• home
• news
• readingroom
• blog
• thought as passion
• links
• contact

H.B. Augustine is a junior undergraduate student at Denison University studying Philosophy and Communication. He has started a publishing organization called "Integral Publishing House" - contact him at august_h@denison.edu if interested in publishing Integral material.

Integral Politics

An Introduction to Integral Government

Henry Augustine

The Purpose of Government

Let us significantly expand on the kind of governance we earlier described. It is appropriate first that we begin by seriously considering what the purpose of government is in the first place. Afterward, we will criticize the collective faults of the still dominant rational-legal model. Next, we will provide a sufficiently more specific description and explanation of the Integral model we initially have in mind. Lastly, we will justify this model by pointing to each of its major benefits that the current model simply does not have. Let us now consider the purpose of government with which to begin.

We have discussed this earlier, no doubt – that government emerged in the first place because humans wished to end the state of nature marking the course of social affairs. We can see that government began as a way to repress the animal-instinct causing humans to kill one another and to think only for themselves. We can see that government, still, exists to defend society against chaos, which is a different way of saying that it exists still to repress the collective id. Government, at this point, is the establishment meant to maintain justice within the society over which it has power. It is necessary that we analyze the notion of justice, as does Plato in Republic, if we are to have any better grasp on the True purpose of government.

Many people regard justice simply as “fairness.” Justice, for the government ideally enforcing it, means punishing those in need of punishment. This version of justice, as it pertains to the way government generally is today, is – as we can tell – implicitly negative. We do not necessarily mean “negative” from a moral or aesthetic standpoint; instead, we necessarily mean it strictly from a linguistic one. Justice as fairness is the ideal by which a government and its respective society oppose all forms of injustice or unfairness. This version of justice would be completely agreeable with the one we are to adopt if we broaden the scope in which we may regard exactly what constitutes such injustice and unfairness. The latter depends on our ethical perspective. Thus, the way a government enforces justice depends on the ethical perspectives of the people elected to office.

If we regard morality in the Randian, objectivistic sense, then there will not be nearly as much injustice or unfairness as what would be the case should we see it in more of a Wilberian, holistic one. Injustice based on this initial definition of justice is not nearly as great for someone who believes that unfairness is a natural product of society and that we should not attempt to get rid of it. However, if we regard unfairness of any kind as not only something that is as equally as unjust but also as something we ought to eliminate, then we can see that justice as fairness becomes much more of the second kind of justice we will now consider, which is what Plato advocates.

For Plato, as we know, we should not view justice as fairness but should instead see it as the condition of a society that is balanced and harmonious. Justice, in this case, has much more of a positive definition (again at least from a linguistic standpoint). We should not strive to keep society from falling into a state of chaos and animosity. Rather, we should strive to keep society in a state of balance and harmony. This definition of justice even in terms of the other definition still is most just because it strives to make society the best that it can possibly be. With this notion of justice in mind, let us now attempt to answer the initial question we had concerning the purpose of government.

Let us see the purpose of government as allowing for the most efficient evolution of the human species as possible. The purpose of government is to raise collective awareness. It is the mission of those fortunate enough to be at a relatively greater level of awareness to help those not so fortunate, who are at relatively lower levels of awareness, in order for them to experience the quality of living that the others exclusively have. We can turn again to Plato and adopt his analogy of the doctor assisting his or her patients. The purpose of the doctor is to help others as much as possible. Similarly, the purpose of government is to help humanity as much as possible. The appropriate question, then, is why does it seem government simply does not meet such a standard?

The quality of government is a direct result of how evolved its members are. A government consisting of primarily Amber politicians will not be nearly as effective, based on our definition, as one that consists of primarily Green politicians. The success of any society as a whole derives from the collective worldview of the people in charge. In addition, we can see, all problems, miscommunications, and disagreements within government derive from fundamental problems in philosophy.

We have seen by now that there are right and wrong, correct and incorrect answers pertaining to all questions in philosophy. Many of these questions and problems in general serve as the backbone of all political disagreement. Take an issue such as abortion. The disagreement illustrating the problem of abortion is implicitly a philosophic problem concerning the nature and existence of the soul. Is there such thing as the soul? If there is such thing as the soul, then when can we know that it proceeds to inhabit the body? Does the soul inhabit the body right at conception? – or, does the soul wait until sometime after? Even if the soul does inhabit the body right at conception, then does this still make it immoral for us to kill the fetus? In addition to these metaphysical questions concerning the ethical dilemma of abortion, there are also directly ethical ones.

For instance, how much pain is involved in the abortion process? If there is no pain involved, then does this mean that there is nothing wrong with killing the fetus? The latter is a dilemma between consequentialist and deontological ethical stances. The consequentialist will say that if there is no pain involved, then there is nothing wrong with abortion at all. The deontologist, in contrast, will object by saying that because abortion is an act of killing, this automatically makes it wrong even if there is no pain involved – since the idea of killing is itself evil. Consider another issue, this time concerning the status of health care.

Is it the responsibility of government to provide its people with the opportunity to have treatment for their health? – or, is it conversely the responsibility of the people to acquire such an opportunity by working hard to achieve it? This political conflict encompassing government and public, responsibility and opportunity, has its philosophic roots in the dilemma concerning the nature of choice. Does choice even exist? If choice does exist, then how often are we free to choose? Even if we are always free to choose, is it possible that sometimes we are influenced so much by something else that it makes the choosing much more difficult?

In general, we can see that politicians who favor privatized health care are more inclined to believe that there is always choice and that because of this, people ought to be responsible for their own lives, which includes their having health care. On the other hand, we can see that politicians who instead favor publicized health care are more inclined to see that while there may be choice, not everyone is as free to choose as everyone else is. Some people experience more conflict in their lives, making it far more difficult to understand the right choices to make in order to have the best life that they can have. Certainly, we can agree that all political issues are simply philosophic ones in disguise.

With our definition regarding the purpose of government and with our considering the importance of philosophy relative to the people constituting government, let us now ask whether it is possible for people to change. In other words, let us ask given that government emphasized all of its spending on improving education (for instance), would this have any substantial effect on the people exposed to such. In other words again, let us explicitly ask whether there is any point in having a government that has the autonomy to influence the dynamics of its respective society and people to such a degree. Can people change? Is it even possible for government to fulfill the purpose we have described, of maintaining balance and harmony and allowing the most efficient evolution of our species as possible? The philosophic question to which this problem in particular corresponds to that which concerns the relationship between “nature” and “nurture.”

Are people the way they are because that is how they were born? – or, are they the way they are because of the environment to which they have been exposed? – or, does this answer to this question lie within a mean between the extremes of the two previous possibilities? If we are to answer this question based on intuition, then perhaps we can agree that the third answer is correct, in that it is Certainly not “all nature” nor can we say that it is “all nurture.” However, what we can say is that it is likewise Certainly not “half nature” and “half nurture.” Nurture plays a significantly greater role in human development than does nature. Therefore, we can infer confidently that people can change – given that their environments are changed in a way allowing such a shift to occur.

The reason why we have considered all this aligns with the significance of our defining the purpose of government. If we are to see government in such an idealistic lens, then it matters whether such is even remotely possible or practical. Given all the problems we face today, it may seem as though there is no way that we can possibly fix them. However, let us see that just as for every theoretical cause there is a corresponding theoretical effect, so for every given problem there is a given solution. If for every problem there is a solution, then for the sum of all human problems today, this means there is a single solution that, both ideally and practically, could address and fix them. Consider the following analogy.

Before us, we see a room that is what we would call “extremely messy.” In this room, papers are scattered everywhere, clothes are messily lying around, stains cover the carpet, and all kinds of food and drink have been dropped and spilled. Imagine the messiest room of which one can possibly conceive. Now, imagine that this room belongs to oneself and that one has the option of attempting to clean it up entirely, of cleaning it up only partially, or of refusing to do anything because of how impossible it seems. Let us now see the problems illustrating the room not collectively as a single whole, but instead atomically as individual problems each contributing to the greater one that is the messy room.

Certainly, each of these problems individually is fixable. It is Certainly possible to clean the room to some extent, at least. The question, though, is whether it is “possible” to clean the room entirely. It is far more difficult to see that the latter is in fact possible if we regard the room and its condition altogether. We can become so discouraged by the condition that it would seem too great a task even to consider cleaning it entirely. However, if we again perceive the room and its problems atomically, and not collectively, then we can see that it is by no means an impossible task. We can apply the significance of this analogy to our considering the purpose of government.

If the human condition at this time is the messy room, then there are these three ways we can regard it. We can convince ourselves that there is no point in attempting to fix the human condition because of how messy and impossible to change it may seem. We can also convince ourselves that it is possible to fix the human condition to some extent, but simultaneously that it is surely impossible to rid humanity of all problems entirely. Lastly, we can acknowledge that it is possible to fix the human condition entirely and that it is simply a matter of systematically analyzing all its problems. If we divide the problems into their most general categories, then we divide each of these into their most general categories, and we continue doing so until we have a thorough atomic structuralization of all human problems, then we can Certainly see that it is possible to fix all of them.

We have agreed that for every problem there is a solution. Perhaps it is not nearly as practical to find the solution pertaining to the problem of world hunger as such. However, if we holonize this particular dilemma and if we find its most basic constituents, then it will be far less difficult both ideally and practically to be successful in fixing it and them. Obviously, though, government cannot address all problems simultaneously. It is great to be idealistic, but it is equally as important to be grounded practically as well. How do we justify which problems government is it address, then, since it simply cannot address everything altogether? The way that we justify government's decisions is based on a hypothetical hierarchy of societal needs.

Out of all problems marking humanity, which ones are most problematic? For instance, what is more problematic between the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and the ongoing crisis within, say, the United States' education system? Relative to the people of the United States, and the government making decisions for these people, which decision is more appropriate for the latter to make? Which decision takes precedence over the other on the hierarchy of societal needs? The way we can answer this question is again by implementing our definition of the purpose of government.

If government is to allow for the most efficient evolution of our species as possible, then is it more effective to spend more money on education, or, is it more effective to spend more money on military? The answer to this question is obviously not a black-or-white response, but it is still sufficiently evident that the more appropriate decision on behalf of the United States government, relative to its purpose as defined and relative to its people as such, is to exert a significantly greater effort on improving education. The need for an excellent education takes precedence on the hierarchy of societal needs than does the need for a country such as the United States to have any more militant dominance than it already has. Moving along, now that we have examined the True purpose of government, let us see the faults of the current dominant model before we specifically describe and explain the Integral model for which we have been preparing throughout this entire book.

Problems with Rational-Legal Governance

As mentioned, the common political institution now in place is a rational-legal system. Just as Postmodern and Modern logic alike are related in that they are both linear, so are Postmodern and Modern government alike similar in that they are both rational-legal, following the same general model introduced originally by the United States. We can see five primary faults in this prevalent system of directing social affairs. It is much more appropriate to argue our case inductively, so we will turn to evidence by numbers, as opposed to demonstration through logic. The primary faults of rational-legal governance are that it allows for mediocrity; that it disallows fast positive change; that it is too linear and not holistic enough; that it does not value the practices of rhetoric (communication) and philosophy as much as should; and, finally, that the collection of such rational-legal nation-states today still have yet to form a world government united by world-states.

Beginning with the mediocrity that the rational-legal system allows, let us see that this problem has its roots in the concept of democracy. Once upon a time, democracy was the ideal on which to base one's country. The United States, which revived democracy, based such on the ideals of Rome – and these, as we may be well aware, were adopted from Greece. Indeed, the Orange worldview did not show any relative prominence until the emergence of Greece as a collective whole. Democracy is a pluralistic mode of political organization. It makes sense for both Orange and Green to embrace democracy in general, then, because both of these levels emphasize the individual – Orange directly, and Green indirectly by emphasizing the collective. Eventually, however, Orange and Green become Turquoise, and democracy as such becomes insufficient for optimal governance.

Plato opposes democracy, and with right reasons. For Plato, a system allowing everyone to have an equal say will produce results that are in direct accordance with the condition of the people responsible. Returning to the philosopher's three groups – artisans, warriors, and philosophers – we can see that the first corresponds most to Red, the second most to Amber, and the third most to Orange. If 60 percent of a population is primarily Red, 30 percent primarily Amber, and the remaining 10 percent primarily Orange, then, we can agree, roughly 60 percent of the laws passed will appeal most to the Red group, roughly 30 percent to the Amber group, and only 10 percent to the Orange group. It does not matter whether the Orange philosophers are wiser or more virtuous than are the Amber warriors and Red artisans. In a democracy, what matters instead is which group is largest. Perhaps we can see Plato's problem with democracy.

Of course, the antithesis of democracy – dictatorship, essentially – never once affirmed Plato's insistence on such authoritarian governance. As history has clearly indicated, most if not all totalitarian states resemble tyranny much more than Utopia. We can see why Orange and Green are so mistrustful of dictatorship and so supportive of democracy, since the world has never seen a successful dictatorship. The potential advantage that a dictatorship has over a democracy, though, is primarily that mediocrity will be eliminated given the person in charge is wise enough. The immediate objection to having one or several people directly in charge, though, is, “How can we trust that this person(s) knows best?” Looking at the other side of the equation, though, we can Certainly agree that while dictatorship only ideally eliminates mediocrity, a democracy, instead, not only allows it – but it also sustains it. The first objection to rational-legal governance, we can agree, is this allowance of mediocrity and suppression of excellence. One of the outcomes of such mediocrity is slow change.

Returning to the Plato example, we can see that in a democracy with 60-Red, 30-Amber, and 10-Orange, it will be extremely difficult for positive change to occur swiftly. Naturally, the 10-Orange know what is best relative to the other groups, but because they are so outnumbered, this means that it will take a long time for their ideas to translate into political change. While change can be both positive and negative, we can still agree that positive change is better than is no change at all – or at least, better than is a far lesser degree of such. Especially in a time such as ours, change – namely fast change – is imperative. If society remains satisfied with the status quo, then it will eventually encounter chaos, destruction, and perhaps anarchy. We can conclude in agreeing that a government allowing for fast positive change is definitely better than is one allowing for only slow positive change. One reason why change is so slow in a government that is, say, 60-Orange, 30-Green, and 10-Amber, is that the cognitive ability of even the 90- Orange-Green is nonetheless linear.

Although Green is able to consider a vaster number of perspectives than is Orange, both memes still operate using the same general kind of logic. As we have seen before, this logic is linear – it is not holistic. Linear logic cannot operate past the hypothetical threshold existing within the philosophic level on the spectrum of knowledge. We can agree, though, that the higher a person can operate logically, the better change he or she will potentially be able to induce. This fault of the rational-legal system is in sum the inability to perceive society and life altogether holistically.

Holistic thinking is essential for the kind of political establishment we need because it is able to use what Orange and Green give it but also to employ it in a practical manner suited for the collective human internal condition. Orange is not able to recognize nearly as many perspectives as Green is, but Green is not able to understand the various dimensions and levels pertinent to our species and to the Kosmos as Such, as Turquoise is. Overall, linear rationalization clearly is inferior to holistic rationalization. Because rational-legal authority is centered on linear rationalization, this means that it is inferior to the kind of authority instead centered on holistic rationalization. Another fault of the current political institution is its lack of appreciation for the art of effective communication in addition to the science of dialectical logic.

Ironically, the United States was founded on both rhetoric and philosophy, though both of which may have corresponded most to Orange. The irony of this fact has to do with the additional fact that the United States takes very little interest in classic rhetoric and has very little knowledge of “current philosophy” (Integral). First, let us regard rhetoric in positive terms. Let us define rhetoric not as “the art of persuasion,” but instead as “the art of effective communication.” Just as philosophy is not appreciated nearly as much as it ought to be today, so communication is not understood nor implemented as effectively as it should be.

The benefits of being skilled in the art of effective communication have to do with recognizing commonality. What is the purpose of communication, anyway? The purpose of communication is to exchange ideas. Relative to government, then, what is the more refined purpose of communication? Relative to government, the more refined purpose of communication is to exchange ideas in a manner allowing each individual to see them as the person who presents them. There is much advantage in being able to enable others to understand what one means. Likewise, there is much advantage in being able to understand what others mean. What is a country that does not cherish the art of effective communication? Rational-legal systems, if they are even to survive, must at least bolster their quality of communication – whether this means being able to present ideas that one knows are best in a more persuasive way, regardless of the means, or whether this means being able to understand and agree with the shared perspective of a fellow congressperson. In addition to the need for better communication, which the rational-legal system (other than a place such as the UK) for the most part seems to lack, there is also the need for better logic.

Government must adopt an appreciation for the life examined and must understand the Truth behind its immediate yet implicit connection to the life organized, which is in this case politics. Consider the philosophic views of Orange United States “Wall Street” Republicans, for instance. To begin, we can confidently say that these individuals' view on reality (metaphysics) is often Christian ideals able to agree with scientific principles. We can also confidently say that an Orange Republican's view on knowledge (epistemology) falls under the greater category of empiricism. Furthermore, his or her view on inference (logic) is most likely inductive. Lastly, his or her view on morality (ethics) is most likely a sort of rational egoism. As we know, these basic philosophic positions on the four basic elements of philosophy are insufficient, though they may be partially necessary.

In contrast, we can see, a Turquoise United States “Third Way” Democrat holds relatively different and relatively more meaningful – or more sufficient – views on the nature of reality, knowledge, inference, and morality. This person perhaps sees that while Judeo-Christian general ideals are compliant with science, this is still an insufficient metaphysical doctrine, because all spiritual ideals are compliant with those of science. This person also perhaps sees that while knowledge does come from what hard evidence shows us, there are also ways of knowing things that we cannot explain as much in terms of what empiricist methodology allows. Moving along, he or she may necessarily see that deductive logic can just as effective if not more so than can be inductive logic. Finally, we can agree that this individual would adopt a more comprehensive outlook on the basic nature of morality; instead of embracing rational egoism, he or she would likely embrace something along the lines of Integral ethics, which includes but transcends its Orange counterpart.

Perhaps we can now see the importance of implementing philosophy in the political scene. With an objective criterion for Truth – which is what philosophy is when done properly – government will be able to agree upon the greatest Truth, which will in turn allow for the greatest Goodness as well as the greatest Beauty. Government as of now, for the most part, unfortunately does not emphasize rhetoric and philosophy as we have seen that it should. The final problem with the current rational-legal system is that it disallows us from achieving a world government, primarily because of the four previous reasons mentioned.

A world government is necessary for obvious intuitive reasons. The more globalized humanity becomes, the more interdependent it becomes. Because of this increasing global connectivity, humanity will eventually be required to form a means of organizing such potential harmony for the sake of achieving actual harmony. Rational-legal governments cannot comply with a world government because the former is 1st-tier, while the latter is 2nd-tier. A world government, by definition, is a global organization founded on holisticity – as opposed to something such as the United States, which, by definition, is a national organization founded on linearity. In order for humanity to achieve world governance – which is what will be imperative – it is necessary that we shed the old skin of rational-legal philosophy and incorporate the new layer that pertains to the Integral paradigm.

Because the current Modern and Postmodern rational-legal form of government fails due to its allowance of mediocrity, its suppression of fast positive change, its linearity, its lacking effective communication and logic, as well as its disallowing the establishment of imperative global governance, we can agree that it is significantly flawed and that it is necessary we transcend it, while still including its benefits. Let us now begin our specific description and explanation of Integral government.

Integral Leadership

First, Integral government will not contain any “politicians.” Instead, Integral government will be a system consisting of leaders. These individuals will be “leaders” as opposed to “politicians” because we need a new linguistic symbol to represent the significance of such a role. Politicians are to the rational-legal era of government as kings and emperors were to the monarchic era – just as leaders will be to the Integral Era. A politician is someone who is most influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by the “Machiavellian” approach to life and in particular, to politics. What is this particular approach, and what, even, is politics?

First, the Machiavellian approach is the notion that in order to rise to the top, one must be essentially cunning and, if necessary, ruthless. Not surprisingly, we can see that this prescription is no different from rational egoism. The “cunning” pertains to the “rational,” and the “ruthless” pertains to the “egoism.” Rational egoism is not the cornerstone of True leadership. There is a difference between a politician and a leader just as there is a difference between rational egoism and holistic ethicism or Integral ethics.

A politician, most often, acts altruistically ultimately for the sake of himself or herself. In contrast, a leader acts altruistically for the sake of acting altruistically. A politician, most often, thinks linearly. In contrast, a leader thinks holistically. A politician, most often, sees the “Beauty” in his or her respective and honorable position or title. In contrast, a leader sees Beauty in the potential (relative) perfectibility of the human condition and Earth altogether. A leader is able to show the way. A politician, on the other hand, is only able to guess as to which way seems best. A leader is able to embody the kind of will, compassion, and insight that any “saint” has clearly demonstrated, whether this be Jesus, Mother Theresa, or MLK. A politician, on the other hand, is only able to achieve what a typical game show host does. A leader is able to motivate others. A politician, on the other hand, is only able to pacify others.

Looking beyond this distinction in relative terms of “black” and “white,” let us acknowledge still that there is Certainly a difference between the two kinds of people we have in mind. There is Certainly a stereotype, or cultural generalization, that we can attribute to what we take “politician,” in this case, to mean. Likewise, there is Certainly a “stereotype” that we can attribute to what we take “leader,” in this case, to mean. Now that we have an initial grasp on what “leader” means, let us see more clearly what kind of role the leader will have within the Integral “political” realm.

Leaders, comprising Integral government, will exemplify the most overall merit of anyone. What we mean by “overall merit” is, Integrally speaking, “how holistically developed they are” or “the degree and number of all developmental lines.” The leaders will be the most psychically advanced of all humans. The latter is not to say that only a small portion of humans during the Integral Era will possess extraordinary psychic, or simply intuitive, capabilities. We can agree, though, that some people are inherently better at some things than other people are, such as individuals who are clearly born to be painters. Likewise, there are individuals who are clearly born to be leaders. The Integral leader will (among others) be centered most on Turquoise (or above) morally, creatively, cognitively, sociably, intrapersonally, and communicatively.

It is significant that the leader demonstrates Turquoise morality because the primary purpose of governance, which includes this case, exists for the greatest Good of humanity and this planet. Someone who has a kosmocentric basic moral intuition, and who has subsequently realized that he or she has such, naturally has the capacity to empathize multiworldcentrically. Multiworldcentric moral awareness, as we know, cares not only for all of humanity, but also for all of Earth. Someone who is clearly on such a moral level has one credential, at least, to serve as a leader. The credential following that of morality has to do with that of creativity.

In addition to being centered most on Turquoise morally, this individual must likewise be centered most on Turquoise creatively. It is essential that he or she demonstrate relatively advanced creative capacities because creativity, and creativity alone, is what allows for novelty or change. We know that novelty or change happens ultimately for the better, for the purpose of the World drawing nearer toward (but never at) Perfection. We may recall Peirce's three metaphysical-physical forces – chance, necessity, and creativity – imperative for evolution to occur. Certainly, we can see the necessity of eliminating all chances that each leader is anything less than Turquoise creatively. For the sake of novelty, we can likewise see the sake of each leader possessing considerable creative talent. After creativity, the next credential is cognitivity.

A firm grasp on the conceptual nature of reality is necessary for any leader to possess because, as we know, Goodness and Beauty alike in general correspond to Truth. In general, Orange cognitivity accompanies Orange morality and creativity, so we can see that, in general, Turquoise cognitivity accompanies Turquoise morality and creativity. In this sense, such cognitivity is a necessary quality along with such creativity and morality. One cannot be centered most on Turquoise morality if one is not centered on Turquoise cognitivity – and the same applies regarding Turquoise creativity. Overall, morality, creativity, and cognitivity are the three most important qualities that the leaders must possess. However, as we know, these qualities are insufficient for any leader to be optimal as we might imagine. The next most important features include Turquoise sociability.

Leadership, after all, is pluralistic in essence. Leadership is meant for the collective and not for the individual alone. It is significant that each leader is not only advanced morally, creatively, and cognitively, but also that he or she is advanced as equally sociably. Without social skills, each leader would not be able to interact with one another effectively. Furthermore, without social skills, he or she would not be able to interact with the public (meaning those who are not leaders). Morality is useless without a means for transmitting it – and social skills are this means. Often what we mean by “character” has to do exclusively with how (relatively) sociably talented the particular individual is or at least seems to be. Character, doubtless, is necessary for the kind of leadership Integral government will require. After sociability, the next secondary credential is intrapersonability.

Intrapersonal intelligence denotes both spiritual and emotional intelligence. In other words, someone who is relatively advanced intrapersonally is most likely to be relatively advanced spiritually as well as emotionally. First, it is important that the leader be spiritually advanced because, like cognitivity, spirituality (which in this instance refers to one's respective spiritual development) determines a great number of other qualities. Second, it is equally important that he or she be emotionally advanced because optimal emotional health, as we have seen, is a necessary element helping sustain overall optimal holonic health. The final secondary credential for each leader is communicativity.

Language, as we are well aware, is the primary mode through which we relay subjective ideas. Language is the intersubjective means we use to communicate. Like sociability, communicativity is essential for optimal leadership because of its practical value. Someone advanced sociably has the great potential to influence others with his or her ideas. However, necessary for this great potential influence is the ability to convey one's ideas in a way that makes sense relative to the given audience. Someone who is skilled in and who further understands the dynamics of effective communication is someone who will be able to serve as an effective leader because of how significant an element in effective leadership communicativity is.

In sum, we can conclude this initial specification on Integral government by seeing that it will consist not of politicians, but of leaders. These leaders will be clearly centered most on Turquoise morally, creatively, cognitively, sociably, intrapersonally, and communicatively. The looming question in implicit objection to all that we have considered, naturally, is, “How do we know who is qualified to be a leader, by this definition?” Given, the criterion we use to judge someone's merit must be agreeably objective. We can measure a person's cognitive ability to some extent, no doubt, but – let us ask – can we do the same for all other mentioned necessary credentials with nearly as much apparent validity and soundness? Let the following description allow us to see that we can measure someone in such a way.

Certainly, there are reliable ways we can utilize to measure in general how moral, creative, sociable, intrapersonal, and communicative someone is. The problem, though, is that we do not yet have such reliable ways. The standard IQ test measures one's cognitive abilities solely, and this is the only mainstream form of intelligence testing that psychology has to offer. This particular test does not even take intuitive reasoning as much into account as it should. The point, though, is that we need more legitimized intelligence tests covering all other five major lines. We need a “morality test,” a “creativity test,” a “sociability test,” an “intrapersonability test,” and a “communicativity test.” However, is it even possible to construct examinations, pertaining to all five lines, which we can collectively regard as accurate sources of description? In response, let us consider just how we could objectively assess an individual's moral development, for instance.

We would first need to define morality. We can define morality as “an individual's capacity to empathize.” We would also need to justify why morality is Good, and why the more moral someone is, the better he or she will act. “Morality is Good” itself is Good by definition, no doubt. Furthermore, the more moral someone is, the better he or she will act, again by definition. Why are these definitions desirable, though? These definitions are desirable because they pertain to what is best – because Goodness as a Primary Idea is best. After defining morality and justifying such a definition, it would then be necessary that we devise a telling way of detecting how moral someone is.

It would be necessary to rationalize the morality of a particular individual inductively. In other words, the process would not consist of a single test – as is the case for measuring cognitivity – but instead, it would consist of a series of more subjective tests that would together constitute a less subjective and more objective moral criterion. The first of these tests would consist of interviewing the person and asking him or her series of questions related to morality, but not directly mentioning it or implying it.

An example of one question would be something such as, “What in all honesty would a perfect world be like for you?” The method of judging the response would consist of two parts, one more objective, and the other more subjective. The more objective part would involve someone analytically skilled determining the greater subtle implications of everything said. The more subjective part would involve either the same individual, or someone else, attempting to determine the truthfulness of the one being measured. Let us imagine that the administrators of the test are threefold; there is someone leading the discussion, someone analyzing it linguistically, and someone analyzing it perceptively. After the discussion, the three test-givers would discuss what they found to be the case. They would agree upon which general level of moral development he or she seemed most blatantly to demonstrate. While this method is useful, it alone is insufficient for a satisfactory method of assessing one's morality.

The second method would be more objective, but would still involve a considerable amount of analysis. This second mode of testing would require the administrators to examine the individual's life, record, and resume, among others, and to conclude what it as such implies regarding his or her evident moral tendency. A final hypothetical mode of testing moral development would be another discussion, this time specifically centered on the nature of morality. This discussion, we can see, would be a philosophic, dialectical one, concerned with questions such as, “What is Goodness?” “What does it mean to be Good?” and “Why is it important that we act upon Goodness?” If the individual's logic legitimately supports the logic behind all three questions themselves, then it would be sufficient to conclude that he or she clearly understands the nature of morality, and because of this, he or she very likely is moral in accordance with such comprehension.

With these three methodologies together (again for instance), it would provide the administrators with a relatively reliable criterion for judging the general level of morality pertaining to the individual tested. The purpose of our considering the hypothetical way we might test morality is to show that it is equally as possible to come up with an equally as legitimate method except for all the other credentials. An Integral approach is, by definition, able to come up with such a paradigm. We need not concern ourselves regarding how we will achieve these kinds of testing, for all we need to recognize is that we will due to the significance of the emerging Integral worldview.

Yet another objection to this more subjective methodology of assessing intelligence, however, might be that it is impossible for us to test the ones who are the testers themselves – and even if we were to test these people, then we would still need to test their testers, and so forth, thus leading us into an apparent inevitable infinite regress. Luckily, an Orange-Green rational-legal system is able to start somewhere with these tests. It is Certainly possible to explain Integral concepts in Orange and Green language using Orange and Green logic. Therefore, it is Certainly possible to explain the significance of these intelligence tests to that particular audience. Therefore, there is no problem with administering the tests given that the people administering them are centered cognitively (at least) on Orange – because Orange, if anything, is able to recognize “objectivity.”

If at least Orange is able to recognize objectivity from a linear standpoint, then it will still be able to recognize holistic objectivity from a linear standpoint given that it understands the linear justification for such. We can conclude that what matters most for initiating the research in and formulation of this testing is its presentation and demonstration relative to the likely, predominantly Orange and Green audience. The score that the leader receives on the testing will determine his or her position. We may add that there is another way of objectively justifying the leaders who are selected.

No matter what one believes, there is no way to argue against the value of being educated in as many diverse fields as there are. Each leader will be required to know and understand the fundamentals of the Integral paradigm because this will allow him or her to have as great a grasp on the nature of the World as possible. Although we can potentially question some prominent Integral theories, what nonetheless remains is that we simply cannot question a number of others – for instance, the quadrant system. We cannot deny that the most comprehensive way to approach life is by acknowledging its individual and collective, interior and exterior dimensions. Furthermore, we cannot deny the basic levels on the Great Chain of Being. We cannot deny that there is the waking state, the dreaming state, the sleeping state, and the transcendent state. We cannot deny that there is a plurality of developmental lines. Finally, we cannot deny that there are distinct personality types, using whichever accurate model we wish to cite.

Anyone who is knowledgeable of as many perspectives as possible, and understanding of their relationship and greater implications, is someone who is automatically more qualified to lead than is someone who does not have such a conceptual grasp. Even if we are skeptical toward the legitimacy of the testing we have described, we simply cannot be likewise skeptical toward the legitimacy of a person's being (at least) Integrally informed. The leaders who show that they clearly are at least Integrally informed, and who score highest on the tests and thus demonstrate the most ability, will naturally have the responsibility of serving higher governmental positions.

Such positions will necessarily be structured holonically because the Integral world government will likewise be structured holonically. We have already seen that world government is optimal and imperative. Let us now see that and how this establishment will further need to be structured as holonically as possible. We mentioned the need to have roughly six more world-states in addition to the European Union. Let us take this concept and apply it to the rest of Integral government's structure.

The European Union consists of nation-states. Although the latter do not necessarily divide themselves further into “states” (as the United States does), this is what we will call the next holonic level. Each state will be divided into an appropriate number of counties, and each county naturally consists of some number of towns or cities, depending on the size. Finally, we can see that each town or city itself can further be divided into a number of communities, which encompass no more than roughly 100 members. This governmental structure as a whole will itself be divided into four primary sections pertaining to each level. These sections are based on the quadrant system.

The quadrant system divides life in terms of individual-collective and interior-exterior dynamics. These two categories are the most rudimentary ones with which we can structuralize the World. Naturally, then, we ought to use the same categories in structuralizing government and its application to society. All levels of Integral government – world government, world-state, nation-state, state, county, town/city, and community – will consist of four main Departments: the Department of Individual Subjective Affairs, the Department of Collective Subjective Affairs, the Department of Collective Objective Affairs, and the Department of Individual Objective Affairs. We can begin by specifying the Department of Individual Subjective Affairs.