I came across the concept of the pre trans fallacy when I first read Ken Wilber. It is a really interesting concept and it is based on the idea of distinguishing between an act and the level of moral development associated with it. This is really common in what Wilber discusses in regards to green pathology and extreme postmodernism. This very self righteous and narcissistic view on things where things are deemed to be acceptable or not which may or may not be true but the moral development associated with this is actually at a low red level, a mentality more of a ‘f*** you’ , no one tells me what to do kind of thinking.

Ken Wilber discusses these examples as he speaks about controversial topics such as the Vietnam war and the more recent war in Iraq. With particular focus on the Vietnam war Ken Wilber discusses a study carried out where the moral development of people protesting the war was tested. Whereas there would have been good moral developments to have been against this was and perhaps some good morally developed reasons for Ken Wilber said how a high percentage of the people who were protesting were actually from a lower level of moral development which did not actually comprehend the issue. The level of morality was more associated with this ‘red’ Wilber speaks of.

Clare Graves in someone who discusses this moral development in more detail. This is obviously a very important thing to be aware of and highlights the need to look deeper into where someone is coming from. Ken Wilber discusses the more recent war in Iraq and says how there can be good morally developed reasons for and against and the important thing in terms of consciousness development isn’t necessarily the actual viewpoint of the person but rather the level of morality behind it.

This issue came up for me more recently as I was discussing with someone the controversy of the TPPA and a friend of mine told me how people interviewed on TV about this and why they were protesting did not actually know real morally developed reasons behind their stance. Thereby indicating to me that perhaps whereas the standpoint itself may or may not be correct the actual morality behind it was likely of a lower level and in fact not in a position to really integrally make such a stance.

This came up for me again too as I was chatting with someone about the election of Donald Trump in the US. This was something I definitely did not like and I would hope my moral development is at a level to say that but I guess it’s hard to be sure without it being tested. Whereas I felt convinced that there was much drive from more racist fringes on this issue this person had quite intelligent reasons about why although it was a close call for him he felt Trump was preferable to the very popular left-leaning Bernie Sanders (someone I liked a lot). I felt too that BREXIT in the UK held a similar kind of thing.

I guess the key here is just being dedicated to your own growth and own integral practice. When you actually vote or take stances to do all you can to be sure it is from this solid heart centred place and not reactionary. One of Wilbers’ quotes I love most was one where he spoke of integral practice then the outer world of politics etc etc. It went something like this ‘where the outer world and who gets in and who doesn’t is obviously important, ultimately all we can do is dedicate ourselves to our own integral practice, then we can leave the world more whole than how we found it.’