Whole living complex systems exhibit emergence within themselves and reveal the descencion of consciousness or enclosure of consciousness from above.
Sophisticated Creation and evolution seem to be apparent.
We could also say Descencion of consciousness and evolution work together.
I see the arising of a new wave of rational integral-ists, who label themselves as trans-rational. I would suggest though that they are rational not trans-rational, they do indeed transcend the rationalistic.
The rationalistic is the belief in materialism and scientism, not based on personal experimentation but the hearsay of the institution of science which is a politically infected mind set. The rationalistic position is what is known as Orange vMeme, or Uranus Enchantment in my schema, which reveres the winners, those who hold the power of consensus, who can project the image of the expert, which is supported by the mainstream.
The new integralist do indeed transcend this narrow approach and are truly being rational, they are in their heads and have a great deal more self consistency, it is philosophic and an attempt to be existential real, ie to strip out sentiment. I do not find that the new integralist is actually scientific though, they do not do any experimentation with reality. Most people who learn astrology or such like do indeed do experimentation to a lesser or greaer degree, so the irony is that the much sneered astrologer is more likely to do more science than an integralist… funny. The new integralist rallies against ‘Green’ Neptune Enchantment and is so doing represses all emotional-feeling-experience.
Even though we find that there are many who have the same subtle experiences, which equates to an objective reality.
Debate, which is to say civilized arguments, (until they not civilized) are based on contrary perspectives, polarity. The rational approach always wins the argument, but the argument that is won has just reinforced the division of reality. The rational approach to debate is not sustainable forever because eventually emotions, passions will surface and an outburst of emotion will come from a rationalist in response to a different position. The fact that the emotions will eventually surface shows that the human being is both thinking and feeling and therefore undermines the position that a rational approach is the only approach to understanding reality. The assumption that the rational is Superior to the feeling sense is an assumption based on the economic and technological order. It can be argued that when we look at our society the economic and technological order is now failing humanity.
But the integralist will have good arguments against the above statement and the arguments will not negate my experiences.
And so on, we could enter into debate until eternity stops.
What is the bottom line?
I suggest that reality is agreement, the more energy that supports an agreement the more manifest that agreement is. Every agreement is based on a meta-belief, thoughts and feelings.
The way forward is to create a more encompassing, more benevolent and abundant agreement, so that we have a better experience, the more universal the better, ie better for more people and for more of all the lifeforms within our domain.
Surely that is the ethic, we should live by? make life better, strive towards improvement of life for all life?
What agreement would be best and most relevant for humanity right now?
The question at the moment to be asked is how do we come up an agreement on reality that is good for all people, all life on and within the Earth and the Earth itself.
Any other kind of agreement, like what is best for the economy, or what is best for my country or what is best for the environment but not humanity seems to me to be childish and merely highlights how far we have not yet evolved.
Sooner or later we will have to make an agreement on what is best for the whole terrestrial system of life.