@FermentedAgave, … “Here I would say that there is a lot more “Integral” going on than Integralists like to see… the world is significantly more connected with ideas flowing much more freely than it ever has”
Wow, 2 days of not following and the discussion has already moved along and gotten so much deeper…so my comment may not even be relevant anymore given how you at LaWanna have taken this further; but I just wanted to add what your comments bring up in me:
I think there may be 2 reasons why introspection about our (i.e. Western) culture is often highly critical and completely misses the (I would say: glaringly obvious) positives:
One reason comes, I think, from the post-modern irony where it simply isn’t “cool” to find anything good in your own culture. You’re simply supposed to “see through” it and be ironic and negative about it. I think that is a huge shame and sometimes even a dangerous mistake (“throwing the baby out with the bathwater”) Personally, I hope I am not guilty of this particular habit of post-modernism.
The other reason may be–and that is one I am definitely guilty of–that many who are interested in this introspection are the “foot on the gas pedal” type of people. We are often simply not that interested in looking back and seeing what we already have achieved. It is so much more interesting to look ahead and see where to go next, and what–however small–imperfections we can still improve upon. At least I am more and more willing to admit the importance of the role of the “step on the breaks” type conservatives, that make sure that in our haste to “improve” we do not destroy the very scaffolding that our current stage was built upon…I’m learning!
I completely agree with these words of description. I think the rhetoric and written spheres have become highly aggressive and threatening but real violence is way down from 30 to 50 years ago. While the amount of people has rapidly increased violent crime I sense it has not. I find Millennials’ very docile and much less competitive than Boomer’s.
I do see those who are triggered tend to become vicious quickly with their dialogs from the safe space of behind their screen. I do believe that humanity as whole is advancing into a better more loving and enlightened society. Dare I say it … progressing toward a more integral life and an integrated world perspective overall. ~ Peace
Bravo and thank you for the understanding and beautifully refined articulation. Now we might try Intentional Inclusion of all those “out dated” Democracy promoting Free Market advocates, as opposed to resisting the foundations that “got us to where we are”, “give us a great place to life today”, and “enable us to have these whacky adaptation discussions”.
Is it completely crazy to perhaps even view Democratic governmental systems and Free Market economic systems as the most Inclusive systems humankind has ever devised? True Free Marketer’s want every person to have the the highest work possible for themselves. This is the highest value, highest productivity, and in most cases the most satisfying and passion inducing scenario for each and every individual, every group, every community, every race, every caste, every age, every education level, every IQ. This may sound like a “bold” statement, but what’s out there that even comes close to the Inclusive nature of Democratic and Free Market systems?
What systems come close to Democratic and Free Market systems in the ability to dynamically change, grow, learn, adapt, expand? By design Democratic frameworks are designed to be dynamic, responsive, expansive, adaptable, anti-corruption, anti-dominant, anti-repressive. By design Free Market economies attempt to enable each and every participant at their individual highest level (pay, work, etc).
This Modern/Post-Modern thinking of Decomposition into parts and Critique of the bits and pieces can be extremely valuable. It enables us to really zero in on minute aspects of systems. This also enables us to, as an example, create “causes” or “issues” that coincidentally just happens to suit our own egoic desires. This tussle between “Free Market” (Friedman) and “Government Managed” (Kenysian, not even Marxist)) is not new, and has been extremely well debated, tested, analyzed, succeeded, failed. Lots of these things have been tried both in Ancient times and in well documented recent times. We can look at the impact, then inclusion, the “how well it works” for the humans in each of these instances.
So is it “tapping the breaks” or that we are perhaps “continuing to progress” regardless of how, say Integralists, or any other group that’s done their Decomposition and Critique might argue things?
I have been involved in this project and I wanted to get some feedback on it so I made it a stand alone topic. I welcome input.
Conscious Co-operative Capitalism?
Step 1 – Consciously accept and commit to the idea of supporting one-another locally.
Step 2 – We are all consumers and the foundation of success begins with us as individual consumers. As a consumer commit your time, resources and money to participate consciously in supporting individual local businesses that consciously co-operate by being members of the local collective.
Step 3 – Success still comes through our competitive efforts in the marketplace. However the results of winning and losing have consciously changed. It’s the effort and input we give toward helping others that matters now.
We will still compete consciously as individuals, working to obtain success and viability through the collective co-operative system. Success will still come through competitive winning but the objectives of winning have consciously changed. In this new conscious environment we are not rewarded through selfish power-grabs.
It’s a new game; a plan B which rewards success differently. It will be through positive altruistic efforts at helping others that we will climb the ladder of success. Competitive people committed to working hard for the success of others will be rewarded with greater access and prominence to influence the collective.
By consciously restructuring the existing profit models toward greater shared benefits and better service toward others we all win. The best of the best will compete for bigger and better ideas at helping others.
Financial success will be less attractive than the social capital and influence earned by the super-stars of conscious cooperative capitalism. They will have the credibility and co-operation of others to serve as conscious leaders in our new economy.
The existing power centers built on competitive capitalism alone will break apart, requiring that they too restructure to this new conscious cooperative effort to remain viable in the marketplace
Welcome back! Yes, the irony and negativity = “cool.” Metamodernists at least in art and culture have sort of upped the game, still using irony and pointing out negatives like the pre-integral (green postmodernist) stage, but adding a “sweetness” to the formula, so that some of the positives of culture are also highlighted, along with some honest negatives. One writer called this “ironesty.” Wes Anderson films are a great example, which I spent an entire weekend months ago watching everyone of them I could find, some of which I’d already seen, like “The Darjeeling Express” with the Wilson brothers, one of my favorites.
Yes, less physical violence overall. Your view of millennials being more docile than boomers is somewhat supported by some research (I would have to hunt it down again) that shows that polarization in the U.S. is mainly increasing among the over-65 bunch, with little evidence of it in the 18-39 age group.
And Peace to you too
Also, I’ll take a look at your Conscious Co-operative Capitalism topic soon, but it certainly sounds different from, say, some of the views of Thomas Malthus, 19th century economist/professor I’ve been reading a little about and perhaps you’re aware of, who apparently influenced Darwin’s theory of natural selection. “The life of the victor depends on the death of the enemy” was one of his brainstorms… He was talking about the competition for resources among neighboring tribes/populations, and was pretty fatalistic, from what I can gather, believing “the poverty and misery which prevail among the lower classes of society are absolutely irremediable.” Like you and others have said, yes, we have come a long ways. Although Malthusian economic theories are still studied today, they are hopefully more and more less influential.
Well, yes…maybe. However, that doesn’t take away from the fact that there are clearly some horrible indignities in that system as well. They are quite obvious. There are still people that are left out–people that are not well fitted to the meritocracy. Some of the most ardent proponents of modernity often argue that these people SHOULD NOT be included, or at best should just be allowed some small minor space where they can eke out their meager existence.
There are also obvious systemic problems: Clear runaway positive feedback loops that without interference from some non free-market influence would simply spiral out of control and endanger the entire system–especially around capital that is abstracted several levels from the real resources it represents.
I am with the integral thinkers in believing that post-modernism does NOT represent a mistake or regression, but is a natural stage evolving from addressing some of the indignities of modernism (i.e. the free market, etc.) It has its own obvious extremes and indignities–clearly. But it brings a true upgrade as well–especially in its sensitivity to those left behind by the modern world.
The next stages can never be argued away from any current stage by pointing out that anything that came before the current stage wasn’t any better than what we have now. Of course that is true. And it will again be true, when we have transcended this stage by what comes next.
That, of course, presumes that there really is a progression towards Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
I am currently reading “The Fourth Turning” which seems to suggest that instead there is a circular pattern that puts our belief in progress to the test. I see many truths in that perception too
–but neither does Integralism (or developmental theory) exclude any circular patterns, nor does it seem that the philosophy of “The Fourth Turning” excludes any progress. Both seem to focus on particular aspects of a spiral, in my opinion. (it turns and oscillates, as it moves forward at the same time.)
In any case, the one thing I always have trouble to conceptually agree with is that there is any endpoint that is the final best stage. So to me, modernity (free market democracy) may be the best fully implemented system we have come up with, and we’d do well not to throw out its best parts too quickly–but it better not be the endpoint beyond which we cannot imagine anything better.
I admit it’s one small problem I have with Wilber’s interpretation of Spiral Dynamics versus the original: In the original, they leave it very open as to what comes beyond the first one or two integral stages–suggesting a vista of a possible infinity of further development. Wilber, in his effort to define things up to the very pinnacle, and use of known or supposed human peak experiences, to fill out the higher stages, seems to bring the entire thing to a defined and fully known end, beyond which there is nothing to explore: non-dual stages…there is NOTHING beyond them. Don’t even imagine beyond that. …I think that takes a bit away from the entire undertaking…I mean: where’s my gas pedal gonna be then??!
What does left behind mean and what are these indignities what we need to correct?
What systems, groups are already working on the left behind and indignities? Can we help these groups and systems accelerate their efforts?
“Left behind” would mean: not able to participate in the system or “game” at the full level. In a purely meritocratic system, as pure market capitalism is (or should be) that would include anyone with decreased physical or mental capacity, but also some people disadvantaged by their birth or immediate environment
Some of the most obvious indignities that come to my mind, would be extreme inequality (by extreme I really mean EXTREME, such that if I’d make a graph on this computer between median net worth in the US and richest person, even if I represented median net worth with a single pixel, my computer screen would have to extend through 100 stories of a skyscraper, to be able to display the richest person’s wealth–I don’t just mean that someone may have 100 or 1000 times more than someone else)
An obvious one is democratic socialism (or similar modifications of the free market) as practiced in many European countries. I don’t think it’s the best one, necessarily, but it is one of the working systems already in existence.
Personally, I am very interested in “Game B” type theories, like Jamie Wheel or Daniel Schmachtenberger are talking about–but those are very much in the realm of theory right now.
Another one that I would see as an “indignity” is the indignity of loss of “meaning” or “interiority” or “magic” that goes along with the flatland view of the world that is part of the reductionism of modernity.
Of course, the wish to bring back these things (on a higher level) is one of the greatest criticisms that is being leveled at integral theory–but to me it is one of its most attractive and important features.
(just watched a video on metamodernism which tries to take the interior and “magic” out of integralism…with some understandable arguments, but still: I think at a great loss!)
I think humanity absolutely needs and craves the magic and mysticism as we see with religions. Most of the world’s population is religious to varying degrees. Creating a common “image” or “concept”, with shared language, rituals, customs makes it all go round, at least in my assessment. To think otherwise probably isn’t going to get very far (at least in Democracies).
This is a tough one. Do we want to reward Chemist that rigorously studied progressively more difficult materials for 30 years, then invents say Lithium battery technology that revolutionizes energy storage and distribution? Would the Chemist work as hard, study as rigorously, express themselves through their works as much, if there were limits on her ability to be rewarded?
Who makes the decisions and administers these limits (assume it would be progressive tax rates)? These things are all readily doable in the current system, and I think are on the table right now. That’s the beauty of our Representative Democracy. By very definition it is “for the people, by the people”.
Thanks for the introduction. This Game B was new to me and have scanned a bit. I do think it a bit contrived to claim that the current systems and peoples view the world as “win/lose” or “finite”. That’s simply not how Free Market Capitalism works. Economies are anything but finite.
If we jump to @excecutive 's Coherent Capitalism thread, I would agree that we’ve “sold out” on our local communities for the “low price” options (check out “Poorly Made in China” by Midler).
Interestingly, it’s the Conservatives that have been pushing to “bring it back to America” and dare I say “Make America Great Again”?
Is it really a negative impact on my life that Bezos and Zuckerberg are worth over $100B? Their corporate policies definitely can have negatives effects on my life (manipulating “free speech”, outsized market influence and manipulation,…), but them simply being filthy stinking rich doesn’t really impact me.
I think when you fully attain an integral perspective you see how everything connects with everything else. You have arrived at the “Enlightenment” … “The Kingdom of God” … “Universal Consciousness” … or an “Integral Life”. You will never ascertain it ALL and it will perpetually change and evolve or devolve; you can influence where ever you want to “step on the gas pedal” … but the search in understanding in connecting the dual polarities is seen, felt and understood, that is the fullness of the Spiritual Quest Attainment … that’s my take-away from Ken Wilber’s work.
With all that money comes tremendous power like the ability to monopolize markets, buy influence as Mr. Trump so proudly acknowledges he did. For the people to reacquire some power they need to connect together with a common purpose. That could be the BLM power center, the Tea Party Trump Supporters or the those who embrace the integral ideas of a Conscious Cooperative Capitalism.
My vision is grand I will admit it … but it will only take a handful of David’s uniting, in a common conscious purpose to cooperate and collaborate together, to take down the Goliaths of the current system dominated by the Raw Competitive Capitalists.
One major problem is that the Chemists often do not get rewarded anywhere near in proportion to their discovery. That is why Chemistry isn’t a popular Doctoral degree option and most reasearch has to be subsidized by Universities - Universities give the researchers tenure in exchange for the hope that they will get prestige from the researchers’ discoveries while the corporation finding the research actually owns the discovery. Civil engineering in various forms (building big stuff) I believe is where the highest earning degrees are. Or Actuarian Mathematics (figuring out risk).
Just want to clarify something regarding your comments about a “common ‘image’ or ‘concept’, with shared language, rituals,” etc. In our current democracy, Christians who take the Eucharist are practicing a form of mythic-magic. Technology (computers, internet, smart phones, etc.) are said to be a form of magic at the rational level. At pre-integral (green pluralistic, postmodernist), there is a lot of magic in the form of wicca, neopaganism, astrology, etc. Originating in the magical stage, shamanic practices, while sharing some commonalities throughout the world, are actually very tribe-specific among indigenous people. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the word “common;” are you speaking of the need for a singular commonly shared “magic” or “mysticism” or such, that everyone and every stage of development participates in?
(Hint, I’m not a religious scholar.)
No, I’m not saying everyone needs a common, as in same, belief system. I’m saying it’s a common “need”. If we look at the uptake on religions, religions are VERY popular globally. This would seem to be people joining in common spiritual practice, rituals, belief systems. I know what we get out of our religious practice is mythic-magic but we might describe as “transcends this world”.
As you point out, even at pre-integral the strong uptake of wicca, neopaganism, astrology, etc would seem regressive to me according to Integral Theory. I don’t see how as example claiming “I’m pre-Integral but headed to my Wiccan meeting” makes much rational Integral sense, but then I’m also not an Integral scholar (perhaps a poor student).
I do see a strong desire for the Integral community to enable the “religious experience” but without really calling it a “religious experience”. If you look at the societies that have effectively eliminated religion (China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam?), they’re not really the kind of societies where you would choose for our daughter’s to raise their daughters (unless they were part of the power elite).
Personally I would recommend focusing on “integrating with” the current systems, as opposed to “creating something outside of and replacement for”. I just don’t see an effective trend here and do actually see it as non-inclusive non-Integral.
On effectiveness, I’ll just point to the numbers of people that subscribe to and join the interviews and presentations. When we wandered down to our neighborhood church with everyone still trying to sort out Covid, there were more people in the church for 1 of the 3 weekend services than globally tune in on the Integral interviews (Integral, Life Daily Evolver, etc).
Saltzman happened to be critiquing Jordan Peterson so I checked views. Saltzman is viewed by 100’s (1.7K subscribers). Peterson is viewed by 100K’s or M’s (3.7M subscribers).
Yes. Exactly. I would say that if you look deeper into the reward system of capitalism, the naive view, that may very well have started this system out–at least philosophically, is simply not at all representative of reality in our era. The reality is that–like any game–it simply rewards people who are good at playing that particular game. In much smaller measure I have experienced that many times as a manager, executive and business owner: Any time we implemented a reward system that was supposed to reward desired behavior (more sales, better teamwork, putting the company first, etc.) after a short time it turned out it was actually rewarding the people who were most willing to prioritize getting the reward over everything else (gaming the system, holding up sales for the next quarter to maximize commissions and bonuses, putting others down to make themselves better in comparison, etc.) The current stage of capitalism does this, I think, to a very great degree. One idea of a Game B is, to adjust our rewards closer to the goals we really want to achieve as a society. I am certain, that sooner or later it will have its own problems and may be gamed–but it may nevertheless be a good step in the right direction.
While I can see the value in this for sure (and also the danger), it is not exactly what I meant by “the magic”.
To me, the “magic” is in the actual experience, left untouched by explanation or traditional interpretations.
I can have (and have had) these experiences from listening to monks performing gregorian chants during a latin mass, and I can have (and have had) these experiences when chanting bhajans to the Indian Goddess Kali throughout an entire night without sleep. And yes: While it’s been a while, certain chemicals can also instigate those kinds of experiences.
To me the magic has its own meaning and reward, and interpreting it as nothing but chemical reactions in my brain, is just as limiting as interpreting it according to the pre-digested dogmas of a particular religious tradition.