Stop Trying to Make Socialism Integral – It’s not.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism in its various 20th century forms has been the most deadly evil ever foisted on humanity by it’s own hands. Only disease is a deadlier threat to humanity. Socialism in the wrong hands is weaponized economics. It’s economic WMD. Socialism in the hands of RED or BLUE is every bit as dangerous as Nukes in the hands of RED or BLUE.

maxresdefaultNow, I have said in the past that I am OK with socialism so long as it is voluntary within a community and not a coercive (mandatory) political order. I hold to that. If people want to get together to do socialism, by starting a commune or something – perfectly fine. They may still have to interact with the “market” of the outside world unless they are completely self sufficient.

Definitions are important.

Many people, and especially socialists, love to hold up our current fucked up system and call it “Capitalism” and then proceed to beat free market advocates over the head with their straw man. So I’ve decided they can keep it. I will cede the term “capitalism” (itself the invention of Marx) to reference the current system of mixed socialist, fascist, corporate kleptocracy. We have the system we have because we live in a representative democracy and it represents an amalgam of the current competing 1st Tier vMemes of Post-Modernists (GREEN), Traditionalists (BLUE), and Modernists (ORANGE) respectively. I fully agree that what we have now sucks (though it could be far far worse). I do not advocate for the “capitalist” system we have today, I advocate for freedom, for Integral Panarchy, and for the Agora.

Socialists see the problem with our system as one of “greed,” and seek to bring about equality of outcomes through forced redistribution or communalization of wealth, property, capital, means of production, etc.. It’s a view that holds that no one person or group is more deserving of wealth and means than anyone else, and therefore those means must be shared equally among all (although in practice we find that this never actually happens in socialist societies). It is the noble post-modern egalitarian ethic of absolute fairness, translated into politics. A beautiful idea, but partial, flat, reductive.

At Second Tier the problem is no longer seen as one of greed, it is one of development. It is really not so much of a problem at all insofar as “rational self interest” is a healthy manifestation of our Modernist ORANGE consciousness. “Greed”/self interest is, after all, a virtue at ORANGE – see Ayn Rand – The Virtue of Selfishness.  Conversely, Socialism is the political manifestation of Postmodernism. It is GREEN’s politics, and as such it can work fairly well in a homogeneous GREEN society where nearly everyone is operating at GREEN. In fact the closer you get to that ideal, the better it functions. Thus you saw in the 20th century that Socialism failed in red/BLUE Soviet Russia and in Asia and in Latin America and in purple/RED Africa, but has more success in orange/GREEN Scandinavia and other parts of western Europe, because they have far higher populations at GREEN. Take a group of people at GREEN, and stick them in community with each other, and some form of socialism is very likely how they will organize.

Similarly with ORANGE Corporatism, and BLUE Fascism (Nationalism), and RED Feudalism. They work just fine for a population where nearly everyone is at the appropriate level of consciousness. What does NOT work well is having a RED or BLUE or ORANGE population in a Socialist framework (or any other mismatch really). America (and increasingly Canada, the UK, and the rest of Europe) have a heavily mixed population all at different stages, and in my view this will eventually result in one of two scenarios: Civil Strife, violence and eventual balkanization, or a peaceful transition to Integral Panarchy. 

Socialism is not Integral. It’s NOT. It can form a part of an integral framework, but stop trying to drag a First Tier political paradigm into Second Tier because you became wedded to it in your postmodern youth. Please for the love of humanity, let it go.

Okay, Let’s start with first principles.

“When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called “the People’s Stick.””
–Mikhail Bakunin

Ask yourself what is the Job of Integral. What is it supposed to bring to society. Spiral Dynamics (Beck/Cowan) tells us that the transition from GREEN to YELLOW is not of the same order as that from ORANGE to GREEN. It is a momentous leap. As Beck and Cowen put it; “This is not just another another step along the developmental staircase. The GREEN problems in LC6 include those of all the previous worlds, LC1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 and often resonate with them.” (1)

The Life Conditions at YELLOW (LC7) are those of an increasingly small, crowded, chaotic world. A world where all 1st Tier vMemes from PURPLE through GREEN are mashed together in constant contact and in constant conflict. People move around the globe creating vMeme mixed populations. Communication is global and instantaneous. Information is ultra-abundant and easily accessible. Everyone is connected to everyone and it is all too much to process. It is very literally a global social consciousness Tower of Babel. GREEN tries to include and harmonize all into the fold but becomes overwhelmed with the various wants, the competing needs and desires. GREEN does not understand that all people are not equal. Equal in rights yes, equal in dignity, but not equal developmentally, not equal in ability, or capacity. This is the wall that GREEN runs into. One “equal” size does not fit all.

The purpose of YELLOW is to harmonize the chaos by integrating and organizing our global society for maximum health of the whole spiral of development; and that cannot be done with 1st Tier tools. YELLOW must arrange new social paradigms. These cannot be merely amalgams of, nor iterations on 1st Tier political orders (Tribalism, Dictatorships, Fascism, Democracy, Socialism). We must find new ways entirely to organize a 2nd Tier world.

If the purpose of YELLOW is to achieve the maximum health of the spiral of development and all the people in it, then a natural first principle is Primum non nocere:

“First, do no harm.”

This is not a new principle. Indeed it is ancient wisdom probably handed down to us from those through the ages who came to YELLOW and even beyond, well ahead of their time. This principle is the basis of the “Golden Rule,” the Hippocratic Oath, and the Non-aggression principle. It is a principle that is especially salient for YELLOW, the SD “doctors” who have the consciousness-tools to examine and diagnose the health or illnesses of the 1st Tier. But the purpose of YELLOW, much like that of a doctor, is as much to heal the illnesses of 1st Tier as it is to not to fix those things that aren’t broken.

YELLOW does not take healthy 1st Tier vMEMEs and try to force them to fit to a YELLOW mold like other 1st Tier vMEME’s do. No, indeed a YELLOW political paradigm would allow for the existence of healthy PURPLE tribes, RED chiefdoms, BLUE Theocracies, ORANGE Republics, and GREEN Communes. All within an Integral Framework that holds to the principle; First, do no harm, but that has systems and methods in place and ready to surgically remove a cancerous pathology when the need arises.  My hope is that such a system is nearly inevitable and that it will form organically within this century (and perhaps as soon as mid century). I believe our trajectory, helped by an increasing number of people at GREEN taking the momentous leap to YELLOW consciousness, and the Integral technological revolutions of Genetics, Robotics, and Artificial Intelligence, will take us there.

The only thing that could possibly stop that trajectory is a metastasization of GREEN pathology, which could cause us to be arrested at a mean GREEN stage. We are seeing the potentials of this in our societies now as the lower stages increasingly cloak themselves in the GREEN vMEME; RED gains power and status through “oppression olympics” and fights on the front lines as warriors for social justice. BLUE leads the inquisition against non-believers, rooting out climate change heresy, “hate speech,” and “fascism” where ever they find it. ORANGE is subdued and covert, towing the party line and finding ways to maximize and perpetuate their personal success within the boundaries defined by GREEN whether in the corporate world, the media, or in politics. All of them will happily use the political paradigm of GREEN; Socialism, to further their own competing ends, and we will find ourselves arrested there in a Mean GREEN socialist world.

I for one am not prepared to let that happen.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Posted in Philosophy, politics | 1 Comment

It’s all Agency vs. Communion stupid!

mrz020617-color_1_origThe political battle in America and Europe is not one of competing value Memes but of competing Types. This is fundamentally a fight between Agency and Communion* – Right and Left along many developmental stages. Our current political systems are incapable of resolving this fight.

Unless Agency and Communion can be integrated into a new 2nd Tier political paradigm this century that fully honors and enables both…. we’re all fucked.

I listen to Jeff Salzman’s Daily Evolver quite a bit, and find him insightful and really just a joy to listen to about 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time I think he is off target especially when it comes to his political views (it’s my agentic bias I know, I know) and the way he often (but actually not always) characterizes “conservatives” as Traditional-Modern, and Liberals as Postmodern-Integral. Of course most of what I often call the “Integral Establishment” (which loosely describes the various institutions orbiting Ken Wilbur) seems to share Jeff’s viewpoint. The fact that I get that visceral sort of “Ugh” reaction when I get a whiff of communal bias may say more about me than it does about anyone. However, I know from the many comments I have received over the years from fellow Integral travelers, that I am certainly not alone.

In any case my view is that the standard characterization I described above paints a quite un-nuanced picture of what’s really happening within the groups we in the US think of as “Conservative” and “Liberal” (which follow the general political lines of “Republican” and “Democrat”) and of course what it has meant to be these things has changed a great deal over the course of history.

Perhaps a short walk through history will be helpful.

The Democrat Party has been a major force in American politics since the founding of the nation. It’s historical roots are in the SDi BLUE Traditionalist vMeme, and this is where (until very recently) it’s ideology was firmly based. The Republican Party on the other hand was born later from an alliance of former Whigs, Abolitionists, Free Soilers and others. Its roots are SDi ORANGE Modernist vMeme to the core. For most of the history of these two parties they fought an Ideological battle between Traditional (BLUE) and Modernist (Orange) values, and for almost all of that time, from the 1860’s to the 1930’s the Modernist Republicans dominated American Politics. The battle lines were clean and very well defined. Democrats were the party of Tradition, Faith, and Nationalistic/Ethnocentric Ideals. Republicans were the party of Modernization, Science, and Imperialistic Ideals.

This all changed radically after World War II and the spread of a new vMeme; Post-Modernism, SDi GREEN. The seeds of Postmodernism were planted long before WWII of course, but it was only after the war that it really took off in academia and very gradually took over our popular culture and politics. Postmodernists began to slowly take over the ideological reigns of the Democratic party until by about the 1980’s the Democrats had completed the transition into a fully SDi GREEN political party. That left BLUE Traditionalists with a problem; the Democrat party no longer represented their values. Thus was born the “Religious Right” portion of the Republican base.

So now for some nuance, because the current truth is a bit messier than all that. A hundred years ago we had two parties that could be clearly divided by vMeme. This is understandable as the Traditionalist (SDi BLUE) vMeme was already a couple thousand years old and in the US was culturally cohesive, while the Modernist (SDi ORANGE) vMeme was at best only a couple hundred years old. They were the social rebels, the classical liberals, the “progressives” of their day.

But the second half of the 20th Century saw something extraordinary happen. From the year 1900 to the year 2000 we went from a nation with a population of Modernists in Ascendance and Traditionalists waning (where Tribalism and Egoist minority cultures were largely disenfranchised), to a country with nearly every developmental level active and enfranchised from Tribal through Integral (and to make it even more complicated, our vMemes are no longer culturally cohesive, so we have several competing flavors of each all jostling for position). In 1900 our two-party system was entirely appropriate and met the needs of two culturally cohesive developmental levels. In 2000 and now in the present our two-party system has had to realign itself so that it no longer represents two different stages of development but rather two different types; The Communally biased, and the Agentically biased. 

Party Archetypes

The Democratic Party is the party of Communion across all Stages of Development while the Republican Party is the party of Agency across all stages. In a two party system where the voting population is made up of multiple levels (rather than just two) the parties MUST organize this way or risk losing viability as parties. The political parties and the political “fight” that we have in America today is not “ORANGE” vs. “GREEN,” it’s Communal vs. Agentic. Unfortunately I think that’s even more dangerous, and is becoming more so all the time.

The Real Problem of Immigration

The real problem with immigration from an Integral perspective isn’t some (BLUE) notion of maintaining the Ethno-cultural purity of the nation. Or even that it’s legal or illegal. The real problem is that the majority of immigrants coming in are developmentally at BLUE or even RED or PURPLE stages. Of course to GREEN that’s no big deal because all stages are equal. But it is a HUGE deal if we are trying to peacefully advance society as a whole to an Integral stage.

Politically, the Agentic Republican Party and the Communal Democratic Party only care about immigration insofar as what it means for their voting base. And immigration heavily favors the Democrats. You can bet your bottom dollar, if incoming immigrants were primarily at ORANGE, the parties in favor and against immigration would be flipped.

Importing masses of people developmentally at RED/BLUE stages into a GREEN political structure will have a massive destabilizing effect. We can see this already in Europe. GREEN is not prepared for this. When GREEN and ORANGE fight, they fight with words. RED and BLUE use fists, and bats, and knives and guns, and bombs, and u-hauls.

If the current trajectory continues, I predict massive civil unrest or even civil war in these countries.

The Great RED Trump

Jeff Salzman and the others at Integral Life are convinced that Trump is just RED through and through. Although I admit after watching him as president for a year I can see where they are coming from. The man has some serious cringe-worthy egoistic tendencies in his personality, I won’t deny that. In general I agree with Mark Forman that he is a narcissist, but I also still think that Clinton is as well (and was more dangerous for her polished skill at hiding it, while Trump is obvious and has no such skill). The way he communicates and his whole aesthetic is very RED. But I also think that he has some more developed lines (particularly cognitive, moral and ethical lines) which I think are probably blue/ORANGE. The mere fact that despite an enormous multi-billion dollar effort to link Trump to sexual misconduct, corruption, ties to Russia and so on, nothing has really come of any of it – although mountains are being made out of molehills while arguably far more serious corruption (cough, cough, uranium one, cough cough DNC corruption) goes ignored by the media.

My prediction is that Trump will serve his purpose. I still think for all his bluff and bluster, he’s not a warmonger and will keep us out of major conflicts. And hopefully somewhat stem the tide of BLUE/RED immigration. If he can do those two things it will buy us some time. In 2020 I think Bernie will have a comeback. It seems like after this Donna Brazile fiasco, the DNC is shifting his way. Maybe he’ll win. I think he has a good chance.

*Agency and Communion are Types (See AQAL – Stages, Lines, States and Types) that describe a person’s tendency to identify more with their “partness” (Individuality) or their “wholeness” (Community) in the Social Holon. This Type attribute may be determined biologically or epigenetically (see From Quantity to Quality of Life: rK selection and human development) and seems to correlate to other social and biological traits as well (See Agency and communion attributes in adults’ spontaneous self-representations thanks to Erik Pierce for that link)

 

 

Posted in Philosophy, politics | 2 Comments

The Need to Control

Gun DebateOver the weekend I had a brief twitter exchange with Robb Smith of Integral Life on the subject of Gun Control, which got me thinking on the whole subject of social control itself as it relates to Communal and Agentic bias. I like Robb and have a lot of respect for his fairness and willingness  to engage with people (like me) who are not members of the “Integral Establishment.”  I don’t apologize for my Agentic biases (I rather like them), but I do try my best to recognize how they color my worldview. One aspect of the Agentic-Communal spectrum I observe frequently is the very different perspectives on the need for social control: In general the more Communally oriented one is the more control one believes society should have over the individual.

I think this is fairly easy to see in the evolution of society through the SDi vMemes, i.e. the “warm” Agentic levels (Beige-Hunter Gatherer nomads, Red-Egoistic Warlords, Orange-Enlightenment Minarchists, Yellow-Integral Panarchists) tend to favor less social control, while the “cool” Communal levels (Purple-Tribes, Blue-Traditional Authoritarians, Green-Egalitarian Socialists, Turquoise-Holistic Anarchists) tend to favor more social control.

This locus of control-prerogative is based on an individual’s perception of themselves vis-a-vi society at large. It is the Whole-Part duality that is characteristic of every “holon” in the kosmos. Our global human society is a holon and it is made up of other whole-parts (sub-societies, identity projects, and so on) which are made up of other smaller cliques and clans, all the way down to the individual human holon. In any given holon, Agency asserts the primacy of “partness,” while communion asserts the primacy of “wholeness.”

Social HolarchyLooked at in this way Agency could be viewed in general as a regressive force, with communion being the progressive force. Communion of social sub-holons is required in order for a more complex social holon to emerge.  Individuals are assembled in communion to form tribes, tribes are formed into nations, nations into the UN etc..

One can also observe that the methodology of social control as societies progress up this spiral goes from more overt to less so. In other words the very means of control become less obtrusive (coercive) and more “voluntary.” This is because as society becomes more complex, social power necessarily must become more and more dispersed. That diffusion of social power from the few to the many, consequentially provides society with a sort of social-lubrication to allow varied and diverse social sub-holons to act together in communion toward a greater and more complex overarching social structure. To quote myself:

As the center of gravity of our (LL) cultural worldview shifted from pre-conventional (egocentric), to conventional (sociocentric), to post-conventional (world-centric), we can see that there was a corresponding paradigm shift in the organization of society. From pre-conventional Autocracy/Dictatorship, to conventional Aristocracy/Monarchy, to post-conventional Democracy/Constitutional Republic. As each progression transcended the one before it, political power was dispersed to a larger number of potential actors, from the single (dictator), to the few (aristocrats), to the many (representatives elected from the citizenry). We should therefore expect that these patterns will continue into the next paradigm shift for an integral (kosmoscentric) cultural worldview.

The more complex our social holarchy becomes, the more diffuse social power must be in order to maintain stability and prevent rejection and regression. Ironically as we become a more and more connected and “communal” society, we must simultaneously assume more agency within that society. If we instead try to map our current or past social structures on a more complex global society we will see rejection and regression into lower (less complex) social orders.

What is my point with all this. Well I think it is that the Communally biased among us need to recognize that when it comes to society, greater developmental complexity of the whole must deliver greater autonomy and agency to the parts. If it does not, it will be rejected as tyranny by it’s own holons, resulting in civil strife, or even catastrophic war, and thus regression into less complex (and less desirable) social orders. Conversely the Agentically biased (such as yours truly) must recognize that without communion we cannot progress as a society at all, and the very autonomy and agency we so desire will be forever outside our grasp as we will be stuck, or worse regress, into lower social orders that do not allow for greater individual agency.

What’s this got to do with Guns then?

Everything and nothing. It is just a symptom of the larger issues at play. Terrible things happen all over the world every day. Will stricter gun laws solve these problems? No. There are approximately 350,000,000 registered guns in private hands in the US. There are probably many more unregistered guns. Roughly half of all households in the US have a gun in the home. And despite all these guns, gun violence has been declining in the US for years. Yet with all this profusion of weaponry, the US remains one of the most desirable places on earth to live. (But who wouldn’t want to live in Switzerland? They have the most lenient gun laws in the EU).

Every year in the US roughly 32,000 people die in gun related incidents. That sounds like a lot. But lets put that number in perspective. About 60% of those deaths are suicides, representing about half of all suicides in the US (according to the CDC). That leaves roughly 12,500 non-suicide gun deaths per year. Of those roughly 80% are gang related. How many gang members do you suppose will comply with gun laws?

So that leaves (on the high side) 2500-3000 non-suicide, non-gang related gun deaths every year, consisting of Accidents, Murders, Police Shootings, Mass Shootings, and Self Defense. And to combat this problem, the communally biased “Control” crowd wants to make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase registered firearms? *smack forehead*

Meanwhile, 40,000 people were killed by cars in 2016. We need Car Control.

300,000 people were killed by obesity in 2016. We need Food Control

52,000 people were killed by drugs. We need Drug Control… oh… wait…

900,000 babies were aborted!!! We need dick and pussy control.

More control is not the answer. Consciousness development is. 

 

 

Posted in Philosophy, politics | Leave a comment

The Fat of the Land

A Book Review

I’m going to do something I haven’t done in a while and talk about a book. The Fat of the Land by John Seymour is a classic “back to the land” memoir in the vein of 10 Acres Enough,  and The One-Straw RevolutionSeymour1. John Seymour is a fantastic writer and a personal hero of mine. It was largely his influence that put me on the path to rural Japan in 2011. The life we led there was hard but extremely fulfilling and in the short time we were there our family built many of our most cherished memories.

The Fat of the land tells the story of John and Sally Seymour’s adventure on an off-the-grid rural English 5 acre smallholding in the late 1950s. It was the beginning of a life path that would make Seymour one of the most influential voices in a new, more holistic approach to farming, and beyond that to living, our connection to nature, our food, and the soil. Reading this book brought it all right back to me and reaffirmed my longtime goal of one day living close to the land on a small holding of my own.

In the meantime our little suburban “micro-holding” will be sufficient for gardening as our kids grow up and TLG and I focus on “money-grubbing” as John Seymour puts it. I highly recommend this book to all of those who feel the call of the soil in their blood.

Posted in 田舎暮らし, Farming, The Garden | Leave a comment

Some Perspective is in Order

Ideology Deaths

Global Death toll attributable to various ideologies in the last century

Okay let’s get this out of the way right up front. Nazi’s and Racists can go to hell, and while I’m at it Commies can join them. In fact Commies can go first; after all, they’ve killed more people.

Firstly I will say that there are many people out there who clearly “get it” and are looking at what is happening with a clear and “integrated” perspective. I would count Kieth Preston among those and I found his synopsis of the events in Charlottesville to be extremely helpful in trying to sift through the fog of the mainstream media’s coverage.

The bottom line is, Trump is right, both sides are to blame. Both sides came ready for a fight. If you are going to go to something like that, you must accept responsibility for the danger you are putting yourself in. I’m not saying that excuses driving cars into crowds, not even close. What I am saying is that the entire event was a powder-keg of violence just waiting to explode, and the people that participated, particularly the White Nationalists and the Antifa, went there knowing that.

Fundamentally, this would have been a non-event had the State been doing their supposed job of protecting the public. Instead they were nowhere to be seen, and just allowed the two groups to clash violently. This, of course, is to the State’s advantage. Divide and conquer is a time honored tactic. Keep the population at war with itself and ruling them is a piece of cake.

But the irony of ironies is that these “White Nationalists” and their “Antifa” opponents are ideologically far more similar to each other than they realize. Both are rooted in the  authoritarian (BLUE) vMeme wave.  What we see again here is the struggle between Agency and Communion through a BLUE (values oriented authoritarian) lens. Now BLUE is a communal wave, which is why communists have always far outnumbered fascists (and also why communism is responsible for so much more death) but the two share the same ideological roots in socialism. Perhaps some historical perspective is in order.

Social Developement

Socialism is a GREEN vMeme ideology in general but it took root in a part of the world (19th century Central/Eastern Europe) that still had a deeply BLUE (Aristocratic-Traditional) social order. The British (and Americans) and the French had their ORANGE revolutions in the late 18th century, but at the turn of the 20th Century, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain, as well as Japan and China in Asia, were still under the heel of BLUE Aristocratic social orders.  Since BLUE and GREEN are both Communally oriented waves, it was easier for the still nascent GREEN wave to take up the ideological reigns of those societies. The problem with that was it did not pull the social consciousness of those societies all the way through ORANGE and into proper GREEN Socialism, but rather put a socialist veneer over a fundamentally BLUE (traditional/authoritarian) social order.

Both the competing authoritarian social orders (“Communism” and “Fascism”) of the early 20th century can be looked at in this light, and they are really two sides of the same coin, with very little ideological difference between them fundamentally. Both are communally oriented. Both take on the very BLUE narrative of a heroic struggle against some evil “other” (The Bourgeoisie, The Jews, Western Imperialists, etc.) while championing the always-virtuous in-group (The Proletariat, The Aryans, The Yamato-damashii). The primary differences between them are economic and memetic; in “communism” private industry is nationalized completely and the “great struggle” is looked at as primarily a social-class struggle, while in “fascism” private industry is only partially nationalized and industrialists are allowed to keep their companies private so long as they serve the State, and there the “great struggle” is looked at as primarily a cultural/racial struggle.

It seems as though, during the early 20th century, the countries with more industrialized economies tended to adopt Fascism, while Communism was adopted by the more rural/agrarian based economies.  Because Fascism emerged in the 1920’s and 1930’s with more industrial might, it was rightly seen by the ORANGE western powers as the greater threat. WWII can thus be understood in that light as a final global struggle between BLUE and ORANGE vMemes. The BLUE vMeme persisted after WWII in Russia, China, Spain and other places, but gradually over the next 50 years those countries would also come to adopt ORANGE social consciousness and make political reforms on their own.

In the 1940’s ORANGE saved us from Pathological BLUE, even as it was about to be eclipsed in “the west” by GREEN in the following decades. Eventually GREEN Socialism did win in the west. It gave the world many wonderful and beautiful things; universal suffrage, social equality, environmentalism, and pluralism. What we are witnessing now in clashes like Charlottesville and Berkeley is really an ages old fight between Communal (Antifa) and Agentic (White Nationalist) expressions of the BLUE vMeme.

Fortunately for us (unlike the early 20th century) the total numbers in these groups are so low as to be effectively insignificant. There may be a few thousand of these White Nationalists across the entire country. I’ll be generous and call it 0.003% of the total population of the US. On the other hand, Antifa far out number them at maybe a couple tens of thousands across the US (hard to estimate) so let’s say, again being generous, 0.006% of the population. So we’re talking in total less than 1 in 10,000 of us are actively one of these idiots. Perhaps 1 in 1000 of us, again being super generous, have sympathies one way or another. The rest of us, 99.9% of us, think both sides are crazy.

So lets have a little bit of perspective.

 

 

Posted in Philosophy, politics | 4 Comments

Lines of Development

Sometimes it’s helpful to reference how various developmental models map in comparison to each other. The following table is my own creation, so I take responsibility for any flaws. I tried to stitch together several commonly referenced developmental models; Graves/Beck’s Spiral Dynamics, Wilbur’s “Integral Model,” Fowler’s stages of faith, Gebser’s structures of consciousness, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, and Loevinger’s stages of ego development.

Then I added my own referential categories such as a Three Tier structure I prefer (as opposed to the traditional SD two tier structure), my agentic/communal spectrum, stages of cultural expression (art, literature, philosophy etc.),  Structures of Social (political) Organization, Rough Historical timeline, approximate age of emergence (minimum threshold based on my observation only), and Hypothetical IQ threshold (extremely speculative on my part at this point but something I’d like to explore further).

Anyway, it was useful to me as a way to organize a lot of different lines of thought into a single table. Hopefully others may help me to refine this further.

Developmental Model

Developmental Model  (PDF)

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

What the * is the Alt-Right?

I’ve been reading a lot from Hanzi Freinacht lately on his website metamoderna.org. I highly recommend reading through his website. He has some really profound and excellent insights into the coming paradigm shift out of “post-modernism.”  I especially like his ideas around “Game Change” and “Proto-Synthesis,” and the idea of constructing a grand narrative of everything. This of course is the goal of the Integral paradigm (or metamodern if you like Hanzi’s term better). Today I read another piece he wrote entitled What the * is the Alt-Right?

Go ahead and read it. I’ll wait….

My comment on the piece which should also appear in his comments is below:

I actually agree with most of what you write in the body of this piece, but I disagree completely with your conclusion. For example, I’m not at all sure that the broader “alt-right” (in the very broad sense that I think we’re discussing) is just “a bunch of white guys” unless you can point to some demographic study or something. For example if we’re talking about representation on social media of “Alt-Right” or “Alt-Lite” viewpoints I see a lot of POC and LGBTQ’s and “Ex-Feminists” on popular youtube channels and twitter who are rejecting postmodernism. But even if it were the case that a lot of young white boys gravitate toward the Alt-Right, so what? I can understand that as easily as I can understand young women gravitating toward 3rd wave feminism. As you might put it, they are playing the Game.

But as I said before I think the Alt-Right and Alt-Left are just two ends of the same spectrum. The thing with the Alt Right is that postmodernism is a left-leaning paradigm, whereas post-postmodernism (metamodernism) will be a right-leaning one (following the historical Gravesian warm-cool-warm-cool pattern). The pendulum must swing and the Alt-left will be to metamodernism what libertarians were to postmodernism (i.e. a minority counterbalance). At least that’s my prediction. Right now we are in a phase of Rejection, which is why it appears that the Alt-Right offers nothing but anti-postmodernism. We’d be saying the same thing of postmodernism vis-a-vis modernism if we were having this conversation in the opening decades of the 20th century.

Posted in culture, Philosophy, politics | 1 Comment