish to “paint on” as a “performance art happening” in an effort to tap into “unity consciousness” as the first major collective step in 2017 towards healing us by mending the political and cultural fragmentation of America. How? By turning a cosmic event in the U.S. into a cathartic collective experience to begin releasing the fear, anger and hatred between conservatives and liberals among the rural and urban, the coast and in- land, religious and scientific, atheists and believers through a two-fold process: 1) those outside the “path of totality” will collectively pray, chant and meditate upon 2) those lighting and letting go the red and blue sky lanterns (representing the divisive Democratic and Republican political camps) with the written words often used to disparage each other on the internet and mass media. We intend to create a positive, contemplative and transcendental collective experience as not only a symbolic gesture and psychological exercise but also as a “National Unifying Purpose (NUP)” to activate the surrounding morphic fields—“the view that there are collective subjective effects on reality that influence the actual direction of development and events. An academic discipline, modern discursive theory, suggests this in the simplest of ways. When humans project ideas in writing or other media, these can become game changers for the behavior of entire cultures. We need only think of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf or Thomas Paine’s Common Sense,” this according to Kurt John- son and David Robert’s 2012 book, The Coming Interspiritual Age. “In 1979, Princeton University scientists formed the influential Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program to investigate paranor- mal phenomena. In one of their most well-known announcement, they published evidence of non-random field effects surrounding the half-billion people watching the 1995 O.J. Simpson verdict. After 28 years of work and over ten million tests, PEAR concluded that scientific evidence exists for consciousness affecting or interacting with surrounding phenomena.” If our collective consciousness can affect our physical reality than why not in a positive way with this project and begin to heal our divided and diseased country? In 2018, Cruz was the first write-in “Congressional Crowdocracy Candidate” for upstate New York Dis- trict 22. He ran an unconventional guerrilla art poster campaign to bring attention to his social media platform to promote a new system of governance in the United States called—Crowdocracy —as a true technological direct democracy that would eventually eliminate the need for a representative Republic (like congress) and fundamentally redesign the Presidency and the Supreme Court to accommodate this new form of decision-making process the enfranchises everyone everywhere! In 2019, he will be self-publishing his third book, THE DYNAMIC DECALOGUE: A Metamodern Manifesto From The Grand Synthesis Of Integral Applications As The Ten Philosophical Pillars Of Neo-Transcendentalism 55

For Evolutionary Transformation. He intends to finish remaining three books in the sextet series by the end of 2019 and an anthology in 2020. During the same he wants to unify almost all 50-plus political third parties in the United States to create a “Grand Unified Alliance (GUA)” based on a Left-Right Synthesis of Issues and political planks, “Grand Unified Platform (GUP),” that will serve the foundation for new amendments to reinvent government and evolve democracy to its next system of governance—“Crowdocracy.” If a GUA fails to materialize among the political third parties then he intends to form the first Crowdocratic Third Party in the United States as “The TH3RD PARTY” (a Meta-Term) or “THE LAST PARTY” because it will do away with representative government (the need for politicians) and end the tyranny of the two party system to usher in The SOCIETY of the THIRD MILLENNIUM (S3K). Along with finishing the rest of his series of seven books, Cruz will be creating a “Cultural Creatives’ Convergence Colony (C-4)” at his home in order to recruit interns for his S3K Institute (“integral activism” think tank), Convergence Leadership Initiative, Community Convergence Centers and The Last Party: A Th3rd Millenni- um Coalition of independents and political third parties to enfranchise the over 100 million non-voters in the United States. It will be the first Crowdocracy party that will do away with career politicians and divisive political parties through IT, direct democracy and AI cybernetic governance. As such, Cruz is seeking people to participate in an exciting and epic endeavor. He is offering an unlimited free residency to all Cultural Cre- atives and Metamodernists from the following fields as: poets, philosophers, playwrights, screenwriters, novelists, nonfiction writers, essayists, visual artists, painters, guerrilla artists, sculptors, performance artists, musicians, dancers, choreographers, photographers, filmmakers, documentarians, homesteaders, landscape architects, environmentalists, activists, engineers, web designers, computer programmers, graphic designers, printmakers, fashion designers, journalists, storytellers, scientists and scholars. In other words, the cultural, intellectual and artistic vanguard of Cultural Creatives and Metamodernists. In exchange for an “unaccredited internship/unofficial residency” consisting of free utilities, room and board would be to donate 4-to-5 hours of labor per day, 5 to 6 days a week, in and around the house and property and as personal assistants/protégés to Cruz who lives on site with his wife. Some of the duties will include assisting him with his literary and artistic endeavors like proof reading and editing his books/manuscripts, social media platform management, website development, arranging book tours and speaking engagements, mass media exposure, and promotion. In addition, help create a prototype for a “Community Convergence Center (C-3)” at the residence to design a model that could eventually be export- ed to other communities to create “Geographies of Geniuses—a future “Rural Renaissance” of ecological sustainability in the countryside and a “Second Enlightenment” in cities and urban areas, otherwise to be known as “Nexus Nodes” for community change agents. This nascent Community Convergence Center (C-3) at the residence will “house” several incubation en- terprises: 1) “Community Convergence Institute (CCI)” (an “integral activism” think tank) to convene discussions and debates to develop Left-Right visions, strategies, policies, goals and objectives for whole- system change and publishing the ideas in books, articles and blogs. 2) Assist in creating a curriculum for a community “Convergence Leadership Academy (CLA)” to begin creating “Crowdocracy Citizen Legislators (CCL)” (a true “Direct Democracy” that empowers and enfranchises everyone and eliminates the need for a representative republic of career politicians, lobbyists and political parties) see (www.crowd.ngo) and (www.everyoneintheworld.org). 3) Create a “Grand Unified Alliance (GUA)” by unifying most if not all political third parties for the 2020 Presidential election to create “Crowdocracy.”4) Produce three documentaries (based on Cruz’s life, books and guerrilla art projects) and one feature film. 5) Assist in the development and construction of outdoor, site-specific art installations, galleries and exhibitions that creates a new art movement. These are just a few of the future epic endeavors we will be engaged in over the next few months to years. Ultimately, Cruz hopes this all leads to creating the necessary foundation for an activist infrastructure to create a sustainable Unified Mega-Movement Campaign for an enlightened economy from a new green deal, reinventing government with Crowdocracy and mobilizing the entire world through a global marshal plan against the Metacrisis of climate and civilizational collapse—the existential threat of ecocide.

Z.X.C. 56

PERSONAL LINKS

1) (http://www.48hrbooks.com/Book/13468)

2) (http://www.48hrbooks.com/Book/7LG6vp3w)

3) http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/the-sum-stratagem-a-strategic-plan-for-the-remnants-of-the- occupy-movement-by-zevin-x-cruz

4) http://www.blogtalkradio.com/progressintheworld/2015/09/10/occupy-30-one-million-masked- march-on-washington-with-general-strike

5) http://outskirtspress.com/webpage?isbn=9781478766209

6) http://zevinxcruz.blogspot.com/

7) https://books.google.com/books?id=JoPdaWwIJHwC&pg=PT39&lpg=PT39&dq=Zevin+X.+Cr uz&source=bl&ots=hBZRfyDUOR&sig=Qr42OqCTF3EhoqHR5iEu4KdqDNE&hl=en&sa=X& ved=0ahUKEwjY7Lf- xP_RAhVnslQKHUirCqU4ChDoAQhBMAo#v=onepage&q=Zevin%20X.%20Cruz&f=false

8) https://fundly.com/the-decalogue-10-philosophical-pillars-of-integral-artivist

9) https://www.guernicamag.com/rebecca-solnit-occupy-your-victories/

10) http://bostoncommons.net/the-network-society-socio-economic-phase-transformation/

11) http://www.thenewsbeats.com/2012/01/17/abolish-empire-and-establish-earth-community/

12) http://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2015/11/chris-hedges-on-occupy-movement-success.html

13) https://www.facebook.com/zxcs3kc3q/

14) https://www.facebook.com/PTP2017ZXCS3K/

15) http://dec10.takethesquare.net/global-assembly-on-human-rights/

16) https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/occupy-red-hook/dQBt-uxAkSs

17) https://www.ussocialforum.net/node/876

18) http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/principles-of-solidarity/

ZEVIN X. CRUZ 2277 Kohne Road Dryden, NY 13053 (607) 835-645673 Home (607) 423-3084 Cell [email protected]

ENDNOTES

1 Micah White, The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution, Random House, Toronto, 2016, pp. 34, 35, 36, 39. 2 Carter Phipps, Evolutionaries, Harper Collins, New York, 2012, p. 96. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid, 10. 5 The Institute for Cultural Evolution (ICE), Premises and Principles of the Evolutionary Worldview, December 2012, pp. 4-8. 6 Ibid, p. 8. 7 Ibid, pp 9-26. 8 Ray & Anderson, The Cultural Creatives, Harmony Books, NY, 2000, p. 253. 9 Ibid. 10 Paul Ray, Sherry Anderson, The Cultural Creatives, Harmony Books, NY, 2000, p. 253. 11 Ibid, p. 252-253. 12 Bill Moyers, Doing Democracy, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2001. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid, 78-79. 28 Micah White, The End of Protest, Penguin Random House, Canada, 2016, pp. 52-59. 29 Micah White, The End of Protest, Penguin Random House, Canada, 2016, p. 59. 30 Ibid. 31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass_(sociodynamics) 32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point 33 David C. Korten, The Great Turning, Barrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2006. 34 Mary E. Clark, Ariadne’s Thread, Palgrave Macmillan, NY, 2001, p. 83. 35 Ibid, pp. 44-45. 36 Micah White, The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution, Random House, Toronto, 2016, p. 6.