Obviously! … I certainly understand that in A VERY LOUD WAY . ~ Peace
Thanks for the compliment @raybennett What integral concept is it that you want to attack me with now?
I’m not sure where the paradigm of “attacking” is coming from.
That’s something to work out for yourself.
Or, if you want me to assist you in guiding you through finding why you are in an “attack / defend” frame of mind, I might be able to.
I was stating that sometimes I just choose to say “No” and I challenged what I think is presupposition that I should use the methods you believe are superior in all situations, and I disagree that they are.
Hey, back with you. Yes, I can see how my use of those terms could be confusing, and yes, I’m happy to clarify. Both terms are perhaps too often used too casually without adequate definition or context, including by me apparently in this post. Lesson learned!
That said, note that I used quotation marks around each term, to indicate or underscore that the terms were being used in a particular way, differently from how they might be thought of or used. I also did not capitalize them; the schools of thought or philosophies proper by those names, which you referenced on Wikipedia, are normally capitalized (in the same way that when Critical Theory is capitalized, it indicates and refers to the actual scholarly theory by that name).
Both terms (without capitalization) have been used to point loosely and in a general way to a socio-economic system that while capitalistic, exhibits a good amount of caring of and towards people as indicated by such things as the robustness of its social safety net and social support programs, and how it values and treats workers. There is a whole spectrum of ideas encapsulated in those terms, ideas that run the gamut; for instance, from strengthening labor unions to encouraging more worker-owned businesses, or, from student loan debt relief to free college tuition, or, from child tax credits to something like UBI.
But by no means did I mean for either term as I used them to be interpreted as advocacy for a system that is purely Socialism (or Democratic Socialism, capitalized) or purely Marxism (or Neo-Marxism, capitalized). Nor should either term as I used them be interpreted as advocacy for any kind of authoritarian government.
I referenced in association with these terms the Nordic ideology, which I think is more properly called the Nordic Model, with its system-as-a-whole sometimes called “social democracy.” The Scandinavian countries themselves at times refer to their model as “compassionate capitalism” (or, by its cuter term, “cuddly capitalism”). I certainly am not ultra-knowledgeable about the Nordic system (or any of these matters actually; like you, I’m still doing homework in lots of areas). I have read some of the same critical material you have posted about how it would be difficult if not impossible to transfer the Nordic Model as is to the U.S., but there might be elements of it worth studying.
I trust you understand that use of these terms and attendant comments are my own; I own them and they should not be generalized to Integral Theory or the Integral project or to Integral Life or to the Integral Life community.
Finally, I do appreciate and thank you for the sharing in a prior post, particularly around your current interest and positive thoughts around Integral. It fills out dimensions of you for me.
I have to say, I find this a strange criticism when I have spent so much time and effort criticizing wokism and its regression away from healthy green pluralism and toward amber modes of enforcement, and toward a prevailing “grievance culture” with no underlying “forgiveness culture” to support it. Which I have done in many, many episodes.
Maybe it’s because I am unwilling to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” that you are casting me — and apparently the integral project as a whole — as “woke” here?
Let me be more clear — I think that the gift of wokism is that it has brought many painful Zone 7 and Zone 4 challenges and inertias into public awareness. The curse of wokism (among many others) is that it then immediately misapplies these perspectives, wielding them as accusations around people’s Zone 2 biases and shadows.
To flesh this out a bit more, here is a very basic sketch I am currently working with, which tries to take a look at issues like “systemic racism” through the eight perspectival zones. I am hoping to further develop this and present it in a future episode. If you need more explanation for the eight zones, check this discussion out:
Is “systemic racism” real?
It’s one of those terms that is thrown around a lot, particularly in pro-CRT vs. anti-CRT discussions, where one side sees it absolutely everywhere, and the other believe it’s a figment of the far-left’s imagination. Rarely is the term ever adequately defined, which means that more often than not, people are speaking across each other, possessing different referents for the same signifier.
So what is “systemic racism”? Well, it depends on what perspectival zone you are coming from.
[It’s worth noting that, while Integral has a particular definition of “systemic” (namely the Lower Right quadrant), we should recognize that most people out there are not aware of these distinctions, and use “systemic” to mean any aspect of racism that is perpetuated via the collective, whether intersubjectively in the LL or interobjectively in the LR. And we as integralists should take these arguments in good faith, rather than dismissing them because they are not properly using integral terminology.]
I think the most obvious definition of systemic racism belongs to Zone 8, the outer of the LR. This refers to actual laws, policies, and procedures that blatantly discriminate based on race. They can be explicitly racist, like slavery, or implicitly racist, like Jim Crow. Either way, this form of systemic racism is by far the easiest to recognize.
Does this form of systemic racism still exist? For the most part, no. The vast majority of explicitly discriminatory laws have been eliminated (though we are still ironing out some wrinkles in some areas). However, there are strong arguments that implicitly discriminatory policies and practices continue to exist, (such as the drug war, which had disproportionately affected certain communities more than others), and we always need to remain wary about new laws and policies being enacted which, while not using nakedly discriminatory language, nonetheless has an inequitably harmful effect upon certain groups.
Then we have Zone 7, the inner of the LR. Here is where we can see a) the mass behavioral patterns that result from current zone 8 laws, policies, and various environmental factors, b) the self-reinforcing systemic inertias that continue to exist from prior zone 8 laws and conditions, and c) how our overall patterns of behavior and communication are shaped by our present and past systems.
[This is also the zone where we can have useful discussions about adjacent issues such as “privilege”, which is itself an undeniable zone-7 phenomenon (different people existing within a different proximal space within a given system are thereby affected differently by that system, which in turn can expand or limit the probabilities, behavioral opportunities, and decision points available to each person.) Factors of this “privilege” can originate from zone 4 permissions and taboos, zone 7 inertias, or zone 8 inequities, and it can be useful to reflect on our own individual privilege as zone 2 shadow material, as well as how shared privilege can be reinforced in zone 4 — but the exercise of privilege itself is an inter-objective zone 7 phenomenon, as it refers to how different environmental factors determine the relative options available to an average agent within a system.]
Does this kind of systemic racism still exist? Absolutely yes. I believe this is where the bulk of meaningful discussions of systemic racism should take place, along with zone 4.
If zone 8 is the realm of law, policy, and environmental conditions, then zone 7 belongs to the god of statistics, which show how members of a system are enacting (and being enacted by) that system. And through these systemic analyses we can see how seemingly non-discriminatory laws in zone 8 can nonetheless have discriminatory effects upon certain groups. And we can also see how previous discriminatory practices have created generational effects and inertias that continue to limit the average options and freedoms available to members of a particular group.
This can be a difficult zone to discuss and remedy, however, because while certain patterns of discrimination are still being perpetuated in the LR, the zone 8 realities have since changed, and many of these inertias are now autopoietically reinforcing themselves. (See: how little the demographics and relative property values have changed in neighborhoods affected by redlining policies from multiple decades/generations ago, and how this limited overall property ownership for particular communities for generations, which then creates unequal opportunities to create and pass on generational wealth within those communities.) We can also often see zone 7 patterns that are not themselves self-reinforcing, but are instead due to zone 3/4 interpretations of zone 8 laws and policies (i.e. interpreting non-discriminatory laws in discriminatory ways.)
Then we get to Zone 4, the outer of the lower left, which refers to the various permissions, taboos, and shared assumptions held by a particular group, often/usually unconsciously. This is also a primary zone for the perpetuation of “systemic” racism (though again, in integral terms, “systemic” technically applies to the LR. Perhaps a better term here would be something like “distributed racism”?) Examples of systemic discrimination here would be something like judges who interpret and enforce laws differently depending on the race of the defendant, as well as inequitable hiring practices that tend to employ people with anglicized names more than “ethnic” names.
I think looking at these zones and discerning the different sorts of discrimination we find in them is a tremendously valuable exercise, and helps clean up so much of the 1st tier division and tribalism that is coming from the culture wars. And it helps us to find better interventions for these challenges that are best suited for each of these perspectival zones — often requiring multi-zone interventions (affirmative action, for example, being one of the primary zone 8 remedies for zone 4 hiring inequities, which then creates its own brand new sets of perspectival challenges.)
But we also need to remember that the universe is always in motion, and both our challenges and our remedies can exist in multiple zones simultaneously. For example, throughout the late 20th century, one of the greatest tools in combatting racism and bigotry has been television sitcoms — an art form that emerged from technology and capital in zone 8, which models new ways of communicating in zone 7, which shifts the permissions and taboos in zone 4, which changes how we relate together in zone 3, which helps us makes object out of unexamined subjects in zone 2, which changes how we react in zone 1, which changes how we reconstruct people who are “different” from us in zone 5, which changes how we behave in zone 6, which creates new collective inertias in zone 7 — and then back around the bases we go.
And yes, there are two seperate issues, of course - one country having healthcare available for all within that country; and then the supporting of worldwide healthcare. And maybe you’re also referring to both US healthcare and worldwide healthcare needing to be more available.
I agree that it can be a danger to give people a certain level of power, but also that it depends on the person. I feel like if I were in charge of the whole universe I wouldn’t become corrupt. However, I don’t think there should ever be one person or a government in charge of the world.
With worldwide healthcare, it could be it’s own system, completely seperate from politics - as far as it can be: a share of taxes gets paid to this from each seperate country, and they provide healthcare to anyone in the world that needs it - more a system like the NHS or healthcare systems present in Scandinavian countries. It would be a system through which people were directly provided with healthcare.
This is interesting. Do you feel like the US would function better if it was split into smaller countries? I have sometimes wondered if this is why there seems to be more division in the US - there’s less integration amongst groups of diverse people. There is division within other countries, but it doesn’t seem as extreme as how it is in America. When I’ve spoken to Americans, several have spoken derogatively about people in other parts of America. And this isn’t something that anyone in the UK would really say - and people would think badly of them if they did say something like that. Maybe it’s like that in America because a lot of voices aren’t actually heard, or people from different parts of the country don’t much interact with one another.
Hi Julia, US healthcare is some of the very best on the planet. It’s the costs and billing structures that need to be fixed. While the US provides a disproportion amount of the worlds international aid, I’m also a fan of, say the UK or Japan or Myanmar, being able to self-determine how they want to serve their peoples. And if the people aren’t able to self-determine their administrative systems, then I’m quite all right with supporting them to reach this level.
I always try to remind myself that politics is the “process and language” used to develop the policies and laws of the land. Politics is the extremely messy, often distasteful, occasionally offense dialog and discourse. We cannot avoid or do away with politics since this is the Integral process to reach consensus. We also cannot “lock down” laws or policies as by definition this would be tyranny. Say 20 years from now, healthcare has advanced to where I have a home Cancer Eradication or bone Mending, or Dental Repair Device that I can personally purchase for $200, then I don’t need an expensive written in stone and now in the future unnecessary medical or dental system. We have to be able to undo these things, which then triggers the political discourse.
Not necessarily better if the country were split up - say into blue or red.
I think in actuality, when you are on-the-ground-in-real-life what people actually see and experience is VERY different than the media created “Noosphere”. A San Franciscian might want to complain about “those Texans” or a Virginian might complain about “those New Yorkers”, but reality is Americans are much more the same than they are different. But the divisiveness “sells” - or at least has been selling up until now. It’s a very simple case of Amygdala Hijacking - same physio/psychologic mechanism in play as all of our Critical Theory applications.
I don’t know about this. I’ve got some good friends and business associates that aren’t fond of what’s going on in the UK nor how dominate City of London is in the nation. While they typically are more tempered than perhaps Americans (London is bizarre, they’re crazy,), there is also significant division within the UK. And if I remember regarding Brexit, it played out very similarly to here in the US with accusations of “Deplorables”, “Morons”, “Xenophobes”, “Racists”, representing an “Existential Threat to the UK and EU” (Global Noosphere). They are “Destroying the UK”, etc… I’m sure if something like Frexit or Italexit or Grexit picks up steam the there will be massive “culture wars”.
If you want to read a bit of the “other side” from the UK, I find Unherd.com to have well written articles with usually good investigation and analysis.
It’s well know that with our “Cancel Culture” the only people that are comfortable speaking freely are the Far Left. Even Moderate Left (classic Liberals) looking to “bridge” are also routinely attacked, fired from their employment, publicly ostracized/cancelled. It’s very very real here in the US.
So yes, here Left and Right or even Moderates simply cannot interact with each other. That’s one of the things I LOVE about Integral Life.
And I would be comfortable and confident that you would not become corrupted @Julia248
But would you be able to “play the power game” effectively to keep corruption from infecting your efforts? Would you be able to play the power game well enough to keep from getting setup and taken out, leaving an easily hijacked structure for the now charismatic, well steeped in Integral lingo, yet corrupt Green or Amber or Orange leader to not bend the system to their own agenda?
The Yin and Yang, the Light and the Shadows, the Ego vs the Altruism, the Duality of Humankind?
@FermentedAgave, they don’t even know . At a certain point it goes beyond human politics.
Politics is the process of communication. If we don’t communicate, wouldn’t that be absolute Authoritarianism?
@FermentedAgave, authoritarianism is a political system; democracy is a political system. So really post-politics would be post-authoritarianism. Also, it was a joke.
As above - I don’t think any one person or government should ever have all the power.
Thanks Corey for the extremely thoughtful and detailed response. I’m not the Integral guru you are so don’t understand your deep dives into zones and such. My apologies if I gave you the impression I would be able to keep up with you. I was also only replying to LaWanna’s request for me to expound on my “broken record” questions which come across as critical. Some of this I have also shared with you privately.
The entire paradigm seems to be academically “issue” focused, with issues being defined against an in-imagination noosphere derived from visions of Kumbaya, Nirvana, Matrix or given our societal basis the Christian Heaven.
Your most recent interview I think makes an excellent discussion topic and is also near and dear to my heart as a mixed race Indian. In your The Forgotten People: Restoring Justice for Indigenous Peoples video, at least in the free version, the cornerstone incident was during Marc’s family vaca and first time into Indian Country when he notices in a 15 second snapshot of awareness that a Walmart greeter asked to see a Native Americans receipt.
Let’s break this down a bit - Marc’s situational awareness of both the greeter and the Indian was shockingly momentary - measured in seconds. He had zero knowledge of anything prior to his momentary flash of awareness and then reactionary feeling. This feeling was then interpreted as “Injustice”. And this was the ONLY possible justification discussed - again at least in the free version.
I do commend Magdelena on refraining from speculation regarding the unmarked graves in Canada. She admitted to having no first hand nor in-depth second hand knowledge and therefor did not speculate. That’s classic rational thought.
How is selection of the title and publication of the experience not a clear example of very basic and clear application of Critical Race Theory? How would it be Post CRT? Or Post Woke?
Or perhaps the most salient question is how was any that episode “integral”?
Thanks for the response @FermentedAgave.
“How was any of that episode “integral”?
Well, it was a discussion among three integrally-oriented individuals who were sharing their views from their particular rungs of the developmental ladder, informed by our own personal algorithms of how we would like to see “integral justice” enacted in our society and the world at large. There was explicit appreciation for the many strata and flavors of developmental growth at play here, particularly when trying to avoid the common “woke” fallacies of elevationism (“noble savages”) as well as the sort of ubiquitous “presentism” that tries to apply contemporary moral standards to people of the past. We had a great little sidebar appreciating Teddy Roosevelt, while also appreciating that he would most definitely be quickly “cancelled” today. We also talked about accepting the unfortunate inevitabilities of history that have produced so much suffering, even while trying to curtail many of the harmful inertias that have emerged, and continue to emerge, from that history. And we also talked about indigenous spirituality in the context of the “1-2-3 of Spirit” and how one vital area for integration is finding more ways to include the “sacred naturalism” represented in so many indigenous traditions. And, as you mention, we were also capable of admitting when we were simply out of our depth, and have only more questions instead of satisfying answers. Felt pretty integral to me
I guess my question for you is, how do you think this discussion falls into the CRT frame? I fear that we are at a dangerous inflection point where any discussion of race, racism, ethnic identity, etc. is being cast as “CRT”. But I remain hopeful that a more integral conservatism can transcend and include the challenges being spotlighted by wokism/CRT, even while providing better solutions and interventions.
Yes, it’s not that it’s of poor quality, but if people can’t access it that kind of makes it redundant. Yes, the US and other countries do fund healthcare for other countries to some extent, but it isn’t enough.
Having democratically voted for worldwide healthcare wouldn’t be a tyranny. Every idea you dislike seems to belong in the category of ‘tyranny’. Maybe other voters would care about other people as much or more than they do themselves.
I do think it’s likely more difficult in a larger country with a larger population to have cohesion. I think it’s possibly more difficult to have healthy amber. As an analogy, if you’re immediate family existed of 200 people instead of 5-10 people, I think it would be more difficult to feel like a unit then.
There is division in other countries, the UK included, but it doesn’t seem to be as bad as in the US. In the UK, including around the issue of Brexit, people can talk of conservatives and Brexit voters disparagingly, but they wouldn’t apply it to certain areas of the country.
Maybe I’m wrong though about this being a bigger issue in the US.
People can say the UK is London-centric, and it has been in the past but is becoming less so, and I would agree with this - but this isn’t a disparagement of London and everyone who lives there.
I remember reading several studies a while ago showing that people of diverse views having political conversations is extremely helpful for growth and something that should really be encouraged. To be open, they also said it tends to make people on the right swing more to the left…
And that’s great you love the interaction between people of diverse views on integral life. I really value that too.
Seems classic CRT to me:
- 15 second awareness in real world
- “feeling” based interpretation
- discussion of only the racial make-up of the individual
- title of session
You could have easily looked at economic class, rural vs urban, education level, or personal preference.
You could have looked at the Walmart Greeter that perhaps had focused on and seen the receipt handed to the 3 wide eyed tourists, then noticed the Indian guy who perhaps had forgotten to pay for stuff on his last shopping trip.
The problem with “knowing” what’s going on within someone else’s “interior” is extremely difficult to do. Assuming your projection into what someone else is thinking or what “system” they have experienced is, well, assuming that your projections are accurate. And they could be accurate.
Seems like a Critical Race Theory “hammer” looking for a “racial injustice” nail to pound away at. Which coincidentally keeps the world in a Racial mode - not seeing anything much “Post” racial or Post Critical Theory.
That feels like a somewhat bad faith interpretation of Mark’s words, particularly when you seem to accuse him of reverse-engineering his worldview based on “15 seconds of awareness in the real world”. He was simply speaking to a personal experience that made him lean into the topic, and then offered a very long list of real-world metrics and statistics to frame the discussion. So this wasn’t a “feelings-based” view at all — both Mark and Magdalena have genuine experience and credentials when it comes to commenting on our justice system and it’s treatment of certain groups and individuals. Including personal experience just reinforces the frame that these issues have a way of touching all of us, if we allow them to, and prevents us from talking about other people and groups as if they are truly “other”.
In my book, “post-racial” does not mean “pretend ethnic identities do not exist.” It means “learn how to properly integrate ethnic identities, as well as the rest of the spectrum of identity, from family to Godhead.”
It is simply a fact that history has effected different groups in different ways, and we should be able to talk about that without falling into woke essentialism on one hand (“you can only talk about x group of you are a member of that group”), or bad faith “color blindness” on the other (which would prevent conversations like this from occurring in the first place).
Which was one of the major reasons I wanted to share my thinking on the different perspectival zones, and the multiple flavors of bias we can find there. Because it’s one thing to recognize a problem, and another to propose a solution or intervention. The woke crowd are horrible interventionists — they tend to reduce everything to either zone-8 forms of “systemic racism” (nakedly discriminatory laws) or zone-2 shadows of individual racism and bigotry.
Integral, on the other hand, wants to transcend and include the good arguments, properly positioning the partial truths, and negating the bad arguments, bad interpretations, and faulty interventions.
And again, my fear is that any and all discussions of race is being framed by the right as “CRT”, which means a whole lot of babies are being thrown out with the bathwater.
You’re either joking me or I’m not getting my point across or actually do see tyranny around every corner. After all I did start our little Tangerine thread to at least consider Carrying On so to speak with Western Civilization, that’s easily set the benchmark in literally every category of human development. Funny how I seem to always work that little tidbit in.
We have a perfect example at hand regarding Globalization. The G20 have announced and agreed to a 15% Minimum Corporate Income Tax with a Corporate (in addition to sales tax) share going to where the products/services are sold (think Google, VW, Ford, BMW, etc). Also countries that don’t adhere will be taxed or tarriffed.
On the surface sounds reasonable, right?
Interestingly all G20 countries are already above the 15% minimum. So what’s the motivation? There are many much less developed countries with sub-15% tax rates and will now face higher taxes (and become less attractive for large businesses). China would appear to be the target “offender” in the sub-15% category.
Personally, I would prefer we just use the UN/WTO to get China in line, since we’re already paying for them.
Oh no, no, no I agree completely that the US has likely a much great schism. I was just trying to point to very similar divides in almost all Western countries exist.
Just wanted to repost this point, because to me it’s sort of a North Star to help me navigate these discussions.
Once upon a time, policy decisions were made that were based almost entirely on ethnicity. These decisions had profound effects on certain groups, some more than others. All of which inform and influence the other factors you want to track — economic class, rural vs. urban, education levels, etc. Over the generations, many/most of the biases that led to these decisions were eliminated from the lawbooks. However, the consequences of those policy decisions are still affecting people, often in autopoietically self-reinforcing ways. Because sometimes there is a major delay between the earthquake, and the tsunami it releases.
@corey-devos You asked me to clarify why I thought Critical Race Theory was being applied. I generously replied with exactly what I observed and interpreted. My response was in “good faith”. Now you’re “strongly implying” (since you used “feels like”) that I replied in “bad faith”. My apologies Corey for somehow given you the impression that I was replying in bad faith. Regardless of whether we hold the same views or agree completely, it was never my intention to ever operate in bad faith.
Oh I don’t think it was intentionally bad faith, I think it just kind of slipped in there when you did the same thing you were cautioning us not to do (reconstructing other people’s interiors - which is a zone 5 perspective, by the way )
And I have no doubt that if we spent enough time talking, we would find way more to agree about than disagree about, and even then the quality of disagreement would likely be high