Is vs Ought to Be, Hegel->Marx->Neo Marxism->Wokeism Philosophical Development


Agreed :slight_smile:

Have you been assimilating your dialogs with @FermentedAgave … sure seems like war with endless hyperbole and rhetoric? As you have said elsewhere, “people often just react against those not in their perceived tribe without actually looking any deeper.”

Let’s give a shout-out to @WillE for showing us how to artfully communicate with perceived opposition. He has shown significant cognitive resources in understanding, sharpening contrasts with details that create curiosity and nuance between the polarity of views … As @FermentedAgave’s even said, “I’ve got some homework to do with all of your writing and references. THANK YOU for giving me something to chew on.”

The respectful dialog sure feels and sounds like an informative discussion worthy of the intellect(s) participating here. Thanks and love to you all :slight_smile:


Thank you so much for this outstandingly clear synopsis . If we are asking ourselves, as a result of our Integral inquiry, what direction might I take in my interactions with my community, this spells it out. Integral, to me, is about providing a structure that allows each individual to best offer their content.The ebb and flow between individual and community creates the opportunity for both individual and collective evolution, if that is what we wish or individual and collective exploration of their particular altitude.
In this sense, Individual and collective are the two sides of a coin. Try to separate them, and the coin is lost. Try to consider one whilst ignoring the other and you at best get 50% of the picture. At worst you get meaningless nonsense. Each requires the other if it is to make sense.


Again, it’s interesting how you prefer to see others as in conflict. Are you the saintly peace maker?
Why are you concerned about what I am assimilating within myself? What does that keep your attention away from within yourself? How would you even begin to presume my internal dialogue unless I told you?
Willies a great guy. I don’t perceive he is “in opposition”. Maybe he is maybe he isn’t IDK maybe we should ask him first - but I’m not sure why you just assume so.

In fact, I don’t see @FermentedAgave “against” me, or me “against” him. His posts seem to be against some ideologies and some groups of people but I thought I made it clear that I don’t see myself as being part of what he is against. If he is against liberalism or wokism or Marxism etc - I don’t see that as against me. I’ve said many times that my position is that he is against a kind of imaginary enemy. Have you been understanding the content of my posts?
If you were to ask me about tactics (rather than position), I would tell you I’m using a variety of techniques because one technique alone often doesn’t work in all situations. As an analogy, if a muscle is tight or cramped, heat and cold applied alternatively both in good measure loosen the muscle and allow healing.


@raybennett I find you extremely poignant … Thanks for commenting :slight_smile:


@WillE Picking up the train of thought you started me down :slight_smile:

If we look at the metamoderna information…

This does correlated fairly well with a Standard Distribution with perhaps a 1/2 SD skew to the right? If we assume this correlates or perhaps is based upon IQ then are we looking at Higher Altitude/Order levels of development that are essentially unobtainable for say 50% of the population?
If the case, then we likely need to double or treble down on Inclusion. Am I getting way off base? Or might this make sense?
I’ll take a break for a bit.


I don’t know what seems to be the issue stuff like this has been mapped already, I am saying this again I am not a researcher. I also noticed that my emotional line is somwhere stuck in Yellow. So, I also notice that I am not really at the highest altitude. Although I spill more and more into this area thanks to meditation retreats and sessions.

This is a good one.

Without picking up on everything distinguishing between construct aware individuals as well as “wokeism” would be great. I also dislike the Green madness of deconstructing everthing, yet constructing smth. that is solid is way way more difficult imo. I never quiet understand these discussion when I read these pdf’s. I feel it is more intellecutal escapism, instead of fully grasping the situation of an individual. I often find liberals to be quiet fake, in the sense that there is a Green bias to in-group thinking, even if the in-group produces the benefit for the majority and for minorities. It’s very hard to deny that bias.

Also, again from a more “Eu” not super-educated perspective I’ve talked about Hegel with a friend for a tiny bit, the bicameral system definitely skews the perspective of the individuals in the U.S, whereby in Germany we have so many parties it’s undeniable that we are moving forward even with the eventual backlash. When I read/skim about american history there is so much depth, it is unfortunate to see how this is played out. I currently feel there is a very strong drive to get rid of stage red / blue fantacism .


Uncollapsing Woke from Integral from Post Woke from Meta Modern from the direct lineage of Heg/Marx/Marcuse/Woke. With a basis in these philosophies I fear we are attempting to make sugar plums out of rat poison.
I just read Coreys Indigeniious Injustice post and feel even more confused on any separation.
For me it occurs as intellectual escapism when there is no bridge from theory manifestation in our physiosphere(aka real world).
Check Wills metamoderna link as it seems high clarity.


I have some shadow work to do as deep down I feel a welling up of Duality thinking when Mr Bennett comes to play. Yes I know its my stuff to deal with.


As far as I can understand the MHC, it is more of a skillset whereas IQ is more set in stone. There certainly is a range that your IQ can fall into based on genetic limits, but there are certain things that can make give (I’m leaving that mistake in because it is hilariously ironic) you a higher IQ. It’s difficult to really say what that means because these are constructs based on tests of, primarily, mathematical-logical ability. The research seems to indicate that when we say IQ we do tend to mean some sort of genetic limit on “intelligence,” but it’s a little more complicated than that.

I do know of one study that found a 15 IQ point increase after a several year intensive training program in late adolescents. What this means for adults hasn’t yet been researched, but I think engaging your mind, educating yourself, being healthy, in brief, self-improving, can lead to an increase in, “intelligence.”

Returning to the MHC however, it is a skillset that is very likely correlated with IQ. It is a model of task complexity and so people with higher intelligence will be able to learn the skills faster and likely with a greater fluency than less intelligent people. As a skillset, you MUST be able to operate at the lower stages before you can move on to the next stage because each subsequent stage orients the skills of the previous stage in a non-arbitrary way. You certainly don’t need to be a grandmaster at formal-operations to go to systematic, but you should at least have some level of fluency with it.

As mentioned in the article you posted, parrots taught how to speak are essentially operating with a sentential level of cognitive development. Was this parrot thinking creatively at this level? It’s difficult to say because its IQ or “horsepower” driving the skillset likely made it incredibly difficult to do so. Compare this to a 3 year old human who can achieve a far greater degree of fluency and creativity because its IQ is high enough to allow for faster thinking at this level.

Perhaps that’s the key distinction here. IQ as the horsepower of the MHC decreases the amount of time and effort necessary to be creatively fluent at a certain stage. You may be able to get a person with average IQ to a stage like metasystematic, but it would take a lot of effort for them to think at that stage. It also doesn’t guarantee that someone of high IQ will always be at higher MHC stage, because they may not have developed the skillset. They are merely at a higher degree of creativity and fluency at a lower stage.

This is especially true if there is a lot of emotional weight behind the two systems they are trying to synthesize. Metaystematic implies that the Left and Right are not mutually exclusive. With the polarization going on right now, how many people are willing to really consider the other side enough to synthesize a higher order system with it?

I think with the MHC, we need to train people in this skillset earlier in life because it acts as a bulwark against polarization. The way our current education system is going, we are just headed toward indoctrinating our children into polarized thinking. At best, we educate children to judge their cognitive abilities based on their percentage scores on memorization tasks. That’s hardly a way to teach higher cognitive complexity.

This is why I love the Metamodern distinction between cognitive development and symbol stage development. A Metamodern symbol is the Both/And heuristic. It represents the kind of thinking one has at metasystematic. If we can convince people of the utility of the Both/And heuristic we certainly don’t guarantee an increase in complexity, but we do at the very least increase the likelihood that they’ll get better at the type of thinking that may lead to that increase in complexity.

The concept of downward assimilation is very important in this regard because as we become developmentally aware we need to be conscious of how the symbols created by the higher stages are downward assimilated to the lower stages. The failure of the Hegelian dialectic is a perfect example. Or the breakdown I gave of what “systemic racism” looks like at systematic, formal-operations, and abstract. It’s a very poorly designed symbol because it isn’t downward assimilated very well. We need symbols that are not only downward assimilated effectively, but also increase the likelihood of people being upward assimilated to the higher stages.

I think I’ve mentioned this before on this forum. Hanzi has argued that the success of Capitalism over Communism was because Capitalism was able to be downward assimilated far more smoothly. It can be used very effectively by the egocentric, ethnocentric, and worldcentric stages of moral development. Communism can’t be used by anyone lower than worldcentric, and even then we have some issues. It requires someone to have a very large circle of empathy to be able to function properly.

That kind of turned into an info dump so I’ll leave it at that!


I see that you’re typing up a response, so I’ll just let you know that I edited what I wrote.


Thanks you for posting the Fool Article.
I’ve never seen The Fool analyzed in a serious academic paper before.

I absolutely love The Fool, and the more scary “Joker”. Not the Batman Joker, though. In the Batman stories The Joker is insane and a real villain, while the Jungian Joker is your higher self in disguise working for your best interests but the Ego does not understand it and sees it as bad. So unfortunately the various Batman Joker Movies miss the mark and depict the Joker as misguided and The Ego as the Hero that has to defeat the Joker.

I’d love to see a Movie where The Joker is working for the best interests of Gotham city and Batman’s journey is realizing this and that it’s actually he (Batman) who is making things worse. But it probably wouldn’t sell any tickets, lol.


I agree and disagree that MHC is describing skill sets :slight_smile:. Education and training can increase these capabilities, but simply cannot be understood fully or perhaps more importantly be synthesized into new systems/structures with the underlying ability (IQ).
I think the MHC focus on systems and systematic thinking is quite relevant, since almost all the “cultural engineering” trends either have or lack systematic thinking. When things “work out” it can be attributed to “just luck”. When things don’t work out it can be attributed to “unforeseen consequences”. With the MHC we could simply say “had systematic understanding and synthesis capability” or “doesn’t have systematic understanding capability”.

In my understanding, would we consider the MHC to be extremely Orange? i.e. Highly meritocratic? Perhaps this Metamodern is my Tangerine Altitude after all?

Very apropos description. I would add that going from “understanding” to “synthesis” on any give topic is perhaps what we refer to as “transformational”. So yes, understanding and discussing might be readily attainable by many that perhaps may never synthesis the "next big idea’.

Not saying you’re advocating this, but worth a note of caution that thinking that “anyone can learn anything” has never been shown to be the case. At some point physiology comes into play - brain synapses, biochemical composition,… - and no amount of education/training has been found to create a Genius from a Chip.

In looking at Metamodern, is it as simple as formally describing “compassion” as part of an Orange altitude? For most humans we already operate/live/think/love in a secular governmental hierarchy, a free market capitalistic economy, and practice a compassion focused religion? Is metamodern mashing up and renaming what we already have or is something new being synthesized?

I think this is a perfect example of what we see in all biological populations. Or population if mapped using MHC falls into Pre-Operational, Primary, Concrete, Abstract (totaling ~40%), Formal (40%), Systematic (20%), Metasystematic (2%), Pardigmatic, Crossparadigmatic. While many of the concepts floating about might be Systematic really only 22% understand what they are speaking of. This leaves ~80% “speaking about” something which they may have only a cursory understanding (our parrots if you will). But these “parrots” are still very much part of us.

For Hanzi’s MHC, he readily incorporates individuals/populations ability to think at complexity levels. Has this been looked at by the Integral community? I know the Integral community uses %'s something like Hanzi’s 12%/20% to “create the change”. This might directly map to the Integral altitudes (or not) and would indicate perhaps approaches for Inclusion.

I would reword in Integral terms that Capitalism is much more inclusive across a broad spectrum of MHC and Integral levels, as well as providing by far the most down assimilation level-uplift opportunity. It works better for the most number of humans of any economic system we’ve come up with.

I think your “requires empathy” statement is one of the marketing terms used in conjunction with Communism. I do think Communism limps along as an academically inspired philosophy simply because it’s so simple. Very low complexity, no work to understand the operational system is very appealing to many even if the results have always been horrific.

Is Capitalism deficient in “empathy” if it’s the most inclusive (downward, uplifting) system? If so, compared to what?

P.S. Let me know if I missed something you might have edited.


I’ll respond to the rest later when I have a bit more time, but I just wanted to clarify this. When I say that Communism requires a larger circle of empathy, I don’t mean that Capitalism doesn’t require empathy or that it is deficient in empathy. I only mean to say that to make Communism work effectively we need more people who are at higher altitudes.

For example, someone at ethnocentric is not likely to use Communism well. This isn’t because they lack empathy, but because their circles of empathy tend to be too exclusionary. They may actually have even more empathy than someone at a higher altitude, bending over backwards to help others, but only those “others” who they consider to be in their in-group.

I can only speak from memory of the word of others, but I’ve heard that Mother Theresa would only offer help to those who converted to Christianity. Let’s not argue over historical accuracy, but assuming this is true then this is exactly what I mean. She would go to the ends of the earth to help other Christians, but no one else.

So with Communism, you need to have a large circle of empathy for it to work. If you privilege your family, friends, coworkers, hobby groups, etc., over the whole of the society, then you aren’t someone who can work well with Communism. That’s a VERY tall order to fulfill and that’s one of the many reasons that Communism failed. The self is very complex and so you can have certain elements of yourself stuck at ethnocentric, where you’re very worldcentric when it comes to certain areas or peoples, but when it comes to this specific area you suddenly draw a very harsh boundary.

An extreme example might be child sex offenders. You can be very inclusive of all types of people, accepting different ways of being even if just don’t get it or you think it’s a little bit weird. When it comes to child sex offenders…very few people have the ability to empathize with them.

I’m definitely not saying that we need to empathize with such horrible offenders to have Communism work (nor am I saying that we shouldn’t empathize with them). It’s far, far more multifaceted than that, but it’s just a simple example of downward assimilation. We need a system that can be used by the largest number of people.


I think it’s necessary to establish first which type of Capitalism is being discussed.
Google Dictionary:
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
From Investopedia:
Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy.
The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism. Here, private individuals are unrestrained. They may determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services. The laissez-faire marketplace operates without checks or controls.
Today, most countries practice a mixed capitalist system that includes some degree of government regulation of business and ownership of select industries.

Basically what I see is one form of capitalist philosophy is little government control, while another form is using laws to benefit large industry (in my judgement unfairly). What we have in the United States is various special interests with some trying to use government to give large corporate interests an advantage and other interests trying to use the government to give individuals an advantage.


Just to clarify, using Christianity in the US as the “compassion structure” might make sense. In India it might be Hinduism or Buddhism, Turkey Sunni Islam. Key is that extremely well established, broadly adopted “compassion structures” are already in place. We might refer to these as “moral” structures with the intent to enable “beyond legal/secular”. I think I get your point regarding Mother Teresa but not sure it’s a compelling example :slight_smile: of any kind of issue or deficiency. (Personally I would look at the structures that created the poverty she was working in.)

If we were looking at combined secular/legal, religious/moral/empathy, economic models out there today, it likely would be the Communist, Socialist or Sharia systems (outside of Vatican City :slight_smile:). I think the “making it work in reality” is the really really hard part.


New subtopic - Use of Scientific Method for Internal Quadrant introspection - aka Scientific Gnosticism. While the article is very harsh, we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Extending the idea of “science” internally (gnostic) at the least is very error prone and at the worst potential fabrication.

Science is therefore by definition anti-Gnostic , just as are the healthy expressions of theistic faith. To allow the category error, Nature, whether product of God or not, has ordered the world as it has, for reasons that may forever remain inscrutable to us, and by our application of reason (gift of God or not), we might come to understand some portion of the order in which we live.


Interesting discussion on IQ, class.


You’re welcome ! I can relate to this paper the most based on “bi-racial” experience lol. This can be a bit much for others to stomach. So, most of the time I hide my true self, it’s way to dangerous sometimes to be a bodhisattva in any sense and any line.


Is it hiding yourself or perhaps just being a bit judicious in speech. It’s OK to not say everything we think or feel all the time. :slight_smile:


Bill Maher said what Americans should takeaway from Afghanistan is what real oppression is. “Blind hatred of America is just as blinkered as blind love. And we Americans should really get some perspective about where we live,” said Maher. “We’re not the bad guys. Oppression is what we were trying to stop in Afghanistan. We failed, but any immigrant will tell you we’ve largely succeeded here. And yet, the overriding thrust of current ‘woke’ ideology is America is rotten to the core, irredeemably racist from the moment it was founded and so oppressive, sexist and homophobic we can’t find a host for the Oscars or ‘Jeopardy!’”

Maher concluded his monologue saying “America may not be the country of your faculty lounge and Twitter dreams, but no one here tries to escape by hanging on to an airplane. No, we wait 'til we get inside the plane to fight – and only because they cut off the beverage service.”