Integral Peace

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Integral Peace Contents o

Integral Peace Introduction……………………………………………………………………..2

o

An Ideal Harmony………………………………………………………………………………………4

o

Theme 1, Phenomenology of Peace…………………………………………………………….8

o

Theme 2, A Peace Ethos………………………………………………………………………………10

o

Theme 3, A Philosophy of Peace…………………………………………………………………11

o

Theme 4, The Wellbeing of Nations…………………………………………………………..13

o

Theme 5, A new Peace Logic………………………………………………………………………15

o

Theme 6, Peace Synthesis………………………………………………………………………….17

o

Integral graphic summary………………………………………………………………………..19

o

Theme 7, Peace Studies Synthesis...……………….…………………………………………20

o

Theme 8, Peace Coordination……………………………………………………………………23

o

Theme 9, Cultural Paradigms in Revision………………………………………………..25

o

Theme 10, Dominant Paradigm in Revision……………………………………………..29

o

End notes……………………………………………………………………………………………………32

o

Addenda 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………33

Figures of Integral basics, Big 3, I, We, Systems and stages of development

1

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Integral Peace views peace from all quadrants and all paradigms. It is both an Integral analysis of Peace in all paradigms and a paradigm itself. As paradigm it engages with the problem any new society theory encounters when the ideal meets cruel reality, exemplified by what is called the metaphysical gap. Which means cultural distortions, prejudices and exploitations carried to present society from the past and which must be addressed for the wellbeing of all paradigms. As analysis Integral Peace methodology can inventory and explore many peace scenarios and schools, as well as recognize emergent, better approaches to peace; synthesize and coordinate these approaches toward an ideal harmony. Integral Peace, in its integral analysis, engages with the dominant paradigm leviathan, and is overshadowed and humbled. The implication being; how is the leviathan dealt with and changed, or is it immune to any activism/resistance or systems analysis? The gargantuan leviathan (figure a) must be addressed domain by domain in all paradigms. Before discussing, at length, the greater context, some insight into what Integral Peace is trying to achieve starts with the individual; yet the individual becomes quickly married to a larger context.

Jose, (as an individual), is responsible for the enhancement of Pilar and Ali (and versa) because he is responsible for the realization of an ideal excellence which requires an enhanced Pilar and Ali. (philosopher Paul Weiss, paraphrased). (1) “Responsible for the realization of an ideal excellence” connotes a deep philosophical gnosis whose common sense meaning everyone shares as a human which is caring for others; in spite of overlapping global crises including cultural conflicts, climate change, and so on. Jose, Pilar, and Ali are the survivors, descendants, and inheritors of cosmological, ecological, and historic time and actions.

Their forebears are the ancestors, narrators, and witnesses.

Jose, Pilar, and Ali, as individuals, cannot alone bring about an ideal excellence; they also represent their memegroups, nations, and Paradigms; and all must do their part, and be wholly engaged in the endeavor.

Figure a

We must be moving forward together, sharing the earth in which no group, species or ecosystem can be excluded; understanding being and its metaphysical implications in order to develop a wholistic ethos of wellbeing for all.

Persons are beings-with-life-rights. Beings, the self, and persons exist in a global context and condition. In a perspective of the spectrum of our condition, we see it is the best of times, it is the worst of times, and, everything is as it should be. This suggests a positive and shadow aspect to each paradigm, when these become reconciled harmony is possible. If one looks at a world map of the 90 most visible countries on that map, you find 30-40 of them involved in some kind of violent conflict, beginning with the USA. The implication is that things are getting worse with millions of war related deaths in Congo, Iraq, Syria, etc., since 2000.

Those like Hannah Arendt and Chris Hedges think the recent past and the present time are worsening and heading toward possible, even inevitable catastrophe. While Bill McKibben calls global warming, “the greatest threat to humanity before us.” Yet some like Steven Pinker believe we live in “the most peaceful time in human history.” Pinker in his post-medieval timeline since the Enlightenment, shows convincing content and evidence that identifies methods that are working (getting better) to reduce conflict and war.

While the Buddhists say things are perfect, and in harmony, as they are. Harmony being a Turquoise perspective of ethos and vision. Is the Pinker analysis that we as a civilization are on the right track and getting better? We live in a peaceful interconnected world with some bad players – so no big deal.

Peace is at hand. Is this correct or an illusion? Do all the perspectives coexist side by side? (2) The Modern Paradigm has been the dominant paradigm for some time, exemplifying both the good and the worse; having all the well know features of the “modern era” so often described and lived by much of the world’s populace for 100 years. The good of distributed resources for human betterment, medical and scientific advances, and educational possibilities coupled with improving human rights is well noted, however, the other side of the paradigm has increasingly been shown to have consequences that threaten the development of a mature and caring social fabric and that even threatens the earth’s ecosystems itself.

This paradigm has been dominant and thus responsible for what we are becoming. However, from the Turquoise level all is not lost. This available insight can save and rebalance the earth’s eco systems through an ethos of wellbeing for all.

2

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Looking at some of what has gone wrong in figure b (p. 5), one must ask why are we globally in this position? How or what can guide us out of the labyrinth of failed ethos. What are the chief impediments to transformation; beginning with the hardened capitalist nexus’. Paradigms and spokespersons have promised many things over the last 5 decades; we were promised the moon, mars, the end of global poverty, disease, and hunger; instead we got fetish technology and the richest 1% in human history. In addition, we were promised expanding democracies and a new intelligence resulting from a digital age of information.

Instead we got a Bush, Cheney, and Trump in an incredible mish-mash of lies and deceptions, accompanied by the vilest internet trolls and so-called communication controlled by corporations. Then there is that which we don’t want but will probably get like geo-engineering, more nuclear weapons, genetic manipulations, and robotic technology to replace the labor force; in addition to sea level rise, droughts, and a further devastated environment.

While Integral Peace is only one of several key Integral approaches to redirect social consciousness toward an ideal harmony. The approach is expressed here by a peace unfoldment based on a 10 peace-theme format that includes the Phenomenology of Peace, Peace Ethos, Philosophy of Peace, the wellbeing of nations, a new peace logic, peace synthesis and coordination, Cultural paradigms, Political Science (within the context of Peace Studies), and the Dominant Paradigm (figure c). What seems to emerge from this, is that all beings, their realities, and their living systems unfold better in an environment of peace. How best to achieve peace is to view beings, their communities, and their habitat in the light of wellbeing for all.

By looking at peace in a comprehensive view of paradigms, themes, and schools of thought, Integral Peace asks; can peace themes or schools of thought like Political Science or the Phenomenology of Peace show if peace can emerge out of the existing dominant Modern paradigm? And, can peace, justice, and economic fairness emerge out of this paradigm.

Integral Peace suggests peace is possible and even inevitable but not without heartbreak and setbacks of an evolving peace ethos. Not only inevitable ideally but pragmatically.

Understanding this ideal is essential to integral peace. The 10 peace themes provide an overall context as well as some content for a synthesis and strategy formulated for a peace paradigm vector of co-existing paradigms. The peace themes suggest an approach of philosophy, relevant activism, legislation, cooperation, common ground between worldviews, judicial engagement and a civil sphere social transformation.

It seems no set of answers demonstrate a silver bullet of solutions. If the authors and schools mentioned here don’t have a compelling path to peace and even distract the global dialogue on peace down diverting paths where is the answer; the way? Some even believe catastrophe inevitable. Can the present Paradigmatic system help Jose, Pilar, and Ali; and their countries, or is there a built-in impending catastrophe in the system? Can we move toward a co-existing ideal harmony amongst nations where the Modern Paradigm is dominant? The United Nations, International Relations methodology, and Political Science are some formats for resolving conflicts between nations in the modern world of multiple worldviews and paradigms. It is complicated to express an emergent set of solutions; but a start is made by viewing the 10 peace themes scattered through the paradigms, illuminating their metaphysical limitations

Theme 5 a new peace logic Theme 8 peace coordination

Theme 4 the wellbeing of nations

3

Theme 2 Ethos of peace Theme 3 philosophy of peace

Wellbeing for all

Theme 6 peace studies synthesis

Integral Peace

Turquoise Ethos

Theme 9 Cultural paradigms In revision

Theme 10 Dominant Paradigm In revision

Theme 1 phenomenology of Peace

Traditional Paradigm

Modern Paradigm

Progressive Green

Teal wholistic

10 Peace themes Figure c

Theme 6 peace synthesis

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

We must end war.

Gods! What have we rulers been at. We must change all this. War, I’m going to put an end to war. My life has been foolish and we have chattered and pecked one another, and fouled the world.

Our souls cried out amidst the petty interests, the narrow prohibitions of life, “not this, not this.” We had a desire for something comprehensive, sustaining, something greater, for wider communions.

Our leaders pass more and more incredibly beyond our intellectual sympathy; our premiers and presidents disguised beyond any semblance to sane humanity. And they ruled and influenced the lives of nearly a quarter of mankind; their clownish conflicts swayed the world and permitted infinite misery. We seem to have used our course intellectuality for no other purpose than to develop and turn life into a sort of mercantile chess; we have had no sense of service to mankind.

Not one now regarded these previous actions as anything but the mad and vanquished illusion of dementia. So was it also with a hundred other systems and institutions and complicated and disingenuous factors in our lives. All that we saw now, was the clear inevitableness that the old order should end. And then in a little space of time mankind in brotherhood was moving out to make its world anew. (HG Wells In the Days of the Comet). (3)

The ideal harmony is the ideal of being, self, society, and the environmental habitat expressed in different ways.

Inclusions of the ideal (and its counterpart, the unideal) include the Integral methodology itself when describing advanced levels as an ideal harmony and encompassing unity. Other perspectives include an ideal excellence as described by Paul Weiss, and an ideal harmony by HG Wells.

The ideal of being and self is described by Krishnamurti, while Susan Neiman describes the ideal of the Enlightenment. Rawls and Kant promote universal principles, which “would" lead to the ideal society. The Gaia ideal is described by Thomas Berry, and a democracy ideal is described by Thoreau, and, the American Enlightenment groups leading to a combined democracy–societal-Gaia ideal

by Lewis Mumford. While Ideal nations are illustrated by Prescot's Wellbeing of Nations. (4) On the other hand, the shadow side of these ideal descriptions are pointed out by the metaphysical gap within the theories described by Charles Mills, and James Baldwin. Other critiques of the ideal as limited and delayed by existing structures are pointed out by N. Klein, and C. Hedges. Many other authors and schools, across a spectrum of worldview levels, gives us a platform to aspire to, while always working in tension to an opposite dystopian outcome. Dystopian failure of ideal where catastrophe is existential, or inevitable due to paradigm illfunctioning. Conditions of world and Integral inquiry move us toward an ideal harmony via peace via Integral Peace.

In a bit more depth, (from several thinkers), Thoreau speaks of the need to change a government and constitution that allows slavery and that invades other countries. However, he also praises some of the adequate functioning of the government and describes what an advanced and ideal government would look like. Steven Pinker approaches the subject of war and violence, but not of corrupt government system. His contention is that we live in the most peaceful time human beings have ever experienced. We are already in a peace era. If reform is needed analyze specific systems that need changing and just improve systems that got us to this era. Christopher Hedges outright calls for a people’s revolution to overthrow and change a "totally corrupt government –corporate-military" nexus; and describes the overwhelming injustice of the current capitalist ethos.

When Global Warming kicks in conditions will be so bad, we should start now the revolutionary movement. He does believe the movement should be nonviolent and sees Occupy as an early example leading to an expanded Occupy; maybe an ECHO-Occupy WashDC 2020 (Ecology, economics, human rights). Similarly, Jessa Crispin author of Why I’m not a Feminist, says feminism is an emancipation from power and oppression and is not compatible with corporate culture; women should work to take down systems of power and oppression.

Derrick Jensen, a radical ecologist, calls for a complete revolution over the Modern and much of the ProgressiveGreen paradigms, rejecting much of the breath of those paradigms with few carry-overs; with no central government, in a non-technological society, non-consumer oriented, and with vast reductions to resource use. It becomes kind of a Postmodern rights-oriented indigenous/tribal paradigm. This postmodern un-ideal is of the Postmodern philosophical schools. Their insistence that fact, narrative, and truth cannot be truly known or described. We cannot know truth or what the real world is; but only approximations. A cycle of deconstruction of theory or system is followed by a rebuilding of that system as something closer to a workable truth. S. Zizek similarly, in his scathing critique of all paradigms provides 2 choices; either promote violent revolution, or wait until the current paradigms collapse of their own inner contradictions and failures. Heidegger’s view, in one extreme version of this, is that of beings as subsumed by the modern paradigm since the Enlightenment.

Robert J. Lifton (5) describes the searing reality of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the interviews by survivors.

The devastating effects on people and environments can only be bridged by compassion. How do we see this in a wholistic context, deal with it as well as the coming storms of climate change, capitalism collapse, and the ongoing modern struggle for hegemony between nuclear powers? For even a prolonged peace defined by stats. can have inconsistencies like gangs, mafias, terrorists and abusers of children and women; and can unravel in illusion if global catastrophe occurs unless a peace ethos becomes imbedded in human consciousness. The ideal can only be renewed by the exhibition and resolution of the metaphysical gap as articulated by people like James Baldwin and Charles Mills (6) where human beings as divided, oppressed, or even lost in catastrophic events are recognized anew. Mills and Baldwin are pragmatic and compassionate, looking to revise conditions on the ground to change things as they should be. Developing a global wisdom and transforming ethos – not racial, not class; but human and self/being awareness and awakening.

4

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Integral Matrix, Revised Model for Integral Peace UL Complex I, Integral peace self UR , Individual Autopoeisis, peace behaviors, save species (peace emergent out of conflict)

Ethos Central Focus Ethos of peace and wellbeing for all including species and ecosystems

LL Complex We, peace in Meme groups, a culture of peace

LR Systems; Ecology of Systems, peace in organizations

Figure d1

Figure b

5

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Both scenarios (Heidegger and Mills/Baldwin) end with being-awareness as the necessary priority for society to become authentic. From the point of view of the metaphysical gap Heidegger makes the fatal error of destroying and leaving so much behind that the ideal is impossible to achieve.

Integral Peace, in the context of the Integral methodology, can also substitute as a vision of harmony; where analysis of all quadrants of a paradigm involves Integral AQAL (including all Quadrants and all levels) which are quadrants of Individual, collective, and organizational forms in a revised new AQAL model (figure d1) that includes a central focus Ethos directed toward a vision of an ideal harmony. An Integral peace tool explores key peace themes for developing emergent action, policy, and law, guiding an evolutionary path toward a duration of good.

It analyzes paradigms like the Modern, Progressive-Green, and Teal whole systems, to review the peace self(s), worldviews of cultural groups, global context, and nations.

1.

2.

3.

4.

AQAL-I (Individual); mindful individuals, new statespersons, peace self(s) AQAL-MW (meme group worldviews); ethnocentric nationalist, worldcentric, wellbeing of all-centric.

AQAL-P (Paradigm); Modern, Progressive Green, Wholistic Teal, Teal/Turquoise Integral Peace.

AQAL-ethos where a peace and justice ethos becomes an ethos of wellbeing for all including species and ecosystems.

The Integral analysis assesses if the scenario pieces are already in place and just fragmented or emergent new perspectives and approaches become visible. The revised model can only happen with a new ethos and vision from the level of The Integral methodology of Teal and Turquoise (41), at synthesis, wholistic, and ethos levels. This transformative way of thinking is a direct result of contact with Teal and Turquoise levels of consciousness, insight, and revelation.

Figure d2

The Integral Peace perspective includes a better logic, is globalcentric, cooperative, and engaged with a Global wisdom; and implements through a hybridist synthesis, coordination, and Global Cooperation. In simple form an integral Peace, Teal-Turquoise matrix is shown on page 5, figure d1; and in contrast to the modern paradigm's culture of violence ethos. Integral praxis is how the self engages, how self(s) interact in quadrants and across stages for the metamorphosis of society in a stepping stone process Integral peace viewed as a 3-stage cluster (figure d2) integral analysis: Without teal there is no way society can move towards peace. Teal resolves and transforms conflicts; solves the impassable intractable problems; translates the turquoise ethos vision; widens the horizons of the progressive green paradigm; and mediates a transition from the existing Modern dominant paradigm to an emergent global society of cooperating co-existing paradigms.

Integral Peace is a response to the global context where the ultimate result of Integral Peace analysis through cycles of unfoldment is the emergence of the peace paradigm. The Integral method recognizes the self as having different worldview perspectives at each stage of development and can help clarify how individuals deepen (UL) and behave (UR) through the various peace selves in various worldview stages; The specific worldview psychology, values, and practices are well documented in the Integral literature. The key highlight of the Integral self is the identification of key self(s), (figure e, p.8); and in Integral Peace the key peace self. Humanity is moving toward a more globalcentric and inclusive synthesis; recognizing and understanding the partial truths of all worldviews, as well as their limitations and dysfunctions. how cultural meme-groups (LL) interact, reconcile and transform crises.

Peace, ahimsa, and compassion is what we are evolving to. Martin Luther King said, “agape (love) is understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill toward all.� Peace can have different manifestations in different worldviews, and how social systems (LR) can and are emerging for functioning in global cooperation and conflict transformation.

6

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Integral analysis takes us from current conditions, policies, to a new and transformed condition in harmony within a more enlightened global context. The dominant modern paradigm influences all other paradigms, but they also influence it. The DMP would not be where it is today without these influences to help reconcile the metaphysical gap problems. Left to itself it would be riddled with dysfunctional systemic distortions. The Progressive Green peace community has articulated an approach to a peaceful world and the integral peace methodology can articulate this further as seen in these context designations, A, B, C, and D, (figure p, p. 18) where: • A is the United Nations and various modern paradigm institutions. Its peace attempts come through school of approach like IR (International Relations), UN resolutions and Peacekeeping missions, State Department negotiations, military parity and standoffs like the cold war.

• B are the NGO’s, and C are the peace studies groups, while D is the Integral composite of all these groups.

Teal finds itself at a crossroads with other visions of the future like genetics, AI and robotics, modern technological overreach, modern global capitalism, the progressive green ecozoic, and a digital era of social media; and all vie for a place to control the future. Can they become transformed or remain in their paradigms and become influenced by the ethos of wellbeing for all? This question recognizes that all paradigm scenarios must modify in light of an ethos of wellbeing. This is Paradigm change for the cooperation of coexisting paradigms at peace; sustainable model of living; and, for moving into the future together. Movement towards global consciousness and the implications of that, reflect a universal truth of evolutionary development, that wellbeing has the potential of becoming more and more emergent, striving for the coordination of peace and justice organizations; social change, and social harmony amongst existing and emergent paradigms.

At Teal level domains are mapped and addressed wholistically, in whole systems thinking, (whereas the modern paradigm instigates domains as necessary, and they simply co-accumulate). Uniquely, at Turquoise the understanding of what underlies domain designations is intuited in a holistic gnosis where a few domains are universal. Thus, less mapping and methodology is needed which has been interpreted as Turquoise being beyond maps and methods.

Integral Peace is a review of key elements necessary to hold a wholistic multi-perspective view of a peace context. The Integral method is used to layout some foundational elements of a global context and perspective. We all share this earth and we must move forward into the future together, sharing the earth in which no group, species or ecosystem can be excluded.

To this end the Integral Peace recognizes “paradigm” as a key mode of macro-expression-of-conditions and seeks a synthesis creating movement toward an Integral Peace, where several co-paradigm scenarios can coexist and move forward together. Working in a cooperative way to resolve present conflicts and dilemmas. Can all these paradigms coexist in some level of cooperative spirit. Can the abortion issue be resolved between the Progressive-Green and the Traditional paradigms? Can Teal resolve the differences, even ominous differences, between an ecological future and a technological future?

There is need for organizational epiphany, an insight of domain gnosis showing how they interact and guide us on an evolutionary path toward a duration-of-good. The progressive worldview tends to see solutions as primarily possible on the local/regional level due to their disillusionment with the present system (often dismissed as “empire” or corporate “business as usual”). This engages probably 30% of the populace in the USA – in perspective if not in direct action. The Teal meme communicates that these actions are part of a greater whole and that the Integrally informed need to do just that – communicate to the public this wider big picture perspective. As part of an articulation of the parts and the whole Teal must form and communicate a framework starting with Domains.

The Turquoise ethos, generates the ethos of wellbeing, an insight of global wisdom; and is a high point of an evolving human global consciousness. An Integral Turquoise level paradigm is a post market-driven capitalist system where the economic/financial system is dominant over all other domains and concerns. It is a peaceful, cooperative, and ecologically sustainable system with an ethos of wellbeing for all; an ideal vision but with the implementation aspect of teal.

We can speculate on this type of paradigm-of–harmony, what it looks and feels like, and design it to some initial first steps. However, society as it is today is nowhere near that reality as a universally accepted paradigm. We thus meet with the paradigm paradox; where society must reach a sustainable harmony with an ethos of wellbeing, but we cannot reach a Turquoise paradigm and we cannot give up the Modern market capitalist paradigm, especially when developing countries need a type of capitalist system to develop. So, how is this puzzle solved? Teal and Turquoise are needed as guides, even workhorses, to advance as deep an ethos as possible that suggests ways forward. Teal as implementation framework, (figure d2), expresses this Ethos in 4 vision perspectives. As co-existing, whether overlapping or parallel, paradigm scenarios must agree on a global methodology of collective reconciliation and cooperation, yet still maintaining the ability to meet the needs of the respective consciousness of their particular paradigm stage. A key aspects of turquoise consciousness

7

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

is being above and beyond debate; it has global wisdom, and Turquoise persons can act as new mediators and new statespersons toward a global view of cooperation. Turquoise people can guide and work on common ground ethos, based in an ethos of wellbeing for all, on issues. Turquoise persons have a profound insight, profound discernment, access to previously inaccessible insight, and a global unifying awareness that can initiate consciousness raising education (CRedu) (7) for knowledge gain. ProgressiveGreen recognizes that rational culture, traditional myths, and dogmas must change. While, turquoise ecowisdom is about how to get persons in different paradigms to agree to live for wellbeing of all.

The phenomenology of peace (Interior of the individual) (theme 1) asks; who is Jose, Pilar, and Ali? Which communities are they in? Are they the stranger, the immigrant, the politicians; our co-citizens, our brothers and sisters? They are human; beings-in-thisworld, in nations, on Gaia. Are they disenfranchised? Are they in the international scene? Do they have power, are they in conflict or war? Husserl analyzed human interaction and consciousness in the world from a perspective of the physical – noosphere engagement, while Heidegger analyzed human (Dasein) being interaction in the world through being awareness and being-as-physical-interpreter of being.

Levinas would recognize Weiss’s enhanced individual with his identification of the self or being as the enhanced other.

And, the Integral method recognizes many Integral Self(s), figure e, across all Paradigm levels as beings as individuals, including both human beings and sentient beings; collective we groupings and species; and beings beyond the physicalphenomenological.

Beings are subjected to phenomenological forces consisting of natural forces, accidents, disease, and so on. Beings experience pain, injury, despair, and death from engaging in argument, conflict, and war with each other and their societies. These phenomena become cycles of violence with, seemingly, no way out. Yet beings have innate ethos of a duration of good, empathy and compassion for others, and, an ability to love.

Figure f

Figure e

Integral Peace can try to grow the latter, mitigate the former to break the cycle of violence, and help the first to adapt and become more resilient. Beings are all interconnected and are also unique individuals. Integral Peace recognizes a continuity of consciousness that transcends the physical-phenomenological human. But before an enlightened encompassing unity can take place, the physical-phenomenological self(s) must achieve peace in current paradigms.

Self’s together indicate peace is a collective endeavor.

Knowing the other is an imperative responsibility for a peaceful world; engaging in dialogue and developing a consciousness raising education (CRedu) versus “this is the way humans are,” conflicted, violent, and war-like.

What is the insight of Integral on the deepening of the multi-level self, and to the ideal self. These questions are addressed by Phenomenology as an inquiry into the physical, mental, and spiritual experience with the physical world through consciousness stages. There are many schools and related schools of thought like: Hermeneutics, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Wisdom practices like Yoga and Zen, Embodiment analysis, Wisdom theorists and thinkers, Political theorists and thinkers, Psychological theorists and thinkers, Emotional intelligence, and even mind control. Yet these beings and being-practices for deepening exist in societies and nations. The individuals deepening points from an ancestral heritage to a new ideal future.

The UL quadrant is about more than the perceptions of the self and the deepening self, bEINGS IN THIS WORLD HAVE A RIGHT TO A FUTURE of protected rights, equity, and peace. Beings have a will-to-their-future as a cooperative endeavor through an epiphany of Global Wisdom (8) serving an ideal excellence rather than the egoic will or a limited worldview. This fundamental right is jeopardized by oppression and conflict. What is peace, what is conflict, what is war? Are we caught in a world of uncertainty, conflict, pain, and violence? Are we in a peace era, and ready to create the theoretical ideal society? Is an ideal excellence aspirational or pragmatic?

Or, is the peace era and ideal society theory only developing toward an ideal, fraught with danger for those putting their life on the line, after a lot of work on current conditions.

8

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

The query is an integral inquiry on its own, beyond the scope of this text. It seems sufficient to say it is an Integral Peace turquoise analysis of the Peace self. Peace self(s) as phenomenological beings within a social context. The Peace self is an Integral Turquoise level practitioner of transformational thinking, ahimsa, peace, and compassion developing, and guiding the implementation of, a global peace ethos. The other array of Peace self(s), figure f, in the 3-stage cluster are; Peace diplomat (Achiever stage) is of the Modern paradigm.

Peace is usually sought through a State Department negotiation by a career diplomat. Peace activist (individualist stage) in the Progressive-Green paradigm is often a human rights worker, and a peace and social justice advocate, as well as anti-war activist. The new Statesperson and peace-builder and leader (Strategist stage) in the Integral Teal whole systems paradigm is globalcentric and a builder and representative of peace institutions nationally and internationally.

Progressive-Green meme groups (composed of deepening individuals) put much importance on individuals telling their self narrative, however, there is also the “others” story, of other paradigms or cultures, that leads to understanding. There is also the envisioning narrative of the self’s ideal perspective.

Integral Peace can define the ideal for being in the world with emphasis on nonviolence, cooperation and Departments of Peace. Our reality necessitates a long-term commitment to societal evolution developing change from a Turquoise insight put into practice. Systemic change toward peace takes place in a balance between grassroots activism and advocacy (largely individualized); humanitarian organizations; national and international state and peacekeeping aid organizations; and, conceptual peace innovations in a comprehensive peace synthesis by Integral cooperative methodologies of committed players.

Therefore, grassroots (gro's), NGO’s, and state institutions, have a participatory role in change, but change amongst leaders and power players can have significant impact as JFK and MLK.

9

Then there is the self and archetypal other narrative which leads to an understanding of the deeper self.

Together these narratives form a narrative-set where the self narrative undergoes metamorphosis to the peace narrative. To achieve an ideal excellence Jose, Pilar, and Ali must deepen and grow in global wisdom to advance a viable, comprehensive peace synthesis and implementation practice for the wellbeing of all individuals, and nations. In the context of peace, conflict, and suffering some key aspects of Integral Peace affecting the individual can be emphasized: (and in figure g).

1. Healing from conflict, war, pain and suffering; 2. Fundamental human rights and an Ethos of wellbeing for all, and, collective CRedu; culture of peace.

3.

Developing new policy and politics from a peace paradigm by the Integral hybrid schools of peace, and addressing 6 key crises that have created despair amongst individuals and communities. Interpreting conditions on the ground and political reality as things that have the potential of transformational change for individuals and communities, and not as political footballs.

4.

Develop new statespersons, and new peace institutions like a Department of Peace.

Figure g

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

A Peace Ethos (theme 2) is a peace and justice ethos of wellbeing for all including individuals, fragile communities, nations, species, and ecosystems in perpetuity, as the primavera principle of this and any next emergent era. This text defines the term ethos as the knowledge of the principles we can live by and how to implement them toward a durationof-good. In ethos and vision we have the emergence of what is “not-yetconscious,” (Ernst Bloch), and the yet-to-be-enacted. An Integral Peace paradigm is something to be aware of and conscious of, though some have an experience of it. For consciousness of peace and peacemaking is not naivety in a violent world. Peace is a deep ethic, and a structure of consciousness. We know its compass point, its direction, and it is not in the continuation of violence. JFK said, “I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace... (but) a more practical, more attainable peace – based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions (10).”

Figure h

From the Integral perspective paradigm change with an ethos of wellbeing for all, global cooperation, and ecological sustainability is a globalcentric perspective that emerges from the Turquoise level of consciousness and this cannot be overemphasized. The Turquoise ethos, (graphic h) a high point of an evolving human global consciousness. Turquoise gains insight and gnosis by a nonmethodological approach of grasping “totem” or totality. It is a misunderstanding to say Turquoise needs no method or un-maps mapping, and such like platitudes. Its importance cannot be overemphasized, but it demands that those with its awareness must engage pragmatically with the urgent social need now. A Turquoise ethos in one form of engagement can act as mediator between a Logos level gnosis and other meme group perspectives and co-paradigms that have varying degrees of self limitations.

This Turquoise ethos has been added to the standard model of the integral methodology as a central focus and will be seen in figure d1. The standard model (refer to p. 19), is used here to illustrate 4 vision perspectives of an Integral Peace Teal-Turquoise nature in its Integral Quadrant methodology. The Integral Peace paradigm perspectives are; for individuals(s) a global wisdom is called for; for cultural meme groups participation in a global dialogue and global cooperation is necessary; and, for our institutions not only systems thinking is needed but an ecology of systems is essential,

10 where all our social institutions work together for wellbeing.

Rights are integral for all to achieve and sustain wellbeing in perpetuity. Since paradigms have not recognized all humans as equal, special emphasis needs to be applied; Beginning with human rights like; women’s rights, bill-of-rights, poor persons rights, disabled rights, civil (racial) rights, worker rights, immigrant rights, then eco-rights, rights of the common, and economic equity rights, and so on. The ethos of the Dominant Paradigm often seems Machiavellian (which is the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct). Unlike the Modern paradigm where force is often preferred and a first choice alternative, Integral Peace will suggest force as a last alternative. Modern ethos varies from fairness and equality to Machiavellian; Progressive Green is an ethos of people, rights and justice; and Teal is wellbeing for all including species and ecosystems. An ethos of Wellbeing for all species and ecosystems is articulated in an Integral inclusive matrix in figure (I, p. 19); where the UL designates the wellbeing of Individuals; the LL designates the wellbeing of Communities and of Nations; the UR designates the wellbeing of species; and the LR, the wellbeing of organizations, forms, systems, and institutions.

Ethos can be an inflationary energy, a quick expanding force for emergence of paradigm shift.

Within one arising world there seems to be one emerging global crisis that mirrors the totality of what has gone wrong, and, that is the crisis of the global habitat. In addition to the key problems, an ethos of wellbeing recognizes the threat of the leviathan, as well as, many problems in the physical sphere and noosphere (see 6 key conflicts, p. 26), and in fact recognizes all problems (see conflict types p. 22). The Earth Charter says this in declaring their ethos, “global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. We declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.”

This implies paradigm change because the existing paradigm, as it is, cannot create an ecology of systems, it cannot be equitable, or achieve global cooperation. It is fundamentally not an ecology, able to work on many levels in harmony, as demonstrated by the very crisis of degradation and cultural conflict we now experience and have experienced for a long time.

“Revolution of the past was a cultural change from the embedded problems of a distorted worldview, now revolution is change toward being a human that has the consciousness to sustain the improved changes (11).”

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

The ethos-of-wellbeing indicates that we are interconnected and what guides this revolution of ethos, as peaceful, is Global Wisdom; a new globalizing of conscience of an awareness and engagement of the “other” to one of brother and sister.

Therefore, this consciousness of Global Wisdom will include the truths of each Paradigm and seek the health and wellbeing of each, as well as transcending their dysfunctions. It reflects the culmination of an individual’s ethos to the level of the Integral globalcentric (Turquoise) level. And, it heralds a movement for cultural meme groups to participate in a direct encounter of the co-creation of the common ground between worldviews; a renaissance of justice, and a new approach to the current will to respond in tension situations, opening peace avenues as the new response to conflict as guided by a new ethos, and even deeper reflection on ethos from a philosophy of peace.

Figure – 3 stage custer

A philosophy of peace (theme 3) generates an ethos of wellbeing for Nations, and can be translated to multiple worldviews, and coexisting paradigms. That awareness set in an Integral framework safeguards it as a player in an Integral analysis. JFK said in his American University speech, “we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just.” Consciousness of peace and peacemaking is not naivety in a violent world, but is a deep ethic, ethos, and structure of consciousness.

When philosophy provides no continuity of consciousness for being, like Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, logical positivism, and existentialism, problems ensue. When continuity-of-thenation, like Heidegger’s volk, is substituted for beingcontinuity, being itself is betrayed. Eastern wisdom schools demonstrate a philosophy of being continuity as integral to the {Logos-sphere} (8) that the Integral methodology incorporates. If you start a philosophy of society and describe society by way of Religion, or science, or markets, or culture, or government, or dominance or coercion theory you get into problems quickly because they all fall in a context of “based on” pre-established building blocks like dogmatic, racist, irrational, limited rationality, unfairness, coercive, violent foundations. Integral Peace can achieve a stable foundation through an inclusive review of some philosophers establishing key peace emphatics/ Levinas (12) says transcendence is the process of being passing over to what is other than being; beyond to where there is an affinity with ethics, where “responsibility for the neighbor, substitutes himself for the other.” This substitution at the very limit of being goes beyond being, and being is altered, and becomes capable of sacrifice/ practice. Ashok Gangadean (8) says Excellence is non-ego action and practices leading to a realized Global Wisdom. Paul Weiss says “sudden insights” are achieved and one becomes aware that there are depths to them that cannot be brought to bear on appearances. One insight takes the “excellence to be a goal possible of attainment,” where world societies are an “improvable common world,” both as constituents of the Ideal condition. Ultimately, a final ideal is the union of all realities and perspectives. A standard of excellence emerges. The hope of civilization in the absorption of the philosophic formulations of the ideal, (figure j) into the dominating guides of a civilized mankind. Where better actions are recognized to make it possible for the better context to be realized.

Figure j

11

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Susan Nieman (42) writes that violence is an impact on the collective human psyche and is not measurable only by statistics. “The Enlightenment took hold in the USA constitution and institutions; with Kant’s universal rights; and a vision that we can create our own reality and nation as ideal.” Neiman reconciles these approaches by a moral judgment that recognizes what ought to be; to see reality clearly, to act to change it, use reason and ideas to move toward emergent justice, happiness and harmony. Reason can direct and control emotion; direct critique on what is, can look at what does not divide us and to reconcile what does.

Rawls (43) based his theory on rational reasoning within social contract theory. He designs society with a few modest assumptions; 1st with a veil of ignorance, namely no one knows beforehand their place, gender, race, religion, or conditions before birth into that society. 2nd; we need the same basic foundational social values of individual self-respect, liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and distributed equally and assessed from the standpoint of the most disadvantaged persons in society. Society can figure out the best way to benefit the least; putting limits and checks and balances in place to control excesses.

Rawls, says Habermas (44), imposes an imposition of common perspective on parties, neutralizing cultural differences. Obeying laws accepted by all on the basis of our “common human reason” (which few claims exists) in accordance with a written constitution. Habermas points out that meme group decisions are based in ideology and hidden motivation, and prejudices. However, nationalist paradigms keep sprouting up; and the public sphere can be totally corrupted by corrupt governments or propaganda.

Charles Mills (6) say our culture and philosophy is one of post-colonial white supremacist capitalism; Cumulative disadvantages like the obvious legacy of slavery; inferior education, lower life expectations, higher incarceration rates, worse job opportunities, and worse housing; are (un)balanced by cumulative advantages of whites. The philosophical social contract became a social-racial contract and must become a non-racialized social contract.

According to Rawls laws are acceptable if they are fair and advantageous to the least privileged. and design a society

1.

2.

3.

An ideal rhetoric does not change c, b, d b implies they know best and will design-in their inclusions.

Metaphysical gap says the “other,” and, the ancestors (c) and descendents can’t get into the ideal society design.

Figure k

from that perspective. the constitution reconciles any differences. Mills says no, because there is a metaphysical gap between an ideal society theory and a reality where many groups of people (and even species and ecosystems) cannot participate in your ideal society because they have been destroyed. The ideal society is for the inheritors who benefitted from their ancestor’s violence; and the survivors and descendants of the lost people have no guarantee whatsoever of ideal treatment now. Mills says, values expressed by Rawls are not wrong but their limited realization in a society structured by relations of exclusion is. James Baldwin (6) was consistent and persistent in his responses to interviewers, on talk shows, in speeches and in his writings in his perspective in bridging the metaphysical gap the racialsocial contract played out in America and abroad. False narratives of equity, color-blindness, and so on, “corrupt our view... we now have a system of reality, ideas, and institutions in which actual reality is hard to reach, and our moral sense becomes paralyzed.” When the reality is that the black man must be treated as a man. A man is not defined by others, is free to define himself. “I’m not a race and neither are you.” The world is now at the mercy of the American European hegemony vision of the world, “and that vision is obsolete,” and it is false. The only way out is that we must excavate and rethink every myth, institution, and bias of this vision; and recreate an ethos of the human being as emancipated from its immature visions.

As part of this ethos wellbeing can only be achieved if the metaphysical gap is resolved. Not just racially but also with regard to gender says, Islamic feminist scholar, Riffat Hassan.

The metaphysical gap describes what was in the past and what may be in the future if we don’t address the gap in the present.

The metaphysical gap is addressed differently in different paradigms but would include some combination of the following; justice, mercy, acknowledgement and apology, economic restitution or reparations, forgiveness, truth and reconciliation, dialogue, common ground, and so on. In his 1967 Viet Nam speech Martin King said, “so far we may have killed a million of them – mostly children... what do they think when we test our latest weapons on them?... we have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and crops.” If western philosophy is susceptible to the metaphysical-gap, do we abandon their philosophy, or do we revisit them and include what we can, and transcend what we can’t? Mills and the Integralist say yes. Transcending some and including some of the previous philosophies that led to the metaphysical-beinggap is fine for a Teal and Turquoise altitude, however, for other co-existing paradigms it requires paradigm change and adaptation. These philosophies hint at a set of peace emphatics, between the Modern paradigm and a turquoise Integral paradigm. Many other philosophers and peacemakers could be added like Thoreau, Gandhi, Teilhard de Chardin, Kant, Krishnamurti, and so on. The key illustrated by Integral Peace is recognizing the ideal is only possible if the current coexisting paradigms reconcile with the past (figure k). We have no future if we cannot repair our relationship to the past, for we are doomed to repeat it.

12

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Is this democracy the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to have a step further in recognizing and organizing the rights of man?... Seen from a higher still, and the highest a state which bore this kind of fruit, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious state.” Thoreau (14) For the Wellbeing of Nations, (theme 4), The United States, Britain, and China, for example, are responsible for the enhancement of Congo, North Korea, and Mexico (and versa) because they together are responsible for the creation of an ideal world of wellbeing which requires enhanced co-existing paradigms.

Thoreau’s remarkable quote, above, hints of stages of democracy beyond what we now know and experience as the Modern paradigm. For Integrally informed persons this is easily understood and understood as a necessity rather than a possibility. In fact, key Integral domains like Integral Law, Integral Politics, and Integral Sustainability ultimately point to a peace worldview. Peace, ahimsa, compassion, and dharma is what we are evolving to. Integral Peace becomes a partner in the mediation of an emergent paradigm along with the other Integral disciplines. Now we have no governmental structures in place promoting peace as a wide scale endeavor. Institutions like the State Department and the Department of Defense are immersed in arcane, wellworn and habitual diplomatic and warrior paths. They follow tried and often failed policies based on political bias, carrot and stick approaches, or just plain geo-political national interests and power struggles. They cannot be entrusted as peace building organizations. A proposed Department of Peace as part of a Teal-turquoise integral peace paradigm can. The Modern paradigm ethos, in part, consists of geopolitical interest and strategic advantage; playing the ‘great global game' of hegemonic power; with the ethos that the “most coercive force becomes dominant.” Progressive Green is of rights and justice especially for individuals and communities of people; and Teal is a systems synthesis of an ethos of wellbeing of Nations. These are co-existing paradigms. Integral peace recognizes that the modern paradigms will continue to use violence to fight violence, yet insists its peace implementation practices and integral peace methodology will reduce conflicts overall, especially using global cooperation

John Kennedy began to take steps toward a Peace paradigm, and said of a government in his speech at American University; “our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament; and a peace for all time. To build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.”

For, “is not peace, in the last analysis the right of future generations to a healthy existence, where the weak are safe and the strong are just.”

We are entering a time of Global change including climate change, and many sustainability and wellbeing issues where Global Cooperation will be essential to secure wellbeing for all including Earth’s ecosystems. We must have Global cooperation which implies dialogue regarding common ground and mutual interest, a self-other understanding and empathy that leads to healthy worldviews eventually leading to peace. To achieve cooperation the importance of global thinking, global perspective, global knowledge, and global wisdom will be critical. For, if we presently have a lack of cooperation there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing paradigm. Global cooperation presupposes dialogue and some consensus on how we should proceed. It also presupposes that organizations have some avenue of approach to form alliances necessary for cooperation.

Global Cooperation implies work on Peace, conflict resolution, conflict transformation, and communication between different cultures, races, and worldviews. Global Cooperation implies cooperation on peace and sustainability issues, as well as effective ways to address extreme dysfunctions and corruptions of government. A further point of logic is that the present paradigm does not promote global cooperation therefore the present paradigm must change or be bypassed.

Thus, paradigm shift becomes inextricably linked to global cooperation and peace. In his Christmas Eve speech Martin Luther King also said, “to have peace on earth our loyalties must become ecumenical… transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.” to achieve some level of Paradigm change, through an ethos of wellbeing for all, implies achieving a modicum of peace and cooperation and a maximum input of fairness and social equity. This will require that many individuals, groups, and nations tap into a global wisdom that can guide the necessity of peace and cooperation, for a vision of a peace model of living. From many present stories and paradigm scenarios how do we create a working synthesis. These demands paradigm modifications of all paradigm scenarios. This is paradigm change in distinction to some single paradigm shift from say the modern to the postmodern.

A Department of Peace (DoP), figure l, as a government department would be the first Integral Globalcentric organization that can interface through its various offices with each worldview department that now exists.

Figure l sample DoP legislative page (28)

13

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

The DoP presents guidelines and legislation for peace. (figure l) For example, an Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution will model approaches to peaceful coexistence, conflict resolution and transformation from a globalcentric perspective of global thinking, global cooperation, and global wisdom. An Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights (social equity in sustainable development) can interface with international bodies like the EU, and the UN for a Kyoto agreement and for achieving sustainable cities. An Office of International Peace Activities would interface with the State Department and the Department of Defense on peace approaches including approaches to particularly egregious conflict situations, even recommending appropriate use of force if the situation is so extreme as to suggest that alternative; all leading to a possible World Charter. To guide cooperative and overlapping paradigm’s a World Charter that articulates an ethos of wellbeing is necessary. Global cooperation means finding a balance between what other paradigm scenarios can compromise on and what they cannot compromise on with the Modern paradigm, like for example, nuclear weapons, or coal power plants. One way to establish what is negotiable and what isn’t is improving what is already in place like the World court and if there are some global wellbeing and human rights charters that function as principled guides of a prospective World Charter. Inclusions into the makeup of a World Charter are the Earth Charter, the UN declaration of human rights, democratic constitutions and the proposed Department of Peace legislation text.

An Integral Peace approach can show how paradigm scenarios can be relevant in a greater context than their own.

Each worldview, country, paradigm, and school of thought has a wisdom to contribute to the world community. It is necessary to translate that wisdom into a relevant form; especially as part of a world charter. This global wisdom must be included in any new paradigm scenario, though the paradigm itself becomes transcended. using an Integral Peace tool that includes assessing conditions on the ground; Political Reality; and, multiple solution perspective; as well as a montage of methods, including conflict resolution and conflict transformation techniques, described in Peace Studies, page 20.

Figure m

Departments of Peace, and global alliances of DoP, become national governmental and social forms that describes vision and leadership in peace education, conflict resolution, conflict transformation, and international cooperation. For example, Peace Community (figure m) refers to a community, memegroup, or a culture moving toward a culture of peace. How we interact, dialogue and get along; how we understand universal interconnectedness and universal eco-rights and human rights; and, how we respond to conflict. To heal our planet, we must have a healthy psychology, and healthy worldviews. We must also develop the means to resolve differences of opinion, cultural (meme) group conflict, and come to some consensus on how to achieve wellbeing for all and Earth’s ecosystems, resolving and transforming our differences peacefully. Were the deep understanding of community and individual depth fully included and tapped into by techniques different than a debate over conditions, an impasse can be overcome. Peace Forms (within an ecology of systems) as functioning democratic tools and global institutions will be required. Current global challenges will require stronger, not weaker, frameworks for cooperation.

Paradigm change and the formation of new organizational forms is 2 track; First, as a parallel set of emergent cultural transformation concepts, organizational forms, and global wisdom introducing a wide range of peace and justice elements. Second, as ever more emergent from a subdominant position to a primary position in harmony with other paradigm scenarios. National Departments of Peace would stand as a voice of humanity with integrity and independence.

Paradigm is an all quadrant implementation of concepts, praxis, and behaviors. Paradigm shift occurs when an all quadrant evolution happens in a one stage development from the existing paradigm stage, (figure m).

Some constants and principles emerged over the centuries as paradigms with better approximations of systems that promoted qualities like wellbeing and physical welfare; individual freedom and equality; stewardship of the land; guided markets; rule of law; and, compassion to all.

14

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

A new peace logic (theme 5) is needed to provide steps from the Modern paradigm problems, it has created, to new paradigms of global cooperation. All 4 quadrants plus ethos need to be engaged to overcome preoccupation with “conditions on the ground approach.” If governmental forms and a focus on ground conditions are dominant a dialogic impasse may occur between participants. Were community and individual understanding tapped into by techniques different than debate over conditions, an impasse can be overcome. This spectrum of problems, solutions, and countries; 150 Crises; 150 Solutions; and 150 Countries, is what lies before us. The key is Integral globalcentric people and meme groups of compassion and gnosis, and Integral institutions in alignment with an ethos of wellbeing yielding a global cooperation based zone-of-harmony where all move forward in time cooperatively. An exploration of a new peace logic is needed. The contexts that need a renewed logic are too many to iterate here. Some options of Logics that can be addressed; 1.

Economics of peace and funding of crisis solutions. The simple logic states that money is over here, usually referring to money spent on arms and conflict, but we would be better off if it was spent over here, on humanitarian issues. For example; 7-10 trillion dollars has been spent over 70 years on nuclear weapons since 1945, with another trillion over the next 10 years. No one fails to weep at this heartbreaking use of a nation’s wealth, considering other possibilities that money could be spent on. The economics of peace and funding of crisis solutions seems to be a persistent conundrum.

Western capitalist democracies and hegemonic powers divert most money and resources to military and nonpeace oriented avenues. Why are peace institutions and programs not funded? And, why is the simple logic that they should be; less than an adequate response? If governments didn’t spend money on arms, we could have peace; people are starving we should feed them. The current conservative worldview, since the 80’s, has opposed discretionary spending in the federal budget, let alone diverting wealth to feed the poor as philosopher Peter Singer (15) does suggest. They ideologically and morally oppose any kind of wealth distribution.

2. Reason and logic itself can be assessed. Reason and logic are in an immature state with lingering myth, dogmas, and subjective opinion; as well as false psychologies and theories including Marx, Heidegger, Nazis, fundamentalists, and capitalists. The Enlightenment of science and reasoned argument can be juxtaposed to Horkheimer (16) logic on rationality (with a Marxist bias) about the failure of Enlightenment subjective reason.

3. Why is social change left to the smallest, least funded, least supported grassroots groups (type C, see p. 18)?

4. What new logic is necessary for stopping the whole alliance of war; hardened capitalists/militarists; hardened terrorists; media complicity; arms and weapons trade; governmental and political propaganda for conflict, and so on. How do we transform the will-torespond to appropriate response-to-conflict;

5.

6.

and a culture of violence to a culture of peace?

How can the logics of the paradigms be revised in a fuller context of paradigm change for cooperation? The Modern logic is reason, logic and science, although the logic is often manipulative, subjective, and justifications oriented, as in my nation first, wealth and resources for my nation first, and so on; while Progressive Green is logic/reason plus empathy of rights, service, and justice; and Teal is a peace logic/Ethos plus a structured compassion for the wellbeing of all (in simplistic terms).

What logics can be applied for global dialogue between cultural meme groups in constant conflict with each other?

Regarding the last, point 6, Robert Lifton’s (17) study of Chinese communists revealed their techniques of a reeducation process of thought reform and mind manipulation to achieve conformity of thought processes in the new society. Camus critiqued this as “crimes of logic,” negating what exists, and demanding total change without choice.

Thought reform demands the destruction of the existing world to bring about “magnificent world renewal.”

Heidegger, the Nazis, and the communists came up with a similar theory; and Arendt pointed this out in Origins of Totalitarianism. This technique is reinforced by strong group participation and influence, and, Lifton calls this the “socialization of evil.” Ultimately Lifton’s researches led him to understand the malleable nature of mind can stabilize and develop into a new self, basically a Turquoise level self he calls the protean self; as interpreted from his Progressive-Green level. The personality moves from conformity and naiveté to denial, to a consciousness shift.

Moving from a conforming participatory assimilation to “knowledge and transcendent feeling.”

Further, the Enlightenment saw a problem of an upper classes power grab; as well as the “tyranny of the majority,” but did not see the extreme susceptibility of lower or malleable classes to ideological, even irrational, propaganda. If they did they could have developed a hybrid approach of consciousness raising education, good vocations, and good ethos. How do the meme group types and worldviews move to the universal ethos of wellbeing for all, yet coexist in their cultures without some CRedu (7) and consciousness gain or collective global wisdom? collective enhancement – is a miracle needed? This is but a caveat in a much wider discussion needed on meme group tensions.

15

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Regarding point 5 above, the dominant paradigms pragmatic realist approach combined with moralist vision has brought a Pinker defined peace but with sometimes terrible ebb and flow. But it has not brought a consciousness of peace or a peace paradigm. His overall theme of a long peace we are now in (yet don’t seem to know it) can be used to contradict the government, corporate, militarist, media supported fear campaign of ongoing and ubiquitous conflict, terror, and war. Yet, the big picture of climate change, and nuclear existence bears down upon us. What Hannah Arendt (18) calls an oasis, havens of sanity and new society, amidst impending catastrophe is her conclusion to a political analysis. What is a perspective of peace logic that can solve the riddle of global cooperation and peace in the face of so much complexity, (as shown figure n examples), and exclusion? Peace institutions often don’t even get an opportunity to engage. The great powers are dominant and use institutions for their own purposes and shrug off resistance. Now only natural disasters, humanitarian disasters, and some cultural conflicts are open to a wider range of peace interventions. However, where Arendt and others end, Integral Peace begins. Peace efforts and organizational systems can be logically classified as A, B, C, and D as shown in figure p, p. 18. (where the grouping is integrally related but not isolated to paradigm stages). One question that arises is; why have we left it up to a few theorists and activists in groups B and C to carry the burden of ethos for all of us; and then be arrested or most often, ignored, especially by the media?

1.

2.

The 4 types of peace institutions and groupings in relation to global crises are also shown in figure n, and reviewed on p.18. Type A institutions like the UN; type B institutions exemplified by NGO’s and humanitarian groups; type C groups of grassroots advocacy, activism, and resistance to oppressions of their home nation or an international nation; and type D institutions that form a hybrid or Peaceprocess and organizational-set.

Institutions A, B, and C dovetail or are excluded from conflict or crises areas as they relate in a case by case situation; but actually, engaging with only about 1/3 of conflicts in general.

Figure n

16

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

“to have peace on earth our loyalties must become ecumenical… transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.”

Martin Luther King

A Peace Synthesis (theme 6) says functioning democratic tools and global institutions will be required to bring peace and a new ethos of wellbeing. Humanity has taken thousands of steps along a path to the place we now find ourselves in the existing paradigm, with its unhealthy, dysfunctional aspects, but we as participants in integral wisdom must contribute to an aperspectival picture of a viable new paradigm among inclusive paradigms.

Current global challenges will require stronger, not weaker, frameworks for cooperation. Paradigm change is structural change, and when it is an imperative that it occurs and is achieved. A Department of Peace is fundamental structural change. Now the State Department is in attunement with the administration and the Department of Defense in highly coordinated rhetoric in support of the US Governments wars and foreign policy. Paradigm change and the formation of new organizational forms is 2 track; First, as a parallel set of emergent cultural concepts, organizational forms, conflict transformation techniques and global wisdom introducing a wide range of peace and justice elements to current paradigms missing from the existing paradigm approach. Second, as ever more emergent from a subdominant position to an emergent primary new Integral Peace paradigm position in harmony with other new paradigm scenarios. A new Integral Peace Paradigm is a new pattern, anticipated by the Modern paradigm with the inevitable result it will be transcended, despite extreme resistance.

A peace synthesis of some schools and paradigms can be graphically shown as a Teal Turquoise Integral Peace paradigm where the Teal phenomena of an ecology of systems, the importance of a Department of Peace, and the Global alliances of same join in developing a comprehensive synthesis based in an Ethos of wellbeing of Nations. (figure o, and see addenda 1).

Figure 0

A Department of Peace and an ecology of systems is emergent from a synthesis of key Integral domains (LR); Global cooperation emergent from a new culture of peace (LL); global wisdom emergent from the new self-epiphanies (UL); and peace living emergent from right response-to-conflict (UR), (quadrants identified in figure d1, p. 5).

A Charter for a world without violence, by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates (9), broadens the definition of violence to include environmental destruction, poverty, government and corporate domination and corruption, and it says that the principle political tools for dealing with these problems are “dysfunctional and/or pathological.” Upon reviewing an Integral assessment of the various school themes, (figures o and addenda 1), it seems the integral peace hybridists can reconcile both complementary forces and approaches to peace, and disparate antagonistic approaches to International peaceful co-existence. The hybridists (27) themselves do not have the silver-bullet of peace, nor does any other school or author it seems. However, they do seem to be able to reconcile and incorporate emergent ideas and organizational forms for evolving toward the peace paradigm. The hybridist can also listen to insights from radical critics to modern theorists. The hybridist can adopt the Integral method of synthesis and inclusion based in an ethos of wellbeing for a peace implementation and coordination; and can understand the necessity of Global wisdom, consciousness gain, and CRedu., while understanding social change as a life commitment.

A peace synthesis includes a synthesis of resistance, a synthesis of wellbeing of Nations, and a synthesis of Paradigm change. Political Science schools include Global IR (20), a reformed CJS, restorative justice, and Paradigm change thru universally adopted ethos of wellbeing and the Wellbeing of Nations. Critical thinking and a hybrid mix will include Habermas and Mills, Ian Shapiro on containment; US Institute of Peace; JFK’s peace vision and so on, in a new hybrid democracy, and new Political Science of International Relations.

17

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Integral Peace defines 3 categories of conflict. I are hegemonic powers, like USA China, and Russia, conflicts. II, are conflicts where participants are willing or forced to engage with peace organizations ABCD. III, are other conflicts or crises like global crises, human or meme group conflicts, and nation or paradigm conflicts. (also see figure s, p. 22) What is not gone into here is the myriad approaches of modern political science like; International Relations, how to deal with Russia; the global economy and the World Bank; how Britain is dealing with terrorism; the rise of ISIS; and so on. For the most part groups are still silo-ed in their respective niches. However, there is some movement from type B groups, as complementary to the dominant A group, to a more nuanced hybrid type D approach, (still a mostly Progressive/Green approach, but with some movement toward a whole systems approach), that is a little more aligned with the progressive/green type C approach. Both type A & B groups are not giving up on their methodology but know something is missing and are considering modest changes in their approaches. In time a hybrid approach like type D could emerge as influential, or an even more Integral approach, say a type E, could also emerge. (especially with a more nuanced approach to multiple perspectives like an integral approach).

Figure p

18 For example, Ricigliano (22) introduced systems thinking in 2011 saying a piecemeal/silo approach wasn’t working and that methodologies needed to cross boundaries from one discipline to another. His approach included; short term “transactional� solutions; long term structural changes; and attitudinal changes and therefore behavioral changes that would follow. Lederach (26) also is suggesting a system/systemic approach inclusive of the top level government, UN approach, with a midlevel type B approach, with a grassroots type C approach; addressing the roots of violence in an area and developing methods to lessen confrontation between groups that leads to violence. Using strategic methods, dialogic methods, and teaching people methods to sustain their peace practices.

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

19

Integral Peace Summary snapshot, Paradox, Disappointment, Futility Integral Peace (figure i) must integrate overview, strategy, and a peace process solution perspective to all types of conflict.

However, current methods only address one third of all conflict scenarios. So, tentative solution perspectives and implementation vectors must occur domain by domain (figure r), Quadrant by Quadrant, and so on; over time (figure q).

Otherwise the peace paradox, where peace systems only reach the few, furthers disappointment and futility in society. For example, Bernie Sanders losses in 2016 and 2020 are a stepping stone in time toward future gains! We must continue to maintain an aperspectival practice holding key paradigm perspectives, (figure z).

Ethos of wellbeing for all Figure i Integral matrix of Integral Teal synthesis of an Ethos of wellbeing for all

Figure q is a graphic timeline on the breakup of domains of the Modern Paradigm into Progressive Green and Integral Teal groups

aperspective emphatics in 5 stage cluster to be held in consideration and empathy of meme groups and paradigms

fig. z Figure r key

Integral Domains

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Peace Synthesis - Peace studies (theme 7) summary: There are 22 key features in peace building of which a few follow: (from Paffenholz and Peace Studies theorists) 23 1.

2.

3.

Identify which groups are effective for peace in region (type B). provide empirical data that peacebuilding and peace process works. a. First provide protections for groups in harms way; like, for example, journalists. b. Identify United Nations (UN) groups, (type A). Mobilize during peace transition to stay the course for sustainable peace. c. If not UN, identify other groups, (type B): i. Human rights organizations ii. Humanitarian groups iii. Media groups iv. NGO’s v. Religious, church groups vi. Local security groups vii. Doctors, medical groups viii. Red Cross, CARE, etc.

Deconstruct culture of violence in areas affected. Reeducate type B activist groups minds to adapt to nonviolent methodology. (Re-educate here means nothing like the re-education Lifton spoke of regarding Communist China, for example).

Identify key pillars of suppression, oppression, coercion, and exclusion; and, choose which to address, whether by type B or Type A groups.

Whether human rights, social justice, environment, humanitarian needs/aid, women’s needs, food needs, establishing democratic institutions, etc. For example, (from Shaazka Beyerle), countries like Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, Sudan, and Somalia, to name a few, are often so corrupted the corruption infiltrates the private sector, the media, the police, and the state/government. Organized crime, paramilitary groups, Narco-traffickers, and arms traffickers run freely. (how can local groups face this amassed evil? Yet there are examples where they do, like, the Antimafia by Alison Jamieson 24). People want better lives, an end to oppression and exclusion, and conflict.

4.

Civil society. (From Paffenholz 23). How civil society can affect outcomes of a peace process: a. Civil society can pressure governments to end violence, and transform systems of oppression, sometimes beginning small and sequencing to larger and more frequent actions, (even with “hour by hour” tactics).

Civil society can face oppressive government, speak truth to power, seek social change. b. How state and government react to civil society often determines how advocacy and activism goes. Similarly, with regards to how the military arm of the government acts/react. c. Regional actors and allies can be very influential; if they support civil society then there is more possibility of success. d. Similarly, for International actors and allies. e. Individual ngo’s and peace groups in conflict areas must come out of their silos of dot actions and support the greater context and peace process. f. Leadership. When leaders come together, they are often able to persuade their people to do likewise. When Political parties opposing a repressive regime come together chances of civil activism success improve.

5. Healing. Provide models of healing of trauma by medical help, dialogue, by addressing accountability, by new constitution that rights the wrongs.

6. Emancipatory vectors. From oppressive regimes and institutions; from structural racism; from bias and prejudice; from exclusion due to class; and from the tyranny of type A impositions and western hegemony, and global economic rule.

Following are some key Peace Studies thinkers and their approach:

Jose Pascal da Rocha on Peacebuilding 25 Emphasis on local players developing sustainable peace by engaging agency from below and identity through the social sphere.

He says the priorities of the western leaders (type A) are not those of the local players, even though they are establishing medical structures, courts, police, and business security structures. The UN, he says, is not supporting peace niches, groups, and ngo’s on the ground. His suggestion is to develop a positive peace methodology that includes improved UN peace-keeping intervention as well as peacebuilding methods of the type B groups. His key points are emphasized in the key features above.

20

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Thania Paffenholz on the role of the Civil Society in Peacebuilding (23) “Civil Society” is her language for what others call local players. It is a question of imposition of non civil-society structures by external powers (type A) without due input and inclusion of local people and groups; like women’s groups, elders groups, neighborhood groups, minority groups, players in the main conflict even if they are considered unsympathetic to western values. Paffenholz’ features of a hybrid Peacebuilding methodology are the foundation for the key features listed above.

George A. Lopez on Peace Studies and their critique The dominant modern paradigm critique of Peace studies are; Security is the main issue, not peace or justice.

We can’t protect ourselves nonviolently. Peace groups don’t understand reality that we live in a world whose history is violence, and offer no practical answers. Lopez says peace studies do offer causes of conflict, methods of resolution and even transformation, and models of peacebuilding institutions for a just and sustainable peace.

Panel with Lederach and Oliver Richmond (27) on Relevancy of Peace Studies Peacebuilding and nonviolence actions have made a difference, shown by a decline in international conflicts. In spite of that, Oliver Richmond critiques the shortcomings and failures of the type A approach, “we blew the last 25 years, we lost the argument, and we lost legitimacy.” (possibly even referring to both A and B). How do we, the peace community, now change? First, supply A with a Progressive/Green understanding of peace and development (along lines of B, C, and D) which is implemented in a consistent way for all parts of the world and not biased or in favor of developed nations. Second, have type B groups engage with Type C groups and grassroots, local groups in an age of resistance like the Arab Spring, (or an Echo-Occupy WashDC2024 (29) of 3 million strong to demand new national agendas).

Third, remedy the world’s acceptance of a culture of violence that has “naturalized structural violence.” Peace studies has crystallized a lot of methodology around distributive justice, pluralism, and good democratic institutions giving on the ground equality. These techniques must be put forward into a new peace-implementation. Lederach points out that the peace movement must resolve the tension between peace studies of type B with nonviolent activism type C. Because nonviolent activism is a challenge to “mobilization for social change” of the status quo system, while conflict resolution (type B approach) aims at de-escalation and not mobilization. Conflict transformation can embrace both approaches.

Amitav Acharya on Global IR (20) (International Relations) Global governance remains in the hands of the G20, and the new countries in that group do not hold enough legitimacy in their regions to take their regions with them. For example, neither India, China, or Japan can speak for Asia. His version of a hybrid-like Global IR; 1) Civil society inclusive of local groups engage with type-B organizations without being marginalized by type-A institutions. Priority is society with priority to local bottom-up level of democracy and human rights with transnational justice and cooperation. 2) Develop a pluralistic paradigm that are not financial global capitalist or militarist; and, not led by G20, or BRICs countries. Examples are Bangladesh, Singapore, and Egypt.

Peace Alliance 28 Promote a top level government Department of Peace in as many countries as possible. Promote a Global alliance of Departments and Ministries of Peace. Promote the working draft of the United States Department of Peace legislation. (for fuller summary of schools see addenda 1),

21

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Figure s

The Progressive Green Paradigm addresses regional conflicts, meme group conflicts with local conflict resolution methods, and very local solution based for developing resilience for the future (see figures s and t). Most peace studies solution sets stop at these niche levels. Which does not expand well to assessing and dealing with the big picture which includes hegemonic powers, and conflicts where they are not invited. The Introduction of governmental departments of peace can begin to bridge the gap. Peace studies groups and peace community groups have specific schools of thought regarding approach and niche they work in, like, Global IR, Inclusive Peace Strategy and so on. (See addenda 1). However, all groups have a vector and direction toward peace, justice, and harmony with partial solutions to the big picture. How are better approaches to hegemonic and independent powers approached? By Paradigm by paradigm, and domain by domain‌

Figure t

22

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Peace Coordination (theme 8); Peacebuilding must occur in all paradigms coordinated from a Teal-Turquoise Department of Peace, which would stand as a voice of humanity with integrity and independence. Peace is foundational to humanities survival during the 21st century. it will take global peace institutions, that understand social justice and fairness principles, in all governments to see humanity through the impending crises. Institutions like the State Department and the Department of Defense are immersed in arcane, well-worn and habitual diplomatic and warrior paths. They follow tried and failed policies based on political bias, carrot and stick approaches, or just plain geopolitical national interests and power struggles. They cannot be entrusted as peace building organizations. Unlike the Modern paradigm where force is often a preferred and first choice alternative, the Modern Department of Peace Office will suggest force as a last alternative.

The Department of Peace is not an isolated and marginalized government form but participates with various worldview understandings and paradigm organizations A, B, C, and D, to make those understandings healthier, saner, ubiquitous, and implemented.

In addition to the DoP many coordinating bodies will be needed. An Office of International Peace Activities, for example, would interface with the State Department and the Department of Defense on peace approaches including approaches to particularly egregious conflict situations, even recommending appropriate use of force if the situation is so extreme as to suggest that alternative. Because Traditional and Pretraditional worldview stages, as well as Modern institutions are repeating the same cycle of conflict and violence for generations. It will be in association with Offices of Departments of Peace that they can begin to see a way forward and out of their repetitive cycle, transforming to a modified Traditional, modified Pretraditional, and modified Modern institution, at least finding a way to live in peace with difference.

Figure v

The Department of Peace as a government department would be the first Integral Globalcentric organization that can interface through its various offices with each worldview department that now exists. For example, an Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution1 will model approaches to peaceful coexistence, conflict resolution and transformation from a globalcentric perspective of global thinking, global cooperation, and global wisdom. And, a Progressive-Green/Teal coordinating committee can interface with type C organizations for social changes that resist the trend of paradigm change.

The general purpose of organizational coordination is to influence paradigm revisions of the 3-stage cluster; Red Authoritarian, Traditional, and, Modern by influences from the 3-stage cluster; Progressive-Green, Teal, and, Turquoise.

(As suggested in the composite integral matrix figure v and figure x, p. 28).

Also, Peace Studies, group type D is in a position to assist any of the other organizational groups. Especially group C whom they often are disengaged from their condition on the ground.

Examples of effective activism actions (present and past) include; Gandhi salt march; Freedom riders and sit-ins 1960’s; MLK civil rights actions; Berkeley & M. Savio and the free speech movement; 1967-1968 anti-Vietnam war protests; Democratic convention 1968 protests; 1969-1972 antiVietnam-Cambodia-Laos war protests; Grape boycott 1970’s; Act-up activism 1980’s; LBGT rights activism; anti-Iraq war 2003; 350.org and Keystone & Dakota Access pipeline activism; Occupy Wall Street 2012; and so on.

23

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Figure u, Integral Peace in 3 stage cluster

During the Vietnam war era activism was a daily event; many of the above actions were organized and coordinated. Now, to be effective for peace against Cultural and Dominant Paradigms dysfunctions, the peace work of all the organization types must be better coordinated; with groups engaging beyond their paradigm & silo activities, and with greater frequency. New Peace Studies Ethos and new Departments of Peace are ideally situated to do this. And, to do this effectively participation must grow.

From the Shard Building action to Black Lives Matter to Immigration reform to Climate Change to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, comprehensive coordination-with-insistence is needed. D groups coordinating with A, B, and C groups. Inclusive methods: communication of ethos of wellbeing; communication from perspective of globalcentric world charter; common ground agreements between meme groups; dialogue; activism for rights, peace, and justice; lifestyle challenge like the hippies of the 1960’s; paradigm critique; whole systems thinking and the mapping of coordinated resistance and action; activism every week; Echo-occupy WashDC 2020; communication of CRedu; conflict transformation methods; and, recommendations for legislation process.

This insight suggests 3 things; We must all move into the future together; we must have a guiding ethos of wellbeing; and, we must begin a cultural awakening, both locally and globally. Before coordinated action can happen in a “global social movement,” we need to communicate an Ethos of Wellbeing for all humans, species and ecosystems; including wellbeing of the individual, Nations, and institutions. Individuals will need to tap into a global wisdom, groups will need to participate in global dialogue, behaviors will have to be more conscious, and our institutions will have to function within an ecology of systems. An Ethos of wellbeing presents a big task both to imbibe and communicate. It can only be done through multiple connections and alliances. It must be at once both sweeping and targeted. Targeted to all paradigm groups so they can understand and also take reasonable action. Conscious actions have been going on now for some time amongst progressive and green groups as well as by many still committed to the Modern paradigm. See figure u above.

24

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Choices and options abound in any integral analysis. The integralist must choose a workable set of emphatics called here a peace-process-set for peace coordination.

Developing a Peace Process-set from a peace data library (figures s and t), for one’s self, for one’s group, or for a peace coordinating committee ( shown below as a collection of big topics no individual could work on independently; in addition, these points are not Integrally organized, but can be seen more Integrally in figure u above): 1.

The Constructivist School that includes Roberto Unger, A. Acharya, and the work of Edward Said.

That advocates for growing Progressive Green and Constructivists beyond their current 30%, by educational renaissance, generational change, and changes in Modern meme group.

2. A Department of Peace (DoP), coordinating and implementing a new collective activism, and coordinated paradigm engagement; and, developing messaging on "advocacy or revolution," as argued for by J. Schell, C. Hedges, and N. Klein. A DoP can coordinate with Grow Peace methodology schools; promote nonviolent activism, solidarity movement, new civil rights movement, anti-war movement, and new abolitionists (Angela Davis) aligned with comprehensive theory.

3. Resistance is ongoing, and at least 25% are committed to action, therefore begin preparations for Echo-Occupy WashDC2024, and CRedu with new self-set and vision of a way forward. This percentage of the populace, including businesses, the Cultural Creatives, the Wiser Earth groups, and minority groups through voluntary pledges and commitments (especially to things like divestment campaigns) can increase their participation if well message-targeted; and, to pressure the government.

Another 45% of the populace could come on board to whatever extent they can with consciousness raising education (CR edu) and communication, and, with improvements in messaging, coordination, and some legislation.

This scenario points out the current activity of 25% of the populace and indicates that 70% of the populace could eventually have to participate in a new ethos of wellbeing for all, within their paradigm ideology, if we are to achieve a peaceful and sustainable society. Integral Peace has endorsed this mix of participation as a viable guide to communication and action. Communication directed to Progressive groups about keeping the big picture front and center, and then fanning out that message to the wider social audience is necessary. Thereby inducing coordinated action on part of progressive groups; a path unfolding like this; First actions can take place by the 25% of Progressive and Integral meme groups already in action, already having wisdom and awareness of present conditions. To actually reach the next 45% of the population demonstrative communicative action may be necessary, in an Echo-Occupy WashDC 2024 demonstration.

Cultural Paradigms in revision (theme 9) For they are in conflict within and between paradigms, nations, and peoples and it is ongoing (figure w, p. 26).

Cultural or Traditional Paradigms are now really Traditional-Modern Paradigms, for the modern influences every other paradigm. Look at what is needed for Cultural paradigms in revision from an Integral Peace perspective: •

(AQAL) Look at meme group types and their paradigms; Worldviews and Paradigms. How to avoid catastrophe.

• (UL) look at the positive aspect of Global Wisdom as well as the shadow aspects.

• (UR) Examine the inherent danger of social change and the possible heartbreak and cycles of failure to reach people. Look at 6 major crises, and up to 150 Global crises.

• (LL) Look at cultural conflict from perspective of schools of thought and practice like International relations, and Global IR; from a positive Pinker approach to a Peace studies hybridist approach.

Look at a new cultural awakening.

• (LR) Assess traditional peace institutions, and peace community. Summarize a wellbeing of nations approach to synthesize cultural paradigms in revision for a cooperative global society.

The problem of peace in a multiple-paradigm-scenario world is that many types of conflict become pervasive and of duration (see figure w on 6 key conflicts); and many of these conflicts are inaccessible to resolution because they are inaccessible by either group, or institutions, or peace strategies A, B, C, or D. Being closed off from engagement with those aspects of societies because of their own conflicts or distortions.

Closed off from a wealth of peace experience, skills, and methodologies of peacebuilding. Each conflict can be assessed as to how things could have been different if these institutions would have been engaged; including the role of hegemonic powers. The hegemonic powers are often engaged in some way, and therefore, this implies paradigm change is necessary for these powers. Enlightenment philosophy helped bring about the Modern paradigm with its resultant shadow. More recent paradigms like the Progressive-Green and the Integral globalcentric can encourage this paradigm change as necessary for global survival.

25

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

To heal our planet we must have a healthy psychology, healthy communities, and healthy worldviews. We must develop the means to resolve differences of opinion, and cultural group conflict by resolving and transforming our differences peacefully. Society is moving toward a maturing process or toward collapse, which would be a destructive path for far too many people. Can differing overlapping worldviews and paradigm scenario proposals coexist? Can we grasp and include multiple perspectives? We can, by learning to engage an inclusive global wisdom so communities can continue to gain psychological health, grow and transition in spite of, and simultaneous to, the oncoming struggle and storm.

Various emphatics from Political Science or groups and Institutions A, B, C, and D can address key conflicts shown in chart below, and most other conflicts of the 150 series of global crises. There is plenty of firepower here to address them; why is it not applied?

Conflict types (also see figures s and t): 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Ideological conflicts Traditional Cultural conflicts Traditional Political conflicts like West and Communism Authoritarian and Totalitarian governments Islam vs. West; Islam factional conflict; Terrorist conflicts...

Figure w,

26

Key Schools, (and see summary of schools’ addenda 1): 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Hegemonic power play between the West and Russia, China; Balance of power and strategic advantage; National interest, geopolitical advantage, and so on…

Neoliberal globalization; Neoliberal Democracy; Realist, neocons United Nations and International Relations Constructivism; Global IR; Feminist theory Marxism; Critical Theory Chomsky’s Anarcho-syndicalism, and Bernie Sanders socialist democracy Green New Deal planning

Without an understanding of overlapping paradigms, poor global cooperation will take place and limited achievements in dealing with the crises like Climate Change will result.

Overlapping paradigm scenarios have a potential of coexistence, and unexpectedly, when in combination become more than their individual scenario stories. “Overlapping paradigms” are the persistent paradigms of the past and the emergent paradigms of our time. There are persistent paradigms of the Modern world, there is the alternative paradigm of the Progressive modern worldview, and there are many emergent stories and proposals for new society paradigms.

6+ Key conflicts with global effects

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Thus, many have some naïve expectations and storylines ofthe-future, as well as oversimplifying the complexities of the Modern dysfunctions; often substituting the dysfunction of a worldview for the whole worldview. The further implication is that this egregious dysfunction can only change by revolution.

Thus, the need for an Integral Paradigm analysis where scenarios are not just identified but integrated amongst coexisting paradigms. The clash between the residual paradigm and the emergent paradigm scenarios across various worldviews may be inevitable. The emergent paradigms are in a formative stage and need time to develop, to achieve maturity and consensus, as well as integration into society.

Some say we don’t have the time. Integral Peace can only suggest some possible approaches to global cooperation, some of which must start soon. Global alliances, new statespersons, an Ecology of systems, and Global Wisdom urgently need more elaboration and implementation. Some Paradigm scenarios are revisions to the Modern Paradigm. Some emergent Paradigm scenarios are Progressive-Modern. Some emergent paradigm scenarios include but transcend the Progressive-Modern worldview.

Key aspects of change to accomplish the above include; global wisdom, an Ethos of peace and wellbeing for all, Global cooperation and National Departments of Peace, cultural awakening, and a new world charter. A key sign of this awakening will be the endorsement and communication of an Ethos of Wellbeing for all humans, species and ecosystems; including wellbeing of the individual, Nations, and institutions. An Ethos of wellbeing presents a big task both to imbibe and communicate. It must be at once both sweeping and targeted to all paradigm groups so they can understand, take reasonable action, and create alliances.

Current affinity to this ethos activity engages about 30% of the populace and indicates that 70% of the populace will eventually have to participate in a new ethos of wellbeing within their paradigm ideology, if we are to achieve a sustainable society. This mix of participation is a viable guide to communication and action. In a post-consumer consciousness, we know fulfillment and happiness is in our relations, family, wellbeing, and consciousness gain. To actually reach another 30% of the population demonstrative communicative action regarding energy reductions, earth stewardship, local food, resolution of key conflicts, and so on must be engaged. The 30% leadership group must engage in anti-technological change including; consciousness gain, restoration of self, species and ecosystems; and lifestyle change. Because non technological evolution is also necessary for an ethos of wellbeing to emerge.

For example, the Green Progressive groups, of sustainability and human rights, want the Orange Modern central powers to live with the same integrity they strive for, and they will demand this integrity. It is up to Modern nations to bring uncooperative nations into some modicum of cooperative alliance, but this will take global wisdom, of which the Modern meme will have to rely on the Integral globalcentric groups for help and leadership.

The Modern and Progressive-modern worldviews must undergo a maturing process that will allow for coexistence with each other as well as with the worldview structure that is globalcentric Integral Peace. IP calls for conflict resolution and transformation through dialogue, however, this does not preclude insistent demonstrative communication like an Echo-Occupy 2024, if done nonviolently, in a sense of inclusion and intent to resolve conflicted perspectives and in endeavor to seek a way forward together.

Cultural Awakening is an awakening from the underlying nexus of the corporate capitalist system and consumerism (we buy everything!); it is an awakening to what is happening in the Modern leviathan and the alternatives to that. Cultural awakening depends on much CRedu (consciousness raising education) especially for the developed world and the dominant leviathan modern paradigm members. Lifestyles will have to harmonize with the natural world as much as possible, and therefore change in terms of energy and resource use. This realization is cultural awakening, an epiphany of attunement with the poorer countries of the world who already have lifestyle systems in place the developed world can learn from. It is also the realization of our global interconnectedness encouraged by the digital networks, the global education of women, individuals’ epiphanies, and group consciousness change like the millennial generation’s embrace of diversity and global human rights. The important changes may be collective change like generational change achieved with education and media. Events and conditions do not pause while a new ethos gets developed. It is the overlapping scenarios of collective paradigm change that will move us forward; not any scenario in particular. In a timeline of paradigm change the dominant modern leviathan does not look so dominant in the future. The developed world will have to come into an advantageous and cooperative coexistence with all meme groups, cultures, and nations.

Coexisting paradigms, may go through adjusting, growing, maturing, and adapting pains. Some paradigm scenarios include Sustainable planning, including groups of differing politics, economic brackets, and ages. To create a foundation of guiding principles this IP endorses a World Charter with an emphasis on diversity, inclusiveness, and

27

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

wellbeing for all; including species and ecosystems. It is an approach specifically including disadvantaged persons, and the poor in all phases of planning. Transition is hard for anyone as individuals, but becomes easier and doable when all levels of society participate including individuals, community groups, the commercial sector, and the government sector.

Paradigm change and social transition looks at community transition, its psychology, its conflicts, its stories, its opportunities, its inclusions, and its bliss. It is an inclusion of all-groups, as an integral part of the greater transition and Global dialogue. Transitioning within a diverse society means we need to develop methods that helps individuals and groups of people who have diverse perspectives and different worldviews to find some common ground, consensus, and where all can be heard.

Many people and groups are working on this and they insist government, business, and institutions also work on this. Each government and organization should have a department of peace... The importance of the Integral method is that it can mitigate, not necessarily save us, from overwhelming problems, despair, rash actions. It is a sober, detailed looking at all perspectives and allowing a Zen awakening to take place.

The work the Integral method accomplishes is recognizing what each paradigm contributes. Individuals like Jose, Pilar and Ali practicing the way of peace internally and externally provides a wisdom to guide and, or participate with the other domains. If governmental forms and a focus on ground conditions are dominant a dialogic impasse may occur between participants. Were the deep understanding of community and individual depth fully included and tapped into by techniques different than a debate over conditions, an impasse can be overcome. Programs on this front are being made with Peace studies and practice groups, (as previously described), Restorative Justice techniques, and global dialogue efforts. Global dialogue is a dialogic imperative where conditions on the ground become one aspect of the dialogue – not the only aspect.

Figure x

Self and groups; it is consciousness that is at fault. If the consciousness of the people was higher life as business-asusual would change. The awakening solution lies in living up to the ethos of our groups, being open to a new ethos of wellbeing for all, and extensive CRedu. Also, have each overlapping paradigm line up with its ethos, foreswear war, and cooperate so resources are there for wellbeing now and for future generations in perpetuity. Meme types refer to cultural groups with their own identity, values, ethos, and worldviews. Ideally Meme groups and their worldviews participate in global dialogue in a dialectical collaboration of the folding and refolding of what works for and serves an ethos of wellbeing and ultimately in a synthesis of a duration-ofgood. All worldviews with their respective ethics need to be a part of the dialogue and solution toward awakening to an ideal harmony. Sensitive to other cultural meme groups and their typological differences; like for example the Global South, and the voiceless billions excluded from the world stage need also be included and have a voice, otherwise persistent global crises will continue as indicated in figure w.

The crux of Integral Peace; is an Integral Peace analysis just a balanced approach presenting some perspectives of peace in some paradigms? Or, can an emergent peace vector and perspective emerge that can influence paradigm change in the key paradigms discussed here, especially in the dominant paradigm?

28

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Dominant Paradigm in Revision (theme 10); Everyone knows the obvious about the modern paradigm including its advancements in science, technology, medicine, wealth, law, education. The focus here is on the critique of the dominant paradigm. What went wrong, and what can be done to revise and recover and evolve the paradigm? The political science of the dominant paradigm can address conflict as it has like “relations with Russia;” or 6 to 8 key crises mentioned. However, the Political Science of the dominant paradigm cannot solve all conflicts in a multiple paradigm world, because their approach is biased in favor of the modern hegemony. Standard domain practices must be rethought domain by domain. For example, the capitalist economic model of expansion needs to be rethought resource by resource, method by method; is the resource depleting? Is extraction harmful to the environment or community? How do the 1% get taxed, and so on? The Integral Peace approach of the previous pages with its 10 peace themes and critiques has tried to outline a response to the Dominant Paradigm. The critiques may be of the paradigm, of the domains in the paradigm or of the schools of the domain.

1.

2.

3.

The Realist School and the Neo-Liberal School endorse a pragmatic approach based on real economic conditions as described by Ian Shapiro, the Pentagon’s New Map, and Globalization; which includes capitalisteconomic dominance, privatization, and creating debt by lending to pay debt. Other schools with other emphases are the Constructivist (JFK, Unger, Sanders, Acharya); the Pragmatic/ethics; Singer, Lifton, Singer/Pinker that which is already there; and the Modern Political Sciences.

Some remaining Idealists are Ernst Bloch and the yet-tobe-enacted; Rawls's ideal justice; Neiman's and Mills’ recovery of the Enlightenment; Gandhian/MLK vision; Critical Theory of Habermas; and the new hybrid democracy and Integral Peace.

The Dominant Paradigm critique, (by N. Klein, Edward Said, C. Hedges, H. Arendt, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky), of its dysfunction and shadow asks; can catastrophe be overcome, subsumed, integrated, resolved through paradigm change? Can its Machiavellian ethos, multiple undemocratic nexus’s leading to catastrophe, and crises be revised?

The Dominant Paradigm has the dilemma of resolving conflicts it can’t in the left 3-stage cluster, while often rejecting suggestions from the right 3-stage cluster (figure v, p. 25), including peace studies approaches which it sees as too idealistic and not of the real world. However, the Modern paradigm lacks no quantity of support. Atlas Shrugged, (nicknamed for the Traditional-Modern meme group, in resurgence with the Tea party and Trumpism) defiantly, unapologetically promotes the Modern Paradigm (with traditional values) as the omega of paradigms including a hardened stance on capitalist economics, American hegemony, family, military, and exceptionalism regarding global resources and power. None the less the critics are vociferous. As examples IP often has quoted Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, Habermas and Mills, of the Progressive /green meme group and paradigm; Lewis Mumford from a Teal Turquoise vision; A Department of Peace, which is a Teal Turquoise peace institution indicates a way forward; Hannah Arendt says as one of her emphatics is that societies are in danger of moving towards authoritarian government when citizens are not thinking critically. And S. Wolin (32) says we are already in an inverted (partial and subtle) authoritarian society. Arendt’s version of thinking is beyond the stage of many of these citizens who are in a meme group (Atlas Shrugged, for example) that follows authority or dogma. What can be addressed is the Machiavellian ethos and thinking of their leaders; dialogues of common ground where abortion is addressed as a social issue with objective of reducing abortion and increasing support for young women; as well as educating citizens to choose leaders who have their interests, are not corrupt, etc.

David Harvey (33) says numerous domains and sectors of the Modern Paradigm society must co-evolve for social change, including how production is organized; how worldviews must evolve and change; how political, institutional, and organizational change must happen toward a more cooperative ethos; and how consciousness raising education of the public is necessary. The ethos change required is from a capitalist – Machiavellian value orientation to some other relevant value like an ethos of wellbeing, or a sustainable value and so on.

29

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Slavoj Zizek (34) deconstructs all paradigms and paradigm attempts, pointing out their inconsistencies and hypocrisies in a dizzying display of skilled dissection. The capitalist problem is its self-defeating cycle of growth and productivity, devouring its own material base; as well as its rupture of meaning from truth allowing it to be practiced by any ideology overlaying their own meaning. Being, the self, God, progressives, science, technology, and democracy are all deconstructed; caught in a humiliation where life becomes trivial, meaningless, weak, and unknowable. His conviction is an absolute belief that without violent revolution, you don’t have revolution! By committing to no perspective, there emerges insight into the moment and timing of revolution and violent action. Zizek supports being’s possibility of emergence, out-of-chaos, from creative possibility fields, where society produces social relations of shared knowledge, cooperation, communication, democratic forms of life, non-hierarchy, egalitarian, self-regulating ethical interactions.

Steven Pinker, says violence has declined. “We may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence;” presenting valuable and important research on peace through history into our current period. Such that he does provide reliable information and data that show an across the board decline in violent death, even when major wars are included in the data (200 million deaths in the 20th century). Although in the modern age, now, doomsday now consists of damage to the ecosystems, or nuclear destruction, there is a kind of progress.

Rounding out his list of peace making factors: 1. Democratic Peace theory; Peace through learning – of the futility and horror of war.

2. Humanist movement and philosophy of Kant which brought increase in empathy, human rights and international cooperation.

3. Judicial change from cruelty and torture to fair trials and more humane incarceration.

4. More comprehensive legislating and law making for a rule of law society. Global governance institutions like the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Hindering a more widespread knowledge of this he blames the media, and rightly so. But there is enough blame to spread amongst the militarist propaganda, political ideology and self-interest, and our education system. This is still the human condition where violence permeates societies in one way or another though the effects may seem subtle, and are not specifically violent death.

Professor Ian Shapiro, (The Moral Foundations of Politics, (35)) ends a 25 lecture Yale course on Politics with these words, “democracy is not inevitable unless it is sustained and maintained to protect goods like production and efficiency.”

Is he describing a democracy or a corporate capitalist state?

Locke derived the doctrine of individual rights whereby all are created equal and have equal rights to the things of the earth given to mankind in common.

From this first principle or moral foundation of politics, government, and society Shapiro jumps into the dominating domain of economics and pretty much stays there. The first school he discusses is Utilitarianism. J. Bentham thought utility could be quantified and used to organize society to maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number; achieved by a redistribution of utility from those who have an abundance to others. To moderate self-interest, and resistance by the rich classes, government is immediately introduced with the task as collective representative to guide the collective to have equal share in the social utility achieved, like clean air or high standard of living, as well as equally shared sacrifice like paying for a war you want to opt out of. So, governments become empowered to raise taxes, pass laws, and determine spending. while neoclassic utilitarianism recognizes only the most efficient utility for whomever can achieve it without regard to equity. The individual has the right to act as she sees fit and to have that right protected, as long as she does not harm others rights.

Justice emerges. Limits and checks on hierarchy are necessary for democratic institutions, therefore, society can redesign and restructure domains and institutions we inherit along democratic justice (rights) lines. Corporate businesses and their power are here to stay so make them allies in social programs.

Chris Hedges’ (36) critique is the counter-Shapiro, counterPinker view. His counter-Pinker list: Economic catastrophe; environmental catastrophe; Climate Change data; black death from climate change killing as many as 100 million; rising seas will create chaos; armed gangs will maraud the blighted landscape; 60 million refugees now and 200 million by mid-century; 6th mass extinction has begun. The culture of violence persists regardless of numbers and per capita data.

And, as if in response to Shapiro’s non-apologist approach; yes, capitalism is at the center of these problems. The gambling with commodity futures while the poor starve; the dogmatic conviction of wealth at the expense of others; it is without love, beauty, truth. Capitalism eventually moves toward Corporate totalitarianism, creating unfeeling technocrats, with the press and politicians complicit, and with the military as a tool of their power; following a Machiavellian ethos; with surveillance of its citizenry.

Hedges endorses a radical Progressive-Green Paradigm.

Reform by not destroying systems but by transforming them; by creating a radical shift in consciousness; embracing a justworld theory of a new ethos inclusive, nonviolent, rational, with an attitude of reciprocity and sharing.

30

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

As well as building self-governing non-hierarchical sustainable communities severed from the corporate state and functioning in compassion for the public good. Hedges may be right. He only lacks the Teal level ability of whole systems thinking.

Hannah Arendt (37) from her book, The Promise of Politics says social informal law by reasonable people is unlikely to succeed; “it is naive.” people will fall asleep due to the consumer preoccupation, the forgetting or shunted aside of past tyrannies, or, in uneducated indulgences (like Trumpism). A cultural awakening from CR education is necessary. But something in society is non rational (16), we are being led by ideologies and meme groups, and governments disengaged from people and their needs We might change human beings, she says, but we must change our institutions and governments. The politics of opposed groups has brought this about so what politics can solve these problems? And metaphysically, what can restore meaning to existence?

Believe it or not Arendt calls for a miracle; not metaphysical as in mystic, but as in the awe of the cosmos, and science, and thought the polis becomes a heroic state of beings achieving longevity for nations. Arendt proclaims that peace was increasing before WWI and social conditions were improving.

But the military was in the hands of governments and that was not a mature match of rational reason and the business of technology; thus war, evil, and genocide came. Yet, we have not learned or matured in reason in the past 100 years.

Economics and war create an unholy alliance. “Catastrophe is inevitable” The citizenry and the polis must create meaning of life that will sustain them in the struggle.

Jonathan Schell (38) in The Unconquerable World said Gandhi required the intellect to undergo a parallel renunciation; it had to rid itself of dogmatic certainty.

Activism for comprehensive change can be incremental pursuit of revolutionary ends by peaceful reformist means acting on the basis of common principles, yet without any blueprint. Some common principles would be social justice for the oppressed, rescue of the abused environment, and peace where binding legislation and international treaties can accomplish these tasks. A solidarity of nations and global institutions is needed as well as global alliance of governmental departments of peace.

Naomi Klein (39) begins her social change thesis on an adversarial note; we must develop a worldview different than the dominant modern paradigm view; “to wage and win a battle of cultural worldviews.” identifies the modern capitalist paradigm as the problem The very heart of the corporate capitalist/government system must be exposed as illegitimate.

1. Consume less and adopt a lifestyle similar in costs and energy use to that of the 1970’s; with the richest 20% taking the largest cuts. Major contraction in resource use.

Comprehensive policies and programs making low carbon choices the norm, and drastically reducing emissions.

2. Comprehensive guarantee of human rights, immigrant rights; restore and protect commons from privatization.

3. A new ethos that we are not apart from nature but of it; as well as one of care and compassion; reciprocity and cooperation. Disperse power to the people, and improve people’s lives. An ecological-economics new order is absolutely necessary; for the capitalist system that created this catastrophe cannot fix it. This will require changes in how capitalist democracy functions.

4. GDP must be reordered where consumption, investment, and trade must be reduced and offset by more government spending in a redistribution of wealth for a more equitable society. And, a carbon tax.

Klein continues; capitalists, venture capitalists, carbon trading programs, compromised green NGO’s and billionaires, and geo-engineering can’t solve these problems; however, the capitalists’ profits (trillions of dollars) must be turned toward climate action and restoration No one is thinking these aligned forces can be defeated by modest activist actions. A vast alliance of groups is needed spearheaded by climate change groups with rights groups, immigrant groups, and especially common ground groups from opposing political views. However, this Progressive-Green approach is fragmented, scattershot, and frustrating; a mix of policy suggestions, anecdotal storytelling, and a reliance of native peoples to lead the legal fight. On the other hand, the Integral Peace approach is the 10 peace themes and a coordinated approach of revision and change, domain by domain (figure y).

Figure Y

31

nomadic think tank

Integral Peace

Lewis Mumford (40) in The Pentagon of Power says political, military, economic, propaganda, and Industrialcorporate domains form a nexus of power. As the channels of instantaneous communication become more elaborate the response becomes externally countered by official messaging against any challenge or attacks on the pentagon of power These are the social consequences of increasing physical power without a commensurate increase of intellectual insight, and moral discipline. power on a scale that could no longer be controlled; except by a profound re-orientation of human habits, efforts, and goals. A new model based on “biotechnics,” cultural transformation is in the making, including a recognition that the money economy is bankrupt, and that the power complex has become impotent.

All thinking worthy of the name now must be ecological, utilizing organic complexity in adapting any change to meet the requirements of the human as well as “all his organic partners and every part of his habitat.” The power system can only continue as a working partner in an ecological endeavor in a more organic complex dedicated to the renewal of life. This before the destructive forces have permanently damaged the planet. Integral Peace has now been summarized multiple times showing 10 peace themes centered on a peace ethos of wellbeing for all emergent out of an integral analysis. Change will take time as the modern paradigm domains will divide and be revised. In this way Integral Teal, Integral Peace, and Integral Turquoise ethos will become more active players.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Endnotes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Paul Weiss, Beyond All Appearances, 1974 Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of our Nature, 2012 H.G. Wells, In the Days of the Comet; The Complete Science Fiction Treasury of H. G. Wells, 1978 Robert Prescott-Allen, The Wellbeing of Nations, 2001 Robert J. Lifton, Witness to an Extreme Century: a Memoir, 2014 James Baldwin; Charles Mills; From Class to Race: Essays in White Marxism and Black Radicalism, 2003 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnIjXmfTSYg CR edu. Consciousness raising education; nomadicthinktank Ashok Gangadean, on Global Wisdom https://www.haverford.edu/users/agangade

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope, 1995 JFK speech, American University, 1963 Revolution quote Emmanuel Levinas, Otherwise than Being, 1998 Riffat Hassan; Religion… conference, 2002 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKuLCLT95eU Henry David Thoreau from Lewis Hyde; The Essays of Henry D. Thoreau, 2002 Peter Singer, One World, 2002 Max Horkheimer by Prof. Mark Thorsby, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ree_q4WweCI Robert J. Lifton, ibid Hannah Arendt; The Promise of Politics, 2007 Nobel Peace Laureates; http://www.nobelpeacesummit.com/.pdf Amitav Acharya group, Global IR (International Relations), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_X7PyvL1cg Giandomenico Picco, Man Without a Gun, 1999 Ricigliano, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d68a/2a132476efe44fe579b 2918dcc8bf6d2d966.pdf Dr. Thania Paffenholz group, https://www.inclusivepeace.org/content/research Peter and Jane Schneider; Reversible Destiny: Mafia, Anti mafia, and the struggle for Palermo, 2003 Jose Pascal da Rocha, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_DnZOJXTxE John Paul Lederach; at Next Gen Peace Conference, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Fy_PRuBBU Oliver Richmond on Peace building, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXlbFQUyX1s Peace Alliance and Department of Peace (DoP), https://peacealliance.org/about-us/mission-and-vision/ Echo-occupy-WashDC 2024, Economic, ecologic, and human occupy; nomadicthinktank Shard building, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/11/gree npeace-shard-shell 150 series; 150 issues of supreme crisis, 150 solutions, 150 countries; nomadicthinktank Sheldon Wolin; Politics and Vision, 2016 David Harvey, The Crisis of Capitalism, 2010, (one of many talks) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26o22Y33h9s Slavoj Zizek; The Parallax View, 2009 Ian Shapiro, Yale course on The Moral Foundations of Politics (and economics); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6MOA_Y3MKE&list= PL2FD48CE33DFBEA7E Chris Hedges, Wages of Rebellion, 2015 H. Arendt, ibid Jonathon Schell; The Unconquerable World, 2003 Naomi Klein; This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, 2015 Lewis Mumford, The Pentagon of Power: The Myth of the Machine Volume two, 1970 See Integral literature and figure d1 Susan Neiman, Moral Clarity, 2008 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1999 J. Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other, 2015

32

nomadic think tank Integral Peace Integral Summary of key peace self(s), schools, groups, systems,

33 and behaviors

Modern Paradigm and their attempted methods of peace • • • •

UL; peace self as: Peace Diplomat, negotiator Realist, Neo-con Neo-liberal, Freidman economist, peace from secure economy Consciousness of family, community, national wellbeing

• • • • •

UR; peace behavior: American dream, career advancement Peace through military strength; Containment policy Geopolitical interests for national security The great game of hegemonic power for national peace; The Pentagon’s new Map (T. Barnett) MAD, mutual assured destruction gives global peace

Modern paradigm ethos revised for wellbeing for all including species and ecosystems. Currently, ambition, • • •

fairness, rule of law, free society, democratic process to make a good society for our children LL; peace in community LR; Modern systems and schools community as modern nation and as sovereign • Dept. of Defense, Dept. of State and so on Culture of violence, exploitative extractive culture • Political Science and International Relations; IR Hardened capitalist with carryover of traditional values • United Nations, UN peacekeeping, IMF, World Bank, and atlas-shrugged activism (tea party, anti-abortion, free trade for corporate benefit less taxes, less government…)

• Military intervention; humanitarian/military aid • Capitalist economic power, peace through globalization and trade

Progressive Green Paradigm • • • • •

Peace self as: Peace activist individual peace, peace meditation Peace self with empathy, care for all Peace habitat, peace garden Consciousness of wellbeing for all including species and ecosystems

• • • •

Peace self behavior: as activist Nonviolent activism as principle Radical activist like D. Jensen (may be considered as shadow aspect) New justice abolitionists; regarding prison reform, reparations, police dept. reform Right of guaranteed jobs, work w/ just wages

Progressive Green Peace Ethos of human rights; including justice and equity in society, nonprejudiced, diversity, empathy for other, activism for legislation for social wellbeing for all, and inclusive association with others.

Peace in Community for enhanced rights: Activist school themes: • Nonviolent collective activism for social change • Justice, human rights, sometimes revolution, e.g., Arab spring, Velvet and Orange demonstrations • Civil rights, LBGT, women’s, environmental, etc., movements • Indigenous rights, black lives matter • Women’s movement including feminist theory, increasing presence in government, increasing access to education for girls • Environmental action, climate change activism; 350.org, pipeline activism, fossil fuel divestment; student strike for climate justice, demand corporate action for climate change mitigation, and so on.

• Antiwar activism. Israeli boycott and divestment (BDS), divestment theory like in South Africa 1980’s • Code Pink, Occupy Wall Street, equity in wealth distribution, worker justice • Political and Dialogue methodology including, nonviolent communication (NVC), global dialogue, deliberative democracy methods, common ground communication between meme groups

Peace in Institutions, organizations, systems: • Peace legislative proposals for social rights, equality in all domains • Grassroots activism • Peace accords, treaties • Humanitarian and environmental NGO’s Peace schools: • Peace Hybridist (Oliver Richmond), comprehensive, negotiated peace amongst stakeholders, participants • Peace Strategist, Lederach, • Peace Studies; peace studies programs, methods and practices

nomadic think tank •

Integral Peace

Social democracy for peace and equity in society (Senator Bernie Sanders)

Integral Teal Whole Systems Paradigm • • •

•

Peace self as: Individual Peace Self as peace strategist for wellbeing of individuals, global wisdom, and awareness Peace Self as new statesperson, peace builder Peace Self as acting and describing the new-self responsibilities toward global context in society and ecosystems Consciousness of global wellbeing; care for world

•

• •

Peace self behavior for: Coordinated actions for wellbeing of society & species, including new idealists, new abolitionists, G. Picco initiative New peace logic and Global leadership reform, JFK peace initiatives like end money in politics, and echo-occupy WashDC 2024 activism

Integral Teal paradigm ethos of wellbeing for all; implementation Peace in community for: • wellbeing of community, family: • community with global peace consciousness • peace in communities, meme groups • Consumerism reform Peace studies groups, schools coordination, including: o Peace theory and research like S. Pinker, P. Singer o Peace theory, new-solidarity (J. Schell), and civil society (Dr. Paffenholz and O. Richmond) o Peace studies in achieving common ground o Peace conflict reconciliation methods o Peace transformation methods (L. WorthHuber, Dot Maver) o Peace troops o Peace building, grow peace (N. Klein, Peace Alliance, Jose Pascal da Rocha, Lederach) • Peace coordination; groups, initiatives, and inspired leaders

Integralist peace synthesis for structural repair and reform of all existing paradigm systems for: • Wellbeing of Nations, and wellbeing of institutions • Ecology of systems, whole systems theory, peace synthesis • Cabinet level Department of Peace (DoP) Peace synthesis, inclusive schools: • Constructivist synthesis school; JFK, Roberto Unger, Edward Said, A. Acharya and Global IR • Peace inclusion synthesis school, Dr. Paffenholz • Peace Hybridist synthesis school (O. Richmond) • U.S. Institute of Peace • Peace economy theory • Peace institutionalist through a Department of Peace for Legislation for social wellbeing • Institutional reforms of media, political parties, CJS, police, military, and so on • Synthesis of activism for Green New Deal(s), Departments of Peace, Global alliances of DoP •

34

nomadic think tank Integral Peace Integral Peace Paradigm and Turquoise Ethos Paradigm • • •

Individual peace self as peace self: Peace self as peace self; experience ethos of peace with peace within Peace self as peacemaker Global wisdom consciousness of global peace and wellbeing for all including species and ecosystems

• •

Peace behaviors: Peace actions as nonpolitical, inclusive for wellbeing of society and ecosystems Assist in healing from conflict

Integral Peace paradigm ethos of peace and wellbeing for all including species and ecosystems in perpetuity • • • • • •

Peace in communities, community ethos of peace: Culture of peace; peace among meme groups Global Cooperation, and philosophy of same New idealists promoting global cooperation, Green New Deals, National Departments of Peace Global dialogue, global communication, global alliances Peace schools, peace in schools, CR edu Social justice, climate justice, and so on Common ground communication between differing worldviews, and differing beliefs

• • • • •

Peace institutions, structures: New sovereignty approach, J. Schell New mobilizations for Green New Deal Peace legislation; end war, end arms trades, address drugs, addictions, bullying Global alliances of Dept’s of peace Wellbeing of social systems including urban justice nexus to address urban gangs, poverty, investment

Turquoise Ethos Paradigm of an ethos of ideal harmony and wellbeing for a duration of good • •

Peace self as peace ethosist Peace Consciousness of wellbeing for all peace awareness plus consciousness gain as protean self (RJ Lifton)

• •

Peace in community, Community of peace ethosist(s) Philosophy of peace to introduce, clarify, and heal the metaphysical gap for a duration of good

• • • •

Consciousness practice in behaviors Peace ethos behaviors for wellbeing of all Peace consciousness beyond debate Healing for all from conflict, war, and pain Buddhist harmony in peace

•

Wellbeing of ecosystems - Gaia Institutional ethos to resolve the metaphysical gap for wellbeing of society and the duration of good

35