@once3800 I do find myself in this area to be dizzy trying to hold-onto the various explanations and extrapolations of the brilliant minds engaged here. I try and focus on the spiritual sensations that define life … to feel how to dance through it all … and to dance with every other character on the drama stage no matter what role they’re playing.
Perhaps a definition for @FermentedAgave’s worries about “Critical Theory” comes defined in your shared Jester link quoted below?
“Academic pretense can be found everywhere. You recognize it by all the neologisms, fancy multi-syllabic words presented with an aura of authority. Most of us tend to think something is deep and must be true if we don’t really understand it. We don’t want to appear ignorant and admit we are unable to get it whatever the “it” is.”
Covers a Conservative view of free speech, Left agenda and modus operandi, Power (left) vs Influence (right), NY Phil dropping blind tryouts, Left take over of education system, Sports, Left using stats on when proves point and many others.
From an integral perspective seems I think we would say Carolla/Prager see Left as highly disfunctional Green thats highly distructive to Western Civilization. And also recommending what would seem to be an Orange/Green reset and cleanup.
Might be worth a view given combined reach of Peterson, Carolla, and Prager.
I love Zizek.
I disagree with a lot of what he says, but I recognize and respect his intellectual and philosophical integrity in that he is able to hold a position without being dragged into the left vs right army of either side.
Jordan Peterson, on the other hand is a trope cut of the same fragile cloth as any one of a hundred other anti-left “youtubers”. I can’t call him a philosopher because “anti-” isn’t a philosophy, per se.
@raybennett Did you listen to Zizek’s 30 minutes in the video? He had 30 minutes to say whatever he wanted and spent it whining about Trump.
It’s interesting that you dismiss Peterson every chance you get. Did you listen to Peterson’s 30 minute discussion on the 10 inconsistencies of Marxism/Leftism? Was there anything specific that you disagreed with? Or you “already know” and it’s not worth discussing?
Nah, I don’t have time to listen to those two yet again another time, lol.
I actually listened to this when someone shared it a while back. I can’t remember when, but a long time ago (maybe covid makes it seem longer ago than it was?)
With both after about listening to them about a few hours I found them repetitive.
Even people I agree with I won’t bother listening to if they just repeat the same thing again and again.
Of course Zizek doesn’t like Trump - probably reminds him of Tito on many levels. Do you understand the point Zizek was trying to make?
Of Course Peterson spent 30 minutes on Marxism / Leftism. I completely understand Peterson’s view. It’s simplistic.
When I listened to Zizik, I would have to disagree with: recognize and respect his intellectual and philosophical integrity in that he is able to hold a position without being dragged into the left vs right army of either side. in at least this instance. The discussion topic was Marxism and Zizik, in my opinion, was not only not “dragged into” but raced head long into the a Left vs Right virulent anti-Trump position. He came across as perhaps ill prepared and not so solid in defending Marxism.
You’ll have to point out the time when Zizek focuses on Trump. I browsed through and can’t find where Trump is covered at all.
Peterson probably won the debate, sure.
Capitalism wins and Communism loses the debate.
I don’t find that interesting, and neither did Zizek. He lived through the fall of Communism 30 years ago, lol.
In the words of Zizek:
“Don’t take this as a cheap competition - it may be that, but we are desperately trying to confront serious problems.”
“For example when I mentioned China - I didn’t mean to celebrate it.”
The key question Zezek asks Peterson and I have asked you, and also Corey has asked you - and neither you nor Peterson answer is at 1:54 -1:57
“Where are the Maxists, here? I don’t know any. Can you give me some names? They are like a good vampire fears garlic.”
“Where are the Marxists? Name one.” Then Peterson says something in “rebuttal” and Zizek says “Totally agree with you.” Then Peterson goes back to the 1960’s lol.
Given that we have a Liberal Democracy already, it’s very malleable but frustrating for some that it’s not whimsically so. Anyone that has adopted strategies, tactics and objectives to promote erosion of individual rights in favor of centralized collectivism patterned seemingly along Marxian/Marcuseian lines would seem to fit the term “Marxist”.
As we’ve discussed many times, all of use have a wonderful Liberal Democracy to mold and shape in our image of the next Noosphere. Just roll up your Integral sleeves and get to work. Get 2/3’s of Congress to support your desires and get the Constitution amended. The process is very straight forward and also difficult by design. You’ve got to be deliberate and inclusive enough to say 2/3’s of US Citizens.
If this centralized model I keep hearing about on Integral Life isn’t based on Marxism with Marcuse’s “cells multiple so humans should go Blue pill”, I would love to hear how it fundamentally differs.
Promote something outside of our current governmental structures (Lenin, Mao, Castro esque) attainable only by civil disobedience (anti Blue/Orange if you will) and you’ll likely have to answer how you’re not Marxist or a complete lack of vision Anarchist.
I mean, I am one of the most frequent voices on Integral Life, and I just offered a “3 point plan to fix democracy” that stays entirely within the boundaries you just laid out They are all about finding ways to strengthen our extant institutions — hell, one of them was almost downright originalist, returning the House to the Founders’ intent, which we deviated from after the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Another is fully accepting that American history itself is founded on a martial gun culture, and I am calling for a healthy return to that culture in a way that can actually be fully compatible with the larger American modern and postmodern idioms.
How exactly am I a “Marxist” (other than making an appropriate place for Marxist epistemology within a larger integral pluralism, as per Ken’s lead)?
What I “hear” is that here on Integral Life we look to define a “tops down” approach with little/no respect for what’s working or “including” the Right or Christians or Literal Mythics (eech!) in the “transformation” process. “Integrate” and you’re a flag waving Patriot in my book. Focus on Dominator tactics and you’re highly suspect and if it smells like Marxism, many will assume it’s just another terrible idea. And heck, the Democrats control the House, Senate and White House. Just get on with it already and go all Nike.
Also, I’ve never gotten (or perhaps heard?) the answer to how Integral Theory made the leap from anthropological map (which I think it’s excellent at) to coincidentally defining a Marcuseian-esque Integral noosphere with a collective elite implementing a very simple centralized/nationalized governing and economic model. @LaWanna laid out the best argument so far, that (apologies for the simplification) is based on everyone predicts so IT also predicts. Everything in IT appears to be coming out of Sociology/quasi Psychology/Collectivist frame utilizing the worst of Critical Theory to justify the predictive nirvana state.
But hey, we’re just dialoging so all fun and games until we have to start kicking puppies
P.S. We have two puppies that are always under foot We’re very careful for our own safety as they’ve taken both of us down before. And they’ve also gotten scooted around too.
No, lol.
Capitalism and Marxism are economic models that are clearly outlined.
You can’t just say “Anyone who is against individual rights is a Marxist”, lol.
What you are describing is totalitarianism - and there are a lot of totalitarian political systems that are not Marxist.
This does sound like a very loose reading of the word “Marxism” — the same version I often see echoed in right-leaning media, which seems to mean “anyone to the left of Reagan”. It is the counter-signal to leftists calling everyone “Nazis”
So again, no, I am not a “Marxist”, and neither are other people who believe capitalism may require some regulations every now and again. Advocating for safety nets with fewer holes for people to slip through is not “Marxist”, just like having public parks, libraries, and firefighters is not “Marxist”.
Feels like these days we are being presented with a false choice between the Cult of Individualism on one side, and Pinko Commie Marxism on the other side. And of course, the only ones who benefit from that frame are the ultrawealthy corporate elite, who like nothing more than keeping the majority entrenched in a constant firehose of irreconcilable culture war issues.
Also, as a reminder for people who are trying to find a proper place (with guardrails) for Marxism within their epistemology, check out Part 1 here:
Part 1: How Do We Properly Integrate Marxist Epistemology?
Marxism, also known as “dialectical materialism”, continues to exert a tremendous influence in our society, both in terms of pro-Marxist ideas on the left and anti-Marxist positions on the right.
One of the simplest ways to define Marxist epistemology is the following statement: “Examine any alleged state of affairs as related to and distinguished from a total environment, and you will know whether or not the sentence alleging that state of affairs is true.”
What are the positive contributions of Marxism that we want to include in a more integral epistemology? What are the unhealthy or negative limitations that we want to avoid?
That’s not quite true. Most view the Far Left as utilizing the Marxist, Marcuseian and now Woke/CT playbook for vast unprecedented socialization efforts taxed, administered and enforced at the Federal level (authoritarian, totalitarian, centralized). Also there is a continued critique of “capitalists” and seemingly little critique of the governmental agencies or NGO’s that would administer the $T’s in new social programs. This does coincidentally align with authoritarian collectivism that was espoused as the vehicle for nirvana for humanity. It’s a significant departure from our current governance and economic models, hence the raised eyebrows.
How would you characterize yourself on today’s political spectrum?
This falls in line with the narrative that “see the ultrawealthy” (extreme example - OMG) benefiting so therefore our current system is “broken” and “doesn’t work for humanity” (Critical Theory operating). I think it would be healthy if the IT community and Left really introspected on this line of thinking that “it’s FUBAR so let’s rewrite everything”. Who exactly is worse off under our Liberal Democracy than if they were in any other nation than perhaps Iceland or Norway?
No puppies were kicked in the writing of this post, but I did throw them in the pool to cool off
Yes, and I think this perception is coming from the mistaken belief that, if it’s coming from the federal government, it is therefore totalitarian. I do not buy this. Different challenges operate at different levels of complexity, requiring different scales of self-organization. I am glad that the FDA and EPA have federal jurisdiction. I am glad that we have federally-enforced education standards. I am glad that we have federal enforcement for civil rights.
Problem is, many of our current challenges now outpace the federal level of self-organization. Climate change cannot be solved on a local, state, or federal level (though they all play an important role). Global pandemics cannot be solved on local, state, or federal levels (though they all play an important role). Diminishiing biodiversity cannot be solved on local, state, or federal levels (though they all play an important role). Et cetera.
And one of the reasons why, is because we currently have transnational corporate entities that have no corresponding transnational regulator.
I think that’s a straw man, at least that is certainly not what I am saying. I am not anti-wealth. I myself am a bit of a temporarily embarrassed millionaire
However, I AM anti-wealth inequality, at least at the levels we currently have, which have now surpassed the Gilded Age. Especially when much of this wealth is horded by a pitiful few dragons, and often created by externalizing the losses to the public (environment, welfare systems, developing nations, etc.) I believe that some degree of wealth inequality is always necessary for our economy to function, and for innovation to be rewarded. However, there are limits, points where inequality become too unequal for a society to function optimally, when social mobility begins to halt, when the middle class begins to evaporate, when all boats are no longer rising.
I am not looking for equity. I am looking for more equitable inequities. Capitalism is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
The left often wants to raise the floor and lower the ceiling, and the right often wants to raise the ceiling and lower the floor. I want to attach the floor to the ceiling, so that when it rises, so does the overall public welfare.
And again, one of our central challenges is that transnational corporations now exist that outscale nation states, and are in fact actively engaged in tactics of regulatory capture within nation-states. And they are succeeding, because nation-states simply do not have the regulatory jurisdiction to reign these transnational entities in. Ken and I discuss much of this here, for anyone interested:
Ken and Corey explore how today’s transnational challenges and realities may be hastening humanity’s eventual growth toward increasingly inclusive and global forms of governance, what government might look like at the level of the global holon, and how we might actually be able to get there from here.
“Right now government is confined to national native nation states. That’s the fundamentally highest form of real government that we have. The market on the other hand, it’s the free market, and then we try to curtail it with certain moral sanctions, no slavery, no trafficking, that kind of stuff. But otherwise the market tends to be very competitive and aggressive in that sense. And the problem is, the market is now global, the governments are national. And we don’t have a balance there, and that’s producing some disasters.
*We really don’t have a government that can match the size of the market and therefore [be able to] oversee the market in very limited but important ways. So that’s an issue. And so now we have nation states hung in this global competitive free market. And anything that a nation state does, like help the environment — but if it does so it’ll cost it hugely in terms of economic competitiveness. We have a market that’s actually driving us into more and more externalities, more and more environmental destruction, and we don’t have anything to counterbalance that. And that’s a nightmare. So this is a real important issue that we have to keep in mind as we’re thinking about ways to move forward integrally.” —Ken Wilber
And in a passage from Sex, Ecology, Spirituality , Ken says:
*“The global nature of this transformation is now being driven, particularly in its technological-economic base, by three interrelated factors: (1) the necessity to protect the ‘global commons,’ the common biosphere that belongs to no nation, no tribe, no creed, no race; (2) the necessity to regulate the world financial system, which no longer responds to national borders; (3) the necessity to maintain a modicum of international peace and security, which is now not so much a matter of major war between any two nations, but between a ‘new order’ of loosely federated nations and renegade regimes threatening world peace.
*The point is that all three of those concerns no longer respond to actions taken merely on the part of individual nations. Not one of those problems can be solved on a national level. They are literally transnational crises demanding transnational, worldcentric responses. And exactly how to negotiate this difficult transition, with nations voluntarily surrendering some of their sovereignty for the global betterment—therein precisely is the extremely difficult nature of this ‘postnational’ global transition.” —Ken Wilber
So here is the crux of the problem: our economic systems have gone transnational, while our current governing regulators remain stuck at the national level. Which means there is a governance vacuum at the level of the transnational holon — and since nature abhors a vacuum, that space where a global regulator should be ends up getting filled by corporate interests and agendas, resulting in the corporate plutocracy we have today.
Today’s “globalism” is hamstrung by the fact that there is no real global regulator to set and enforce policy. It’s an international globalism, enacted at the level of the nation-state, not a genuine transnational globalism enacted at the level of the global holon. It is, therefore, a globalism that is influenced and in many ways governed by plutocratic interests, and very limited when it comes to regulating the global market, precisely because it is trying to enforce those regulations from a lower holonic level.
At while is a lot to criticize about the current state of globalism, even this weak, flatlandglobalism has produced some amazing results over the last 60 years or so, having pulled more people out of poverty across the entire world than any other force in history, with far less bloodshed. It’s created some major problems regionally, of course, which should not be neglected, but we probably don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
So what is the solution? According to Ken, it is not to toss out globalism entirely, but rather to create a bigger, better, and far more effective globalism — one that can remain uncontaminated by corporate interests, and one that supersedes the nation state, while also remaining aligned with the interests of its constituent nation-states. Watch as Ken explores what this global holon might look like, and how we might get there from here.
An embarrassed integral progressive, I guess? Which doesn’t really fit into today’s political spectrum. The embarrassment comes from the company I am commonly associated with by using the word “progressive”, though I often find that company regressive. But I mean it in a somewhat different way — an integral progressive is someone who simply wants to update the systems that need updating, strengthen the systems that need strengthening, and dismantling the systems that we no longer need, or are actively causing harm. And it is a progressivism that is integrated with a healthy worldcentric conservatism, particularly its emphasis on individualism, bottom-up governance, and interior values/causes of human suffering, which are needed to complement healthy collectivism, top-down governance, and exterior systems and causes of suffering. It’s not progressivism in contrast to conservatism, it’s progressivism in contrast to regressivism.
Basically I want strong holonic systems of government running from local to global that value and promote interior values and development, healthy individualism (rights) and personal responsibility, as well as healthy public/collective responsibility.
But less important than my political identity is my actual political philosophy, which I would say is one that tries to integrate the following polarities/factors — not by applying a 50/50 balance between each of them in all cases, but rather figuring out how they should be applied based on needs, conditions, and pendulums. I identify this as “integral progressive”, because as far as I can tell, these political scales are not currently represented by any political party, which means it is still a future emergent. In the meantime, I try to use these to navigate and make sense of our current narrow ideological food fights:
THE MAJOR SCALES OF INTEGRAL POLITICS
#1: Internal/External
“If we are to pick one of the three axes that has most often and consistently been identified with the Left/Right axis, it is the internalist/externalist one. Virtually all schools of the Left—including new Left and old Left and everything in between— believe in some form of external causation of human suffering. Whatever happens to you, it is not your fault! It is society’s fault. How to cure that is another thing. But the cause is clear to the Left: it is bad nurture, not bad nature, that causes human suffering. Likewise, both old and new Right both believe in the fundamentally interior cause of human suffering, from family values to the work ethic, or lack thereof. Thus, if we have to pick only one, we say that the Left is externalist and the Right is internalist.” —Ken Wilber
#2: Individual/Collective
“[An Integral approach to politics] therefore suggests that neither individual nor collective is primary; there is simply an occasion, and that occasion has both individual and social dimensions, both of which are equiprimordial, neither of which can be reduced to the other or elevated above the other. Therefore, any political theory that wishes to accord with the actual architecture of reality—or simply the nature of present experience— needs to harmoniously balance both individual and collective, private autonomy and public autonomy, subjective and intersubjective, and not ignore either of those, or try to reduce it to the other or use it to trump the other.” —Ken Wilber
“A healthy holon is faced with two basic choices: upward transformation, driven by Eros, or healthy translation, driven by Agape. Hence, the transformation/translation axis in healthy practice is essentially the same as the progressive/conservative axis, and, when used in that sense, we call both of them the third major axis.” —Ken Wilber
#4: Altitude (levels and lines)
“Each holon possesses those three major axes (internalist/externalist, individualist/collectivist, progressive/conservative), but, as always, all of those exist only at a particular altitude, so it is necessary to specify the altitude of any political idea or movement, in both its theoria and its praxis. What level does it spring from? What level does it serve? This is the levels scale (#4, or the fourth and last major scale we use). This scale is very important, because the most basic values of a political movement (not its only values, just its most fundamental values) will be set by its altitude—after all, one can be amber progressive, orangeprogressive, green progressive, turquoise progressive, etc. Or one can be amber conservative, orange conservative, green conservative, etc. Likewise, one can be amber collectivist, orange collectivist, green collectivist, etc. Or amber externalist, orange externalist, green externalist, and so on. Being a collectivist or a conservative or a progressive, and so forth, usually pales in significance to its altitude, although all of them are important and necessary for an Integral indexing.” —Ken Wilber
OVERVIEW: THE MINOR SCALES OF INTEGRAL POLITICS
#1: Lines (e.g. “walk” and “talk”)
“For a finer analysis of altitude, we look not just at the general level of a political theory or movement, but what developmental levels in what developmental lines? In particular, what level does it talk (the cognitive line)? And what level does it walk (the self line, or the center of gravity, COG)? And in both of those lines, what level does it come from, and what level of constituency does it actually address—i.e., what is not only the theorist’s but the masses’ center of gravity?” —Ken Wilber
#2: Agency/Communion
“Translation (i.e. the third major scale) itself can emphasize agency or communion, both of which fall under the Agape drive at any given level, which is the drive to conserve and preserve that level (and its lower-level constituents) using healthy translation, or agency-and-communion at that level.” —Ken Wilber
#3: Progression/Regression
“If a holon actually changes levels (and doesn’t just reach up or reach down—but moves up or moves down), that transformative change can be either progressive or regressive in character. Normal progression, or upward transformation, is driven by healthy Eros (unhealthy Eros is repression, or Phobos, i.e., driven essentially by fear), while regression, or downward movement, is driven by unhealthy Agape, or Thanatos(i.e., the dissolution/death drive), so the Eros/Thanatos opposition gives us the minor scale known as the progression/regression scale).” —Ken Wilber
#4: Stage/Stations
“How many levels of consciousness does a political theory authentically address? It does no good to say that I am taking the whole Spectrum into account if I cannot tell you exactly how to let red be red and amber be amber and orange be orange and green be green—and still govern from turquoise. Without cracking that nut, there is no Integral. As noted, adults will stop their development at any number of stages—there will always be red adults and green adults and indigo adults—and that is their right. At any point in history, the political ideal is to let each stage be itself, and govern from the highest reasonably available at any given time.” —Ken Wilber
#5: Regulator (governing system)
“Another minor scale that is sometimes important and can be included is the role of the Governor or Regulator, which every social holon possesses (this scale runs from nonexistent anarchist to minimalist Guardian to maximalist State; this is the Regulator scale, and we usually present it as minimalist/maximalist Regulator). This scale often overlaps, but is nonetheless distinct from, the (#2) individualist/collectivist axis (i.e., while it is true that many collectivists are State interventionists, some collectivists wish to achieve collectivism via means other than State intervention, such as naturalism or local communitarianism). Although minimalist/maximalist is often enfolded in the individualist/collectivist axis because of their frequent overlap, this is nonetheless an independent variable.” —Ken Wilber
By the way, I think this one may be a particularly important point for some of the discussions that you and I have had, in terms of how exactly to integrate earlier and later stages:
If I can put words in your mouth (please correct me if I am wrong), I think that one of the things that you really push against is when you feel like people are somehow excluding, dismissing, or condescending to earlier stages of development. Making no place for amber, etc. Assuming that is an accurate reconstruction of your interiors, I think Ken really nails your concern in this section. And it’s one that I fully agree with — I love amber, and orange, and green, and even back to red. They all have an important place in a full spectrum, fully functioning society, and to the extent that we are excluding any of them, we are breaking the “conveyor belt” that keeps this evolutionary experiment moving forward.
However, Ken’s last line really freaking nails it for me: “At any point in history, the political ideal is to let each stage be itself, and govern from the highest reasonably available at any given time.” I think that is the argument I am often trying to make, perhaps inelegantly (certainly not as elegant as Ken!), and that you hear as me “devaluing” these earlier stages. Love the stages, we need the social structures each of them creates, and we need to govern from the highest reasonably available at the time.
And if I am wrong about this assumption, my apologies, and/but it’s a point worth making anyway
