Thanks to Integral Options, but in the wealth of information over at Integral World, I had missed the back and forth about the "Mean Memes".

Here's an article pointing to the Mean Orange Meme (It's true MOM's can be mean!).  This article complains about Wilber's focus on the Mean Green Meme (MGM).

Here's a response by Wilber, who assures that the MOM mean is very destructive, and equates it with flatland.

He also mentions the other Mean Anocronysms - the MBM, as an example.

For myself, I get the points of these articles - but I can't help but smile and/or giggle either.

I see all these tribble-like things on the floor - red, and blue and orange, growling at me.

I jsut find the juxtaposition of this high philosophical conversation with "watch out for the MGM!" - well, funny.

One of best ways that I've found to think about integral theory, is to think of it as a series of typologies.  After all, in integral theory, we have:

a. States
b. Stages
c. Levels
d. Lines
e. Quadrants

But because so much is involved in the various TYPES of consciousness - this ends up being a static map. 

And a lot of the further analysis is also based on types, or being static.

While there is nothing wrong with this - life occurs "in the flow", so to speak. 

It's dynamic.  It's process.  The ongoing moment by moment now.

In that vein, I thought I would forward on this work on Towards an Integral Theory of Process Dynamics.

The metaphor mainly used is the tango.

Premise 1, It takes (at least) two (of something) to tango, reminds us we cannot regard any individual or system of any kind as isolated in its own orbit, but rather seek out where the reciprocity dynamics are happening, and expect to find layers of them, like ripple effect interactions. -

Premise 2, Whatever we don’t tango with directly (but could), we put “out there,” has significant implications. It reminds us we need to learn how to recognize projections, to keep an eye out for those that get parked on Saturn, to be alert to look for and reclaim them, and consider the conditions and potentials for projection dynamics in all our human undertakings. It highlights projection because it seems little-known or recognized outside the field of psychology, even though it plays phenomenal roles wherever human beings are concerned. If this premise gained traction, supportive human development methods that help people and societies recognize and reclaim their projections, along with the creation of healthier holding environments so fewer projections develop, might become higher on social change agendas. -

Premise 3, There are limits to what we can tango with, and they diminish as we develop, calls our attention to learning about and applying some basic understandings of structural limits germane to human and social functioning. The adult developmental psychology and transformative learning fields, which are as instrumental in this premise as complexity sciences, demonstrate their own limits in various ways, yet they are some we need to keep referring to, developing further, and integrating with other fields of research and practice. -

Premise 4, There are common dynamic processes involved in dancing the tango, encourages us to learn how to adjust our zoom lenses appropriately to look for and notice the dynamics going on all the time. It encourages us to decenter our attention enough to notice fractal patterns that can help us transfer our learning about how things work in black boxes at many human scales. It gives us some ways to start noticing our own “inner” dynamics, which can help us discover our own projections, assumptions, etc. This premise can help us make sense of how these dynamics affect what we want to learn, understand, or support, because the processes are what comprises whatever we consider our focus. Nothing is standing still inside the black boxes. -

Premise 5, Something new emerges from each and every tango, emphasizes the massive co-creative learning laboratories in which, with which, and as which we exist. It reminds us we need to find ways to identify and consider the complex range of environments interacting and/or coupled with anything we study. It challenges us to take a dynamic, processually-integrated approach to all phenomena, because all phenomena are dynamic processes in an ongoing pattern of co-creative evolution.

Now, this particular article is lacking in terms of depth.  But processes, vibrations, energies - the timeless now is never still, but always flowing, breathing, expanding and contracting.

Has anyone seen any other pointers to a "process-oriented" integral?