As I continue trying to unravel how IT has seemingly found itself aligned perfectly with Wokeism, I followed a thread into Hegel (thanks to @Heidi for spurring my studies!) which seems to be foundational for the Dialectical Method based movements such as Marxism, Neo Marxism, Wokeism and others.
One area that I’ve been looking into (as a neophyte blindly stumbling through deep philosophical schools) is the quantum leap IT has made from anthropologic assessment, mapping, and description (AQAL, Quadrants, Spiral Dynamics,…) to predictive extrapolation into and definition of “higher future states” for humanity. While I follow the neutron to atom to galaxies foundational ideas, I have not been able to understand how this provides a rational basis for IT’s warlord to democracy to global collectivism as the ultimate ideal for human development, and the state/level we should be feverishly striving for (perhaps at all costs).
It seems there is a significant amount of work that I think would be considered as parallel view to Hegel -> Marx -> Neo Marxism -> Wokeism that perhaps describes in classic philosophical terms the aperspectival madness the IT community seems to briefly mention.
Question that I have is if there are mature lines of reasoning based on Hegel’s dialectical methods that don’t all culminate in centralized authoritarian collectivist movements?
Does Hegel’s Dialectical Method applied continually to society (the Is) enable creation of a higher order society (the way it Ought to be)?
Full disclosure, I haven’t watched the video. I’ll likely download it as an audio and listen because it is quite long lol. Point being, my opinion may change once listened. Also I am responding to your stance from other posts you’ve made where your main issue seems to be with the collectivist aspects of Integral Theory. You obviously mentioned that slightly here but my response may touch on other things you’ve said so just making that clear in case my response seems unrelated to what you’ve said here.
Either way, a major criticism of Integral Theory that I’ve heard from several people is that it has taken away the oscillating between Individualism and Collectivism that was a part of the Spiral Dynamics. I’m certainly not knowledgeable enough on Integral Theory to really judge that criticism, but I do know that it acknowledges the cycles of differentiation and integration in development so that does sort of apply here.
To clarify, Spiral Dynamics talks about an oscillation from Purple (Sacrifice-Self) to Red (Express-Self) to Blue (Sacrifice-Self) and so on.
In my eyes this bears a lot of similarity to the balance between security and liberty. By sacrificing ourselves for the collective, we create a more secure society that allows for a greater degree of liberty. We sacrifice our childhood to the educational indoctrination of the state so that we have the greater liberty provided by a more educated populous.
The issue obviously comes when the collective demands too much of the individual which creates an authoritarian regime that must be broken by the emergence of the next stage of individualism. This is then taken to the extreme, for example with Orange Capitalism putting profit over the environment, which results in the emergence of a new stage that privileges the collective with Green Environmentalism.
Just an aside, there are obviously collectivist elements to Orange and there are individualist elements to Green. The distinction is in what they prioritize, not necessarily what they are exclusively preoccupied with.
So coming back to your issue with Collectivism, I don’t necessarily think that Integral Theory would privilege the collective over the individual. Instead, I think what is likely occurring is that we are creating a more secure collective so as to allow a greater degree of liberty for each individual. At every level we must be wary of things being taken to the extremes of either pole and do what we can to mitigate the downsides of either.
Yeah, I think Ken’s model would have benefitted by keeping some kind of “spiral” or cyclical imagery. I see people often see in terms of “levels” that one achieves in sequence, rather than cycles or oscillations or some other cyclical model.
As a result @FermentedAgave you would naturally see “collectivism” as a kind of single “stage” and compounded by some fears both in yourself and flamed by your choice of media, you have a distorted view of “what is”
“Is vs Ought to be”
The fact IS, that collectivism has ben the bedrock of civilization for it’s entire history. The basic family unit is a collective. We don’t ask babies to contribute equally to what the receive, and mostly in unhealthy families (in my judgement) do children have any kind of obligation to the parents in terms of obedience and fealty after 18, etc.
Also, the fact IS, that there are many collectivisms that work very well in modern society. Churches such as the Mormons or the Amish have a kind of collective nature, and many Nationalities operate as collectives within a Capitalist society. I’m not an expert on this, but I believe the Jewish Kibbutz is a very successful model of collectivism. Or where I live, Samoan, Fijiian, Tongan and other Oceanic communities are often quite collective. I know a few Fijiian men who bought two acres of Agricultural land at a very high price (because it’s Oahu) and in their free time farm Taro on it, then distribute it for free in their community. No trade or purchase - just a gift. These men have achieved some degree of success and just decided greatness for them was not acquiring more and more money and physical possessions, but was instead ensuring every baby, mother and child in their chosen community has access to healthy organic food. In my opinion, these are Great men, with dirt under their fingernails and skin blackened by laboring under the sun - and I’d also say they are “Integral” in a way most people in the west cannot begin to understand. This collectivist thinking is very common in Oceanic cultures.
In the past this collectivist model extended through the whole of Oceania for hundreds of years - until the European Missionaries came in and cut down all the breadfruit trees and forced famine conditions and plantation pseudo-slavery society.
When most people bring in Marx, they are usually talking about enforced collectivism by a government - which is only one “level” or type of collectivism. We might call this “Orange Collectivism” or bureaucratic collectivism - which is a nightmare. Green collectivism, however is a very successful model we can learn from many pre-industrial cultures.
Hi @WillE, I also am a neophyte in all this
When I listen to KW speak, he does not appear to have completely locked in to “next rung on the ladder” thinking even if most of this time speaking is focused getting the world to the “next rung”. It’s perhaps within the communities that are looking to “rise to the next level”, with for IT’ers would be Teal or better.
Actually making IT work, does seem to require the spiral dynamic’s aspect of continually cycling between quadrants and iteratively cleaning up shadows.
This I think is an excellent discussion point. If we look at the liberty / security balance I think we can easily look at this argument through Hegel’s dialectic methodology. We can identify a security concern, then using the dialectic methodology (operating system of the Left) we now have carte blanche to making sweeping changes/impacts on liberty.
Does this thinking consider the “is” (the world we live in, perhaps US locally) vs “how it ought to be”? One of my basic questions is that in my estimation IT has gone from excellent anthropological mapping and description into extrapolation and prediction.
Are we using Hegel’s dialectic method on the US when we look at security / liberty balance? i.e. We can identify an issue, then make the argument that “reduced liberty” is the solution?
In a very non-Hegelian non-dialective perspective, if we compare the US to anything else in the realm of “is”, what changes would we want to consider? Who would we want to duplicate?
Now I do agree that if we apply the dialective method not to other “is”'s, but to an Integral Noosphere, the argument is clear that we should make massive changes as quickly as possible. But now we’ve slipped into comparing an “is” with all the amazing benefits and some downsides, to essentially a conceptual idea (noosphere)
I think the dialective approach likely had much more room for adoption in Czarist Russia and pre-Communist China.
Just a thought. Should we consider that the US (democratic republic, constitution, congress, senate, administration, judiciary, federal, state, county, city…) might already facilitate this dialectic method through it’s inherent adaptability?
I very much agree that we already live in a highly collective world already. Family, Neighborhood, Community, City, Church, Religion, Nation, IntegralLife , where we interact, operate and live in “collectives”. And as we already see, collectives require some level of structure and administration. Collectivism itself isn’t the issue. Should we perhaps look at balance between individual liberty and group collectivism?
Holy Bat Guano. My unfolding enlightenment shocks even myself. Turns out this Dr James A. Lindsey was able to publish 20 Woke / Critical Theory hoax papers to expose as Steven Pinker calls exposing the shallow basis for the philosophy that’s engulfed mainstream culture.
This “critical” attack on the world that “is”, in order to try and manifest a noosphere based on a foundation of cynical self righteousness critique might not have the intellectual depth to be worthy of serious consideration.
IT as a product of CT might not have much more credibility of extrapolating “higher levels of human development” than Marx, Lenin and Mao. Just who would IT community recommend we put in charge of this new world order?
Cult initiates see it as a kind of ritual hazing and demand to prove the faith, very much like an abused child or spouse always trying to do better to live up to the unmet demands of their abuser.
The concept of “white fragility” in the antiracist Woke cult is exactly this sort of emotional shakedown. White fragility separates white people and their “adjacencies” into exactly two types: racists (who admit it) and racists (who are too emotionally fragile to admit it). It is obvious which side the cult doctrine favors. In fact, the cult doctrine in this case is that every white (and white adjacent) person is a racist by default , and there are only those with the moral and emotional fortitude to face that (which is good, according to doctrine) and those who lack the necessary moral fiber.