Dialectic
May 29th, 2004, 03:40 AM
Whassup y'all,
A lot of folks have asked us how we can be such intelligent, compassionate people and at the same time say shit like "cracka-chasin' bitch" and "dumbass muthafucka" without any qualms.
Some people have called it "intellectual slippage" and "regression." How can folks who are fairly well-developed at a moral and intellectual level make jokes or aggressively-presented observations with a seemingly racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive bent?
A warning: I'm going to be operating at a fairly high geek level here, and this is pretty long, so enter at your own risk and see if you can figure out whassup.
I want to discuss the relevance of Ken Wilber's "Integral Theory and Practice" along with Don Beck's "Spiral Dynamics."
With regard to moral and cognitive development, I wish to speak about a very useful conceptual tool called "Spiral Dynamics" developed by Don Beck and whose greatest proponents include Ken Wilber and Clare Graves. Much of this research, up to "formal-operational consciousness" (ie. rational, logical, and worldcentric cognition) is also backed up by that of Jurgen Habermas (a very well-respected Critical Theorist). Ken Wilber, incidentally, is one of the most well-read "philosophers" alive (he's much more than what that word implies), and for what it's worth, Deepak Chopra (the renowned spiritual M.D. considered one of Time Magazine's "most influential people of the century") considers him his mentor in spiritual and cognitive development. Wilber discusses, among many other things, some of which I will only touch on briefly here, the development of cognition in individuals and groups.
"Spiral Dynamics," then, is a very useful tool with which we may describe the "stages" of development of awareness and values in both individuals and groups. I will attempt to give a very simple summary. Infants and prehistoric humans, for example, may be described as being on Level 1 (Beige "value set" or "v-meme") of the "Spiral of Development": they have not differentiated an individual "self" from surroundings, they operate completely instinctually, and they operate at a maximum level of egocentricity in the classical sense ("Everything is 'I' because 'I' is undifferentiated from everything). When they move to Level 2 (Purple "v-meme"), an individual self is recognized, and "magical" structures of consciousness begin to form: here, simple gods and rituals begin to develop and inanimate objects, as well as natural processes are seen to have personalities and motives. Astrology, raindances, loose tribes, and lucky charms begin to develop. At Level 3 (Red), tribal structures are solidified and maximum egocentricity gives way to a very strong ethnocentricity. Family, blood relations, and close geographical relationships are central. At Level 4 (Blue), "mythic membership" begins to develop: social structures are developed beyond tribes and related bloodlines, strong feelings of loyalty and membership develop toward the dominant religion/state (which have yet to be differentiated). At Level 5 (Orange), rationality develops, and with it, the beginning of a "worldcentric" view. Critical reasoning and sciences flourish. At Level 6 (Green), worldcentricity is developed further and "pluralistic relativism" and "multiculturalism" come to the fore.
At this point I want to draw your attention to several things:
1) At each stage there is a lessening of egocentricity. The individual or social structure is able to take on/see more and more points of view. If an infant covers its eyes, it thinks it can't be seen, because it can't see. A young child understands, on a very basic level, that another individual has a different point of view. She begins to recognize that members of her family have different but important viewpoints which should be respected. People of unrelated families may sympathize with those who have shared beliefs, forming states. And this goes on. Each successive stage is able to integrate more people, ideas, and general diversity than the previous one.
2) Each of these stages cannot see the truth of the others. I would say, for example, that China's moral/cognitive "centre of gravity" is at Blue: that is, it is ethnocentric and espouses "mythic-membership" values and behaviour: be Chinese, be Communist, worship ancestors, be filial, love your government, etc. Though the US has a slightly higher centre of gravity (probably bluish-orange, meaning it places a greater emphasis on rationality), it is also currently exhibiting pathological Blue behaviour: I am American. I am Christian. This is my manifest destiny. People or groups move through these levels of growth, each represented by a fairly consistent set of "value-memes" (by "meme" I simply mean a set of values) and none of them can be skipped. "Blue" people must be slowly introduced to rationality to allow them to begin to approach a "worldcentric" viewpoint. They cannot tolerate, for example, Green concepts (two levels above Blue) of multiculturalism or pluralistic-relativism. Getting Blue (or Orange or Green) to grow is a very tricky thing to do, because the abovementioned memes all maintain that their viewpoints are absolute truths, and no amount of rationality, for example, can prove that Chinese aren't "superior" to Americans or non-Christians aren't going to Hell. Orange (rationality) thinks Blue (ethnocentricity) is a moron and Green (postmodernism/multiculturalism) is impotent and overly-sensitive. Green thinks Blue and Orange are ignorant and destructive. For this reason, these "levels" or "v-memes" are considered "First Tier."
3) These stages may be considered levels of a "holarchy," that is, a hierarchy with a special feature: each successive level transcends and includes the previous. By "transcending," I mean that key qualities of each level are preserved, while pathological potentials/qualities/tendencies are negated. For this reason, we do not use the term "hierarchy" because that implies domination and repression of lower levels. A holarchy is composed of "holons": a holon is defined as a simultaneous "whole/part": that is, something which may be considered a whole in itself but is at the same time part of something "greater." Each holon also has four correlated "aspects": individual-objective (atoms, chemicals, described by the traditional hard-sciences), collective-objective (described by systems sciences, ecology, autopoietic theory), individual-subjective (internal thoughts, feelings, states, and development, described by psychology and mystic practice at the human-holon level), and collective-subjective (cultural beliefs and practices, language). These form four "quadrants" all of which can be correlated with one another. For example, if I have a thought in my mind in English, it manifests an individual-subjective component as a thought; a collective-subjective component in that it is in English, and is interpreted/conveyed through shared values/behaviours/beliefs; an individual-objective component as a series of electrical currents in a neural net facilitated by my neocortex; and a collective-objective component, as it serves some objective function in the social/poltical/economic/cultural system in which I participate. Upon consideration, we realize everything is a holon.
The reason Green is considered "First Tier" is the implicit assumption Green makes that all cultures and points of view are relative and equal except its own, which holds as an absolute across all contexts. If Green, then, is transcended by the individual or group, then we arrive at "Second Tier" v-memes. Put very simply, these levels (of which Yellow is the first) are able to recognize the truths and legitimacy of each level of the spiral. Second Tier also understand that the health of the whole spiral is imperative: a healthy Beige must exist (as everyone starts at square one, or Beige) to develop into a healthy Red, then Blue, then Orange, etc. At the same time, it recognizes that no level of development should be allowed to become pathological and try to dominate any other level; if this happens, all levels are threatened. I would like to emphasize two things here:
1) When we say someone is "at" a certain level of development, this is taken to be an "average" or "mean" representation, a "centre of gravity," if you will. Most likely no one is "purely" Red or Blue or Green. Also, different lines of development can be at different levels within a holon: when describing a person, for example, psychosexually, I may be at Red; cognitively I may be at Orange; morally I may be at Blue. Also, I may experience higher level states on occasion which are not a part of my abiding awareness. These states will then be reinterpreted through whatever "colour" lens my centre of gravity is at. The term "spiral" of development, rather than "ladder" or "stairway" is used to emphasize the fact that development does not occur in a linear and orderly fashion: there are levels, lines, states, and directions to be considered.
2) We may classify these levels or v-memes as "Pre-rational," (Beige, Purple, Red, Blue), "Rational" (Orange, Green), and "Transrational" (Second Tier). We must be careful, then, not to commit the "Pre/Trans" fallacy: this means that from a rational viewpoint, pre-rational ideas, attitudes, and behaviours can resemble transrational and vice versa. Romantics, for example, elevate the infant state and nature-worship of primitive tribes to transrational status: they are one with God, nature, naturally balanced, homeostatic, etc. It has been proven across numerous anthropological and devlopmental studies that babies and tribes have high levels of ego/ethnocentrism that cannot be considered "divine" or "one with God." Extreme peace protestors, on the other hand, regard all military actions as imperialistic, insensitive, insupportable and generally evil. Yet unlike what Dr. King thought, violence does not always beget more violence. It took WWII to end Auschwitz; you don't lie down in front of a Nazi tank or a KKK militia and expect to succeed. Rather, we can say violence used in saner and more developed hands serves a healthy purpose; violence used by those at similar levels of development begets more violence. In other words, transrational awareness recognizes "better" or "healthier" or "higher" states of integration, inclusiveness, and development. And it may take actions that resemble pre-rational states when viewed from a rational level.
I hope whoever was insane enough to start reading this is still with me because I know this is really long and hard to take in if you're not in the mode. I can understand if you're inclined to drop out of this discussion, if you haven't already.
Now I'd like to return to the issue of "intellectual slippage." After considerable contemplation and observation, I can say with confidence that I am at an early Second-Tier level of development, but with regressive tendencies, mostly along aggression/assertiveness lines. It makes sense to say, then, that issues concerning sexual and racial dynamics have a high potential to bring hostility and generally very strong feelings out of me.
Given my current level of insight, I propose that one (or possibly a mixture) of four things may be occurring:
1) These racially, sexually, and intellectually offensive quips may be Second-Tier behaviour, in that they may serve to promote the health of holons in the spiral by shocking people out of whatever standard First-Tier activity/thought-process in which they are engaged.
2) They may signify a pure regression along the Spiral of development
3) They may signify a "holistic" or "integral" regression along the Spiral of development. This means that because certain lines of my development have been retarded (eg. aggressive/assertive experience), they must be explored and experienced to the extent that I have received "my fill" of that level and can move on. This then, would make pre-conventional thoughts, comments, and behaviour "necessary" for further growth and integration.
4) They may signify a pathological narcissistic "reactivation" of a lower meme. This happens most often at Green, where a person, trapped in a fully relative world of contexts and values, determines that since no value is "better" or "worse," an adoption of ANY value is acceptable. I therefore use Green logic and rationality and my adherence to pluralistic relativism to justify Purple, Red, Blue, or Orange behaviour. Because it's "all good."
I would say that our talking smack at the Fighting44s is partially due to reason (1). We want to draw people in from a Blue level of ethnocentric loyalty and passion, and then help them grow. It is also partially (3): some of us just gotta get shit out of our systems.
I'd like to make a final point. It is important to recognize, whenever we encounter any thought or concept, what level the speaker is speaking from, and what level they are describing. Freud, for example, uses Orange-level analysis on Red-level phenomena, which he takes to be the fundamental level of human operation (sexual-instinctual). Integral Theory and Practice, along with its discussion of Spiral Dynamics, and any of its applications, is clearly a Yellow-level concept or higher (Second Tier). I am hopefully a weak or starting Yellow; I think, therefore, that my presentation is largely clear and accurate. The next thing to consider is the level of the person to whom this is being explained. I believe that most of you who have read this far are Second Tier or approaching it, with various lines of development that are "retarded" or regressive, as well as those which are highly-advanced. I say this, because ITP, like any other conceptual tool, can be misused and misinterpreted very easily by anyone at any First Tier level of development.
So I ask all of you, if you've made it this far, to consider what I've said with an open mind and hopefully some productive discussions will come out of our understanding of these concepts.
A lot of folks have asked us how we can be such intelligent, compassionate people and at the same time say shit like "cracka-chasin' bitch" and "dumbass muthafucka" without any qualms.
Some people have called it "intellectual slippage" and "regression." How can folks who are fairly well-developed at a moral and intellectual level make jokes or aggressively-presented observations with a seemingly racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive bent?
A warning: I'm going to be operating at a fairly high geek level here, and this is pretty long, so enter at your own risk and see if you can figure out whassup.
I want to discuss the relevance of Ken Wilber's "Integral Theory and Practice" along with Don Beck's "Spiral Dynamics."
With regard to moral and cognitive development, I wish to speak about a very useful conceptual tool called "Spiral Dynamics" developed by Don Beck and whose greatest proponents include Ken Wilber and Clare Graves. Much of this research, up to "formal-operational consciousness" (ie. rational, logical, and worldcentric cognition) is also backed up by that of Jurgen Habermas (a very well-respected Critical Theorist). Ken Wilber, incidentally, is one of the most well-read "philosophers" alive (he's much more than what that word implies), and for what it's worth, Deepak Chopra (the renowned spiritual M.D. considered one of Time Magazine's "most influential people of the century") considers him his mentor in spiritual and cognitive development. Wilber discusses, among many other things, some of which I will only touch on briefly here, the development of cognition in individuals and groups.
"Spiral Dynamics," then, is a very useful tool with which we may describe the "stages" of development of awareness and values in both individuals and groups. I will attempt to give a very simple summary. Infants and prehistoric humans, for example, may be described as being on Level 1 (Beige "value set" or "v-meme") of the "Spiral of Development": they have not differentiated an individual "self" from surroundings, they operate completely instinctually, and they operate at a maximum level of egocentricity in the classical sense ("Everything is 'I' because 'I' is undifferentiated from everything). When they move to Level 2 (Purple "v-meme"), an individual self is recognized, and "magical" structures of consciousness begin to form: here, simple gods and rituals begin to develop and inanimate objects, as well as natural processes are seen to have personalities and motives. Astrology, raindances, loose tribes, and lucky charms begin to develop. At Level 3 (Red), tribal structures are solidified and maximum egocentricity gives way to a very strong ethnocentricity. Family, blood relations, and close geographical relationships are central. At Level 4 (Blue), "mythic membership" begins to develop: social structures are developed beyond tribes and related bloodlines, strong feelings of loyalty and membership develop toward the dominant religion/state (which have yet to be differentiated). At Level 5 (Orange), rationality develops, and with it, the beginning of a "worldcentric" view. Critical reasoning and sciences flourish. At Level 6 (Green), worldcentricity is developed further and "pluralistic relativism" and "multiculturalism" come to the fore.
At this point I want to draw your attention to several things:
1) At each stage there is a lessening of egocentricity. The individual or social structure is able to take on/see more and more points of view. If an infant covers its eyes, it thinks it can't be seen, because it can't see. A young child understands, on a very basic level, that another individual has a different point of view. She begins to recognize that members of her family have different but important viewpoints which should be respected. People of unrelated families may sympathize with those who have shared beliefs, forming states. And this goes on. Each successive stage is able to integrate more people, ideas, and general diversity than the previous one.
2) Each of these stages cannot see the truth of the others. I would say, for example, that China's moral/cognitive "centre of gravity" is at Blue: that is, it is ethnocentric and espouses "mythic-membership" values and behaviour: be Chinese, be Communist, worship ancestors, be filial, love your government, etc. Though the US has a slightly higher centre of gravity (probably bluish-orange, meaning it places a greater emphasis on rationality), it is also currently exhibiting pathological Blue behaviour: I am American. I am Christian. This is my manifest destiny. People or groups move through these levels of growth, each represented by a fairly consistent set of "value-memes" (by "meme" I simply mean a set of values) and none of them can be skipped. "Blue" people must be slowly introduced to rationality to allow them to begin to approach a "worldcentric" viewpoint. They cannot tolerate, for example, Green concepts (two levels above Blue) of multiculturalism or pluralistic-relativism. Getting Blue (or Orange or Green) to grow is a very tricky thing to do, because the abovementioned memes all maintain that their viewpoints are absolute truths, and no amount of rationality, for example, can prove that Chinese aren't "superior" to Americans or non-Christians aren't going to Hell. Orange (rationality) thinks Blue (ethnocentricity) is a moron and Green (postmodernism/multiculturalism) is impotent and overly-sensitive. Green thinks Blue and Orange are ignorant and destructive. For this reason, these "levels" or "v-memes" are considered "First Tier."
3) These stages may be considered levels of a "holarchy," that is, a hierarchy with a special feature: each successive level transcends and includes the previous. By "transcending," I mean that key qualities of each level are preserved, while pathological potentials/qualities/tendencies are negated. For this reason, we do not use the term "hierarchy" because that implies domination and repression of lower levels. A holarchy is composed of "holons": a holon is defined as a simultaneous "whole/part": that is, something which may be considered a whole in itself but is at the same time part of something "greater." Each holon also has four correlated "aspects": individual-objective (atoms, chemicals, described by the traditional hard-sciences), collective-objective (described by systems sciences, ecology, autopoietic theory), individual-subjective (internal thoughts, feelings, states, and development, described by psychology and mystic practice at the human-holon level), and collective-subjective (cultural beliefs and practices, language). These form four "quadrants" all of which can be correlated with one another. For example, if I have a thought in my mind in English, it manifests an individual-subjective component as a thought; a collective-subjective component in that it is in English, and is interpreted/conveyed through shared values/behaviours/beliefs; an individual-objective component as a series of electrical currents in a neural net facilitated by my neocortex; and a collective-objective component, as it serves some objective function in the social/poltical/economic/cultural system in which I participate. Upon consideration, we realize everything is a holon.
The reason Green is considered "First Tier" is the implicit assumption Green makes that all cultures and points of view are relative and equal except its own, which holds as an absolute across all contexts. If Green, then, is transcended by the individual or group, then we arrive at "Second Tier" v-memes. Put very simply, these levels (of which Yellow is the first) are able to recognize the truths and legitimacy of each level of the spiral. Second Tier also understand that the health of the whole spiral is imperative: a healthy Beige must exist (as everyone starts at square one, or Beige) to develop into a healthy Red, then Blue, then Orange, etc. At the same time, it recognizes that no level of development should be allowed to become pathological and try to dominate any other level; if this happens, all levels are threatened. I would like to emphasize two things here:
1) When we say someone is "at" a certain level of development, this is taken to be an "average" or "mean" representation, a "centre of gravity," if you will. Most likely no one is "purely" Red or Blue or Green. Also, different lines of development can be at different levels within a holon: when describing a person, for example, psychosexually, I may be at Red; cognitively I may be at Orange; morally I may be at Blue. Also, I may experience higher level states on occasion which are not a part of my abiding awareness. These states will then be reinterpreted through whatever "colour" lens my centre of gravity is at. The term "spiral" of development, rather than "ladder" or "stairway" is used to emphasize the fact that development does not occur in a linear and orderly fashion: there are levels, lines, states, and directions to be considered.
2) We may classify these levels or v-memes as "Pre-rational," (Beige, Purple, Red, Blue), "Rational" (Orange, Green), and "Transrational" (Second Tier). We must be careful, then, not to commit the "Pre/Trans" fallacy: this means that from a rational viewpoint, pre-rational ideas, attitudes, and behaviours can resemble transrational and vice versa. Romantics, for example, elevate the infant state and nature-worship of primitive tribes to transrational status: they are one with God, nature, naturally balanced, homeostatic, etc. It has been proven across numerous anthropological and devlopmental studies that babies and tribes have high levels of ego/ethnocentrism that cannot be considered "divine" or "one with God." Extreme peace protestors, on the other hand, regard all military actions as imperialistic, insensitive, insupportable and generally evil. Yet unlike what Dr. King thought, violence does not always beget more violence. It took WWII to end Auschwitz; you don't lie down in front of a Nazi tank or a KKK militia and expect to succeed. Rather, we can say violence used in saner and more developed hands serves a healthy purpose; violence used by those at similar levels of development begets more violence. In other words, transrational awareness recognizes "better" or "healthier" or "higher" states of integration, inclusiveness, and development. And it may take actions that resemble pre-rational states when viewed from a rational level.
I hope whoever was insane enough to start reading this is still with me because I know this is really long and hard to take in if you're not in the mode. I can understand if you're inclined to drop out of this discussion, if you haven't already.
Now I'd like to return to the issue of "intellectual slippage." After considerable contemplation and observation, I can say with confidence that I am at an early Second-Tier level of development, but with regressive tendencies, mostly along aggression/assertiveness lines. It makes sense to say, then, that issues concerning sexual and racial dynamics have a high potential to bring hostility and generally very strong feelings out of me.
Given my current level of insight, I propose that one (or possibly a mixture) of four things may be occurring:
1) These racially, sexually, and intellectually offensive quips may be Second-Tier behaviour, in that they may serve to promote the health of holons in the spiral by shocking people out of whatever standard First-Tier activity/thought-process in which they are engaged.
2) They may signify a pure regression along the Spiral of development
3) They may signify a "holistic" or "integral" regression along the Spiral of development. This means that because certain lines of my development have been retarded (eg. aggressive/assertive experience), they must be explored and experienced to the extent that I have received "my fill" of that level and can move on. This then, would make pre-conventional thoughts, comments, and behaviour "necessary" for further growth and integration.
4) They may signify a pathological narcissistic "reactivation" of a lower meme. This happens most often at Green, where a person, trapped in a fully relative world of contexts and values, determines that since no value is "better" or "worse," an adoption of ANY value is acceptable. I therefore use Green logic and rationality and my adherence to pluralistic relativism to justify Purple, Red, Blue, or Orange behaviour. Because it's "all good."
I would say that our talking smack at the Fighting44s is partially due to reason (1). We want to draw people in from a Blue level of ethnocentric loyalty and passion, and then help them grow. It is also partially (3): some of us just gotta get shit out of our systems.
I'd like to make a final point. It is important to recognize, whenever we encounter any thought or concept, what level the speaker is speaking from, and what level they are describing. Freud, for example, uses Orange-level analysis on Red-level phenomena, which he takes to be the fundamental level of human operation (sexual-instinctual). Integral Theory and Practice, along with its discussion of Spiral Dynamics, and any of its applications, is clearly a Yellow-level concept or higher (Second Tier). I am hopefully a weak or starting Yellow; I think, therefore, that my presentation is largely clear and accurate. The next thing to consider is the level of the person to whom this is being explained. I believe that most of you who have read this far are Second Tier or approaching it, with various lines of development that are "retarded" or regressive, as well as those which are highly-advanced. I say this, because ITP, like any other conceptual tool, can be misused and misinterpreted very easily by anyone at any First Tier level of development.
So I ask all of you, if you've made it this far, to consider what I've said with an open mind and hopefully some productive discussions will come out of our understanding of these concepts.