Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Just One Thing I'd Like to Know, How You Stay High, and Live So Low*

As we continue our meditation on Ken Wilber’s Integral Politics, I would like to emphasize that I am simply seeking clarity and not agreement. This is something Dennis Prager always says, because in most debates you’re not really going to have any impact on the other side anyway. It's much easier to simply express one’s view as clearly as possible, and see how they stack up against the alternative. Then let the folks decide. So the last thing I want to do is get into a food-fight with Wilber's disciples, who, after all, outnumber me by about a million to one. I don't want Al Gore getting pissed off and taking away my internet privileges.

As a preface, I’ve been saying for the last year that we are in a great global struggle between three major ideologies, only one of which will emerge victorious, 1) radical Islam, 2) European style leftist socialism, and 3) American style classical liberalism. In the opinion of many observers such as Mark Steyn, Western Europe has already lost due to the dysfunctional nature of its socialist paradigm, which produces a spiritually bereft, warped version of mankind that can not even rise to defend itself.

Just yesterday, for example, I heard that England announced that it will no longer employ the term “war on terror” for fear of insulting Muslims! Can you even imagine the absurdity of such a thing in World War II? “We can’t call it a war on nazism, because Germans might be offended.” This is a fine example of how the auto-castrated EUnuchs will simply lie down and show their throats to the Islamo-fascists. More worrisome is the fact that approximately fifty percent of the U.S. is more European than American, and in that fragile balance hangs the future of the world. If the left prevails and we go the way of Europe, then we are headed for a caliphate worse than death.

If Wilber’s paradigm were to ever become a massive movement, then I suppose we would have to add a fourth ideology to the other three. But since “greens” are at the top of the heap in his model, it would seem that, in the final analysis, we are simply dealing with another version of leftism -- even the “elites” of the left. In fact, this is exactly what the character Charles tells us in the book:

“[I]f liberalism stated its own stance more accurately, it would say that liberalism is an elite developmental stance, often reached by a relative minority of people, but whose values insist on treating not just that elite but everybody equally -- an unheard of fairness and generosity. It is an egalitarianism held by an elite. But the typical liberal, not understanding both of those clauses, often arrives at the disaster of a conclusion that it is an egalitarianism held by everybody, or easily could be. Whereas, at this time in history, very few people share that value, and it’s losing ground, by the way -- more about that later.”

Let’s break down this paragraph. First, liberalism (by which he means leftism, not classical liberalism) is an “elite developmental stance.”

....

.........

..................

Sorry about that. I was temporarily stunned. I don’t quite know the best way to respond to this. Since Charles is talking about psycho-spiritual development, let’s get very personal. If what Charles is saying is true, then a place like dailykos, the biggest left-wing website, should be a beacon of psychological maturity that towers above the rest of us. They should be so wise over there, that we can barely even understand them. They should be so spiritually lofty, that a blinding noetic light should shine from the computer screen when you enter the site. They should be so articulate that they don’t have to use profanity with every other word....

I guess this explains why Al Sharpton is so much more classy than Bill Buckley, or why Ted Kennedy walking around Hyannisport with his pants off is like one of those naked wandering sadhus of India....

Charles continues: “I guess I’d summarize this by saying that liberalism is an elitism that is open to everybody, but to actually get there and share liberal worldcentric values requires interior hierarchical development from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric.”

And I guess this means that a worldcentric psychopath like, say, Kofi Annan, is morally and spiritually superior to an amber degenerate such as myself who believes that the United States is infinitely more decent than the U.N., and that it has a special divine mission in the world because of its obvious moral superiority.

The irony is that, deep down, the world realizes this. If there is real trouble in the world, who does the world turn to? China? Russia? France? Germany? No, of course not. There are only two parts of Europe: the part whose ass we kicked; and the part whose ass we saved. Repeatedly. The “world community” has never accomplished any good in the world. The world community is amoral at best. It doesn’t care a fig about Israel’s existence being threatened by Muslim barbarians for the past 58 years. It welcomes it. It doesn’t care about Tibet, nor will it care when Taiwan is eventually swallowed up by the Chinese hordes.

Annan gave his farewell speech at, of all places, the Truman Library yesterday. Claudia Rosett at NRO notes that he squandered “yet another opportunity to apologize for his failures and come clean about the U.N. Instead, he used the occasion to exalt the U.N., especially his own role there, while berating the Bush administration and insulting the people of the United States.” Among other idiocies, he said that “Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functioning global system through which the world’s peoples can face global challenges together. And in order to function, the system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition.”

Is Annan suggesting that we nuke Mecca and Teheran? Hmmm....

Rosett has penned what might have been a more appropriate speech for this worldcentric elite egalitarian green kleptocrat and tyrant coddler:

“During my decade as secretary-general.... I have shuffled paperwork while ignoring genocides, I have rushed to shake hands with tyrants while deriding democrats.... I have praised a ‘reformed’ Human Rights Council that functions as a complete farce. I have demanded ‘peace’ deals and pushed for a brand of morally blind diplomacy that has paved the way for a terrorist takeover of Lebanon, worsening turmoil in the Middle East, and a nuclear-armed Iran.... At the same time... I have shirked all responsibility for my own failures, shifting blame especially to the United States.”

Back to Integral Politics. At the press conference, the character Charles actually does a decent job of nailing the spiritual pathology of the left, noting that “Instead of pioneering a new wave of interior talk -- higher values talk, higher spiritual talk, higher character talk, higher meaning talk -- it talks only of tepid egalitarianism, a supposed plurality of equal values, tractionless multiculturalism, and an endless yada yada yada of whateverland.... Whereupon every interior, no matter how vulgar and narcissistic and self-serving, is accorded not just equal respect but equal value, period -- and the regressive nightmare is about to begin.”

Exactly. Why then elevate these vulgar and regressive nightmarians of whateverland to such a lofty place in the developmental color scheme? Where’s the upside of this dubious ideology?

Charles then lays out a bit of historical background: “By the 1960s, a new level of consciousness started emerging in the culture at large, and the Revolution of the ’60s began. If you were young and progressive, you were no longer orange, you were green.... A new wave of revolutionaries swept through the streets of Paris, France, in May, 1968, and they were carrying the banner of green, not the banner of orange.”

Is it true that a new level of consciousness emerged in the 1960’s? If so, I see no evidence at all that it was a “higher” level. Rather, as a psychoanalytically informed psychologist, it seems self-evident to me that what actually occurred was a previously unforeseen level of character pathology, specifically, narcissism. ShrinkWrapped has written eloquently of this on a number of occasions, and if I could find the exact link, I would provide it. But in hindsight, I think it’s uncontroversial to say that most of what passed for “progressivism” was merely a mask for unalloyed narcissism, cowardice, historical myopia, self-indulgence, ingratitude, hedonism, pseudo-spirituality, knee-jerk antiauthoritarianism, and an understandable desire to extend adolescence for as long as possible.

We will all be dealing with the damage inflicted during that deeply shallow decade for the rest of our lives. Had it not been for Ronald Reagan, who temporarily put a halt to the skid in the 1980’s, who knows where we’d be today? Here again, the primitive amber man saved us from the economic and spiritual depredations of his spiritual betters, those egalitarian greens. For if Reagan had not been elected, who knows if Milton Friedman’s classical liberal economic ideas would have been put into action?

At the time, the world was entrenched in the “fantasy economics” of the socialist left. By the the mid-1970s, a “combination of inflation and unemployment -- dubbed ‘stagflation’ -- spread throughout the industrial world.... An American ‘misery index’ of 21 percent and Britain’s similar ‘winter of discontent’ ensured that they were replaced by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Both were admirers and friends of Friedman. And these two leaders embarked on economic policies, broadly inspired by his theories, that have given their countries a quarter century of fast economic growth interrupted only by two short and shallow recessions in the U.S. and one deeper recession in the U.K.” (National Review 12-18-06).

But leftism, because it is a product of fantasy, is a beast that you cannot kill. Just as in the 1960’s, it seems that affluence actually only creates more of them. Why? Perhaps because it simply allows more people than ever before to indulge their narcissistic pathology. Just don’t confuse it with something higher.

*Lyric from Morning, Noon and Night, by the great Big Joe Turner, whose wise and witty musical observations often give the One Cosmos slackatoreum a festive atmosphere.

Woke up this mornin' 'bout a-half past four,
Beer cans and bottles all over the floor
Jes' a-one thing I'd like to know,
How you stay high, and live so low

42 Comments:

Blogger NoMo said...

“ShrinkWrapped has written eloquently of this on a number of occasions, and if I could find the exact link, I would provide it”

This may be one of them...

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2005/02/narcissism_mali.html

12/12/2006 08:43:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

try that again...

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog
/2005/02/narcissism_mali.html

12/12/2006 08:45:00 AM  
Anonymous juliec said...

"But leftism, because it is a product of fantasy, is a beast that you cannot kill. Just as in the 1960’s, it seems that affluence actually only creates more of them. Why? Perhaps because it simply allows more people than ever before to indulge their narcissistic pathology. Just don’t confuse it with something higher."

It seems to me that this ties in with yesterday's discussion about the horizontal evolution of humans in the last century or so. Now that we have more time and energy to focus on the vertical, many people have done just that. The problem seems to be that, for many people, the drive to discover the vertical has directed them downward, following the easiest path. As life has become easier and faster, we have an entire generation or two that thinks faith should be easy and fast as well. Along with fast food, they expect fast Daily Bread (tm). Unfortunately, as with most fast food the fast type of Daily Bread generally comes from a source with questionable - if not downright harmful - nutritional value.

12/12/2006 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Jake T. Churosh said...

I don't see how the "consciousness revolution of the Sixties" was a spiritual advance in any way. It struck me as more of a massive tantrum on the part of an entire generation, so much so that the essential voice of the Sixties didn't come out into the daylight for another twenty-five years.

What I mean is that when I think of what message the Boomers were trying to convey in that time period, I can't sum it up with John Lennon's "All you need is love," or Scott McKenzie's utopian fantasies of San Francisco - all I can think of is Rage Against The Machine throwing a lyrical shitfit. "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!"

Incidentally, that's from Killing In The Name - which used to be the Prophet Hicks' exit music.

Yeah, RATM and Bill Hicks are my personal bugaboos. I guess you've noticed.

12/12/2006 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

btw...Lucifer ("light-bearer") was the original narcissist..."I will make myself like the Most High" Isaiah 14:14 TNIV

12/12/2006 09:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob,

I think you will find that Wilber shares your contempt for leftist ideologies. His rants against progressive academia and what he calls "the mean green meme" are vicious.

The healthy "green meme" is merely a cultural paradigm, or a stage of development, where classical liberal enlightenment values are extended to a wider audience. (Of course, it would be foolish to try to share these values with people who refuse to partake in them, as I'm sure Wilber would agree.)

The "mean green meme," on the other hand, is what happens when healthy "green" values are corrupted by narcissim. The desire to share these higher values with a greater audience is twisted into a sick need to actually impose these values on others. And the desire to seek a higher Truth is twisted into a need to impose truth from the bottom up.

Bob, I don't think your position is at all at odds with Mr. Wilber's. Charles is just trying to explain the stages of development from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric.

It is the abhorrant misuse of this worldcentric point of view that results in the abomination of leftist ideology.

Mr. Wilber clearly describes this problem in much of his writing. But as always, loonies like
Al Gore will continue to mold his message to whatever fits their own warped theories.

Ken got too famous. His message was warped by the majority of his readership that could not grasp some of the deeper and higher points to his theories. Now, I think he writes to that base, to try to elevate them and :make them see."

But as we all know, it is impossible to "make someone see" if they don;t already want to themselves.

Bob, don't ever get that famous. You are too valuable to those who actually understand the Truths you convey.

12/12/2006 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Maybe they are having a logical crisis.. the old, "Never trust anyone over 30" has caught up to them -now they are over 30 and can't trust themselves anymore! ;)

-Luke

12/12/2006 09:34:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

aponymous- perhaps a better term for these 'mean greens' is 'browns' which goes along quite well with the poopy-diaper syndrome they created.

In the long run, the 'green' philosophy will fail because it cannot, by function and defintion, be held by the whole of humanity.

In this way, it automatically will be lost as those who remember the 'path' to get there are gone.

It is the final phase of the pagan-clerical elitism born far back from the days of the Greeks and Gnostics...

I guess green and orange makes some kind of brown?

12/12/2006 10:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

If we give Wilber the benefit of the doubt, it would still remain that perhaps the most damage one can do in leading folks out of the wilderness is done in just leading them halfway out and telling them they've arrived.

12/12/2006 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Noting the egocentric->ethnocentric->worldcentric process-- it is a horizontal expansion not a vertical one.

For us, we go in, and in going within we find an upward path. From the upward path we see and comprehend more and more of reality.

The process we take is
worldcentric->ethnocentric->egocentric
->soulcentric->spiritcentric->Godcentric

Ya'llz goin' the wrong way!

(As Christ said, be ye in this world but not of it.)

12/12/2006 10:10:00 AM  
Blogger WH said...

A bit of clarification from one of Wilber's readers.

Each developmental level, up until the integral level (Teal), thinks that its worldview is the ONLY viable worldview. So, using KW's annoying color scheme (Amber to Orange to Green, the dominant levels at play in the US): Amber thinks Orange is just plain secular and thinks Green is a bunch of relativist heathens; Green thinks Orange is too rational and Amber is too oppressive. Orange thinks Amber is too mythic (see Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins) and thinks Green is to focused on making everyone feel good. Obviously, these are stereotypes because reality is based in people not theories, but you get the point.

The cool thing is that not all developmental lines move at the same pace, and intellect tends to outpace the others. Even someone centered in Amber can think at an integral level -- and at an integral level you begin to see that all the stages (colors) have value as long as they are healthy.

As anonymous pointed out, KW has spent a lot of time (and a whole book, Boomeritis) explaining all the hell that happens when Green is not healthy. It's ugly. But Green is also responsible to the environmental movement, civil rights, sexual equality, and other good ideas that haven't always been implemented well.

When we talk about integral politics, we are talking about taking the best of classical liberalism and the best of classical conservatism and forming a new way. An integral politics will value all human life so much that it will wage just wars to protect human dignity and human rights from those who would oppress others. And it will do so in the most humane ways available.

An integral politics will also recognize that some people sometimes need a helping hand, but it will teach a person to fish rather than supplying that person with free meals.

You get the point. I don't know if that's where Wilber is heading in his new series (I personally can't read his fictional non-fiction), but there are other people thinking about these issues.

Peace,
Bill

12/12/2006 10:15:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

I think it would be fair to say that the 60's did mark some kind of collective "consciousness raising" - to wax mystical, there was probably an influx of some kind of new energy, or rather the old energy was elevated to a new pitch. A ratcheting up of the Universal Kundalini, so to speak.

However, as can happen with an individual who's experiencing the activation of the K, the result is not immediate Enlightenment, but, to one degree or another, an inflaming of the lower passions, a distortion of perspective, a madness.

Thus we got the Vatican 2 Council, ultimately weakening the spiritual/moral authority of the Church, we got the murderous rampage of Mao's Cultural Revolution, we got the McGovernites in the dem party, we got the "sexual revolution", which in turn lead to AIDS, the list goes on . .

It was a "consciousness-raising" for which very very few were spiritually prepared. The beat goes on, of course.

12/12/2006 10:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Libertarian said...

The title of the post says "...How You Stay High, and Live So Low..."

The real question is, how DO you stay high in this society? There are too many substances that you can't buy because of restrictive laws and what's left is basically just booze and cigarettes. They're good but get boring fast. I for one would like more(legal) choices.

And, I can't carry my pistol on me legally because in this state (CA) there are laws against it.

The Hippies are obviously in control of our government; that peace and love bull**** has got to go.

We need libertarian reform fast! And as for a "world-centric view", I've got one--Amerika Uber Alles.

12/12/2006 10:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't read too much into the labeling. The label "Green" does not refer to the illiberal, moonbat values of the Green party or the various eco-nazi movements. THE COLOR SCHEME IS ARBITRARY.

And it is idiotic, so I will simplify. We are talking about worldviews, perspectives, the way people subjectively experience objective Truth.

The "orange" worldview is simply the capitalist, democratic, liberal enlightenment values that we discuss on this site.

The "green" worldview is the recognition that these values are superior to other values, and the desire to spread the fruits of these values to the widest possible audience.

For example, in the Middle Ages, classical liberal enlightenment values were only available to individuals. The were "ego-centered." With the rise of America, these values were now available to an entire group of people. They were now "ethno-centered." And the "Green" worldview trys to make these values "world-centered."

But here is where narcissim corrupts this healthy "Green" desire to spread higher values across the globe. In their vanity, many of the "Greens" believe that EVERYONE on the planet thinks the way they do.

In their desire to share the immense prosperity that results from classical enlightenment values, they derive convoluted schemes to "ensure" that every gets their piece. Of course, we know that such actions actually have the opposite effect of decreasing the pie for everyone.

I can't clarify any more, but read into Wilber, and if you can get past the arbitrary color scheme, you will see that he is merely explaining the stages of developement through which worldviews progress.

He is not taking a leftist or progressive stand. He is just as fed-up with the left as is Bob.

12/12/2006 10:35:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

What a day here at OC already! Julie is baking whole grain only. Jake is bugabooin’. Luke needs another cup ‘o joe. Cocytus is making the rivers run backwards. Joan is on fire (oops). Libertarian is still trying to get high and legally shoot somebody. Will is quoting Sonny and Cher. Anon is waxing wilberical. Poor NoMo’s got nuttin’ to say (almost). And its only noon here in the mtzone.

Nice.

12/12/2006 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

I thought I forgot somebody...Bob is still looking up, in wonder.

12/12/2006 11:34:00 AM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Since GB mention Teddy K, it's family story time!

The scenario is Palermo circa 1960. My dad (ergo the rest of us too)had been posted there to open a US Consulate office. Although I was only 5yrs old at the time & have no recollections of this specific event, later info updates made sense of it all.

We lived in a lovely house right across the street from the seashore, adjacent to Mondello yacht club. The house was provided by the State Dept, it was arrange before we got there.
Part of the Diplomatic duties revolved around having a place suitable for "entertaining" various people.

The house was not move-in ready when we got there, but we could not choose our own, instead being parked in a closed-for-the-winter hotel(miles of red-carpeted hallways)to wait for THAT
house.

There were other non-Italian families living near by. All of them, or the business entities they represented, were regularly approached for "protection" monies, the usual arrangement.

Oddly, we never were. First Hint.

My Dad had gone to school with Sargent Shiver, had liked him personally, but always with a caveat of having the misfortune to marry into THAT family. Only later did I learn why.

Teddy, Joan & their traveling "companions" came for lunch, & then Dad would take them into the city to do a meet & greet. Mom still says that Joan was really sweet(what was she doing married to THIS man?) and the "companions" were a bunch of mafiosi. Being half Italian herself, and an excellent judge of character, Mom can be relied on to give it to us straight.

Anyway, Teddy was a total Jerk! Arrogant, belittling & downright nasty to Joan, she just taking it & Mom thinking the whole time: this marriage won't last & she(Joan)ought to have pulled him up by the short-hairs long ago! 1/2 Italian 1/2 Black Irish(Mom) would know exactly what to do with the likes of him.

Teddy being totally crass in his language & the mafiosi laughing along. Dad getting red-faced & furious: one does not behave that way in front of ladies. Took them all off as soon as possible, came home still very angry & had to have a few stiff drinks to calm himself.

To his dying day, got redfaced when saying the K family name, had no respect for any of them, & never understood the American obsession to elevate such an unworthy tribe beyond the gutter to which they were suited.

Since it is unlikely that Teddy or his goons read this site, seems like a safe place to share this story.

12/12/2006 11:58:00 AM  
Anonymous robinstarfish said...

united colors
guinness pours a perfect brown
lift a pint and sing!

12/12/2006 12:10:00 PM  
Anonymous GLASR said...

Thanks for clearing that up Joan. Saw the Arrggh(Castle of) on a list of first time links. Natural inclination would be to think there was some connectivity, no? Apologies if the Argghh thingy is a sensitive subject, considering.

Been to Rouen? Interesting experience, standing on the origin of the Arrggh. Tad creepy, little overwhelming - in a good overwhelmingly creepy way.

12/12/2006 12:43:00 PM  
Blogger gumshoe1 said...

if Wilber's choice of color schemes
was "arbitrary".... it would seem he could not have made a more unfortunate choice regarding his naming of the "Green" level...given the proclivities to narcissism of a good deal of his audience.

one could even speculate he's
ended up glorifying the
"mean green meme" in the process.

12/12/2006 12:45:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Once again I find the need here at One Cosmos, to address a public safety issue. I know others bobbleheads, USS Ben & others, have been afflicted by this hazard, which I'm sorry to say, Gagdad Bob is directly responsible for. Today I had noe of those recently rare moments of a couple of minutes down time at work & naturally filled my coffee mug and surfed over to One Cosmos, to make the best of my freedom. As I innocently perused todays posting, I was suddenly & ficiously assaulted with hydraulic-nasal passage-powerwashingitis because of Gagdad's casual and criminally negligent usage of the following comment:

" There are only two parts of Europe: the part whose ass we kicked; and the part whose ass we saved. Repeatedly"

Yes, my dual 17" flat panel monitors were immediately and unmercifully sprayed with a large gulp of coffee under severe comedic pressure straight through the 'ol nasal passages.

A mess. And a particularly LOUD mess, which naturally, and embarrassingly brought the attention of several co-workers.

There ought to be a law.

Sheesh.

12/12/2006 12:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Knockout said...

I find myself wondering if it would be possible to be multi-colored, and go vertical and horizontal at the same time--

Loving and seeking God, forgiving yet sternly correcting the deluded, working on beautifying the interior and exterior, recognizing that some values are true and some not--

And at the same time, embracing a global viewpoint, getting deeply green about the environment, identifying with and enjoying multi-cultures, getting deeply into one's own hippy-dippy groove, going all rainbow and squishy...indulging in sloppy unqualified soul love--

Can it be done? A godly hippy? A radical with true values? An artist who can happily go to war?
A person of many facets with an unerring ability to do no evil?

A soldier of God who goes vertical, stretches out horizontally, who wraps the robes of left and right around her centralizing waist and synthesizes all?

A scientist-priest, a techno- shaman... such beings should be possible.

Amber, teal, green all smeared together and soaring outward and upward like the shockwave of the bigbang itself...

It should be possible.

12/12/2006 01:33:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

van -- Safety message of the day...never sip before you sup.

12/12/2006 01:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Joseph said...

Will,
I agree with what you say, but I would say that a number of counter-culture types, certainly not the majority, but a significant number found their homes within Orthodox Christianity, Schuon's sufism, and Tibetan Buddhism via Chogyam Trunpa, not to mention Zen.

12/12/2006 02:12:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

>>"For example, in the Middle Ages, classical liberal enlightenment values were only available to individuals. The were "ego-centered." With the rise of America, these values were now available to an entire group of people. They were now "ethno-centered." And the "Green" worldview trys to make these values "world-centered.""<<

Classical liberal values are not "ethno-centered", they are universal, available to all ethnicities and are being shared by all in the U.S. Just because they were codified by white Europeans has nothing to do with which ethnicities can benefit from them. They are in line with and stem from universal cause and effect principles, envisioned by deeply spiritual people who knew human nature inside and out.
Unfortunately, the "enlightened Greens" haven't a clue as to what those values are and how they interact. They have, through deconstruction, effectively reduced them to the obsolete handy work of oppressive, white, religious, racist males.
The epiphany of the genius behind these principles hasn't occured yet to these neo-marxists (greens) so discussion of the principles seems as a strict father lecturing a teenager about life.
We, as a nation had better realize that this system is as good as it gets for now because if we don't and if we keep following the "enlightened Greens" down their primrose path of watering things down and looking to every failed, failing, corrupted, socialist nation or group (U.N., Europe etc.) for the answers, it's going to get very dark indeed.
What makes Bob so effective is that he is overcoming peoples conditioned, knee jerk aversion to "oppressive" religion by explaining the Cosmos from not only a religious perspective but also many other more secular angles. In showing that psychological, scientific, ethnic, evolutionary, religious, and other worldviews need not be at odds but can be integral in a persons worldview, it enables one to evolve beyond a specific, exclusive "camp" and into the greater whole and Liberty. Though once a person has made the leap into understanding, discernment will show that true religion needs to be at the top of that worldview. (You'll notice I said TRUE religion, a healthy discernment will reveal that truth)
Hmmm, sounds oppressive and patriachal to the uninitiated doesn't it?
I seem to remember a few old white-amber honkies suggesting a similar experiment about 230 years ago.

12/12/2006 03:02:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Yes, the line about Europe was priceless. And so true!

Reminds me of the line Paul Newman said (as Leslie Groves) in Fat Man and Little Boy...

"Its all about ass isn't it? You either kick it or lick it!"

-Luke

12/12/2006 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger DirtCrashr said...

When you add entropy to the horizontal equation, doesn't it become a descent?

12/12/2006 03:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You said: "Classical liberal values are not "ethno-centered", they are universal, available to all ethnicities"

Are you joking? They're available to Islamists????? To primitive tribal cultures??????

STOP DENYING THE OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT THESE HIGHER VALUES ARE ONLY AVAILABLE ONCE A CERTAIN STAGE OF PSYCHO-CULTURAL EVOLUTION HAS BEEN ATTIANED.

12/12/2006 03:58:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

They're available right now to those intelligent enough to recognize them, asshole.

12/12/2006 05:07:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

There are plenty of people from those cultures that you look down your nose at as being underdeveloped who see those values and plenty of them who have moved to the U.S. precisely because of that recognition and the desire to live them. There are also others who, when given the chance or the opportunity, will and have thrown off the yoke of tyranny in their own countries and put those values into practice. i.e. Eastern Europe.

12/12/2006 05:14:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Ken? Is that you? :)

12/12/2006 05:21:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

WH said... "When we talk about integral politics, we are talking about taking the best of classical liberalism and the best of classical conservatism and forming a new way. An integral politics will value all human life so much that it will wage just wars to protect human dignity and human rights from those who would oppress others. And it will do so in the most humane ways available."

What of this would not be accomplished simply by recognizing (at the uncorrupted Founders era understanding) Individual Rights, establishing a constitution ala the US Constitution that will defend them internally with objective law, and externally with like minded allies?

In what way does adding yet another layer of neologistic terminology (not to mention color-coding(!)) help understanding the principles involved, and speed their understanding, spread and adoption world wide?

With an adoption of Occam's Razor, I think that if your goal is wisdom and understanding, then the simplest methods and explanations should take precedence over gratuitous embellishments.

12/12/2006 05:25:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Van didst speaketh..

[In what way does adding yet another layer of neologistic terminology (not to mention color-coding(!)) help understanding the principles involved, and speed their understanding, spread and adoption world wide?]

Absolutely! Page Dr. Occam!

This reminds me of Transactional Analysis in the 1970s. (Of which, unfortunately, I was intimately involved beyond my control at the time).

Lots of nice chart models and graphical representations. This turned into attempts at being fascinated by the permutations of the models laid upon one another.

Snore. Oh, wait! That should have been, "oooo, ahhhh, cosmic!"

Decidedly confusing the symbols for the referents, wasting all kinds of time looking for "signs" in the tea leaves, or was that chicken guts?

-Luke

12/12/2006 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

...and hoarhey/van/luke are settin' 'em up and knockin' 'em down!

Its a good day. All is right with the world.

12/12/2006 06:32:00 PM  
Anonymous richard_223 said...

Bob wrote: Rather, as a psychoanalytically informed psychologist, it seems self-evident to me that what actually occurred was a previously unforeseen level of character pathology, specifically, narcissism.

Gads, the pre/trans fallacy has surfaces yet again!

12/12/2006 08:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Alan said...

I think a problem with the Integral/Spiral Dynamics color model is that it conflates too many different aspects of human development into one. If they had stopped at "first I thought about myself, then my family, then my tribe, then my country, then the world", that would have been well enough. But they (he) added other factors that are really a regression at points along the "rainbow".

Great comments today, btw.

12/12/2006 08:41:00 PM  
Anonymous uss ben said...

Teal? What kind of color is 'teal'?

Is that like a requirement to get on Oprah or something?

12/13/2006 02:25:00 AM  
Anonymous uss ben said...

If it were me, I would assign pink to the radical Muslims.

Just to piss 'em off! Heh!

12/13/2006 02:29:00 AM  
Anonymous uss ben said...

Bob said-
"There are only two parts of Europe:
The part whose ass we kicked; and the part whose ass we saved. Repeatedly."

Another instant classic!

Bob gets to the heart of the matter.

No "nuance" or politically correct
layers of nonsensical revisionist history here.

One of the many reasons I read Bob's delicious and fresh-baked blog,
with the flaky crust and nutritious truth filling.

Not enough
trans-bats to harm your health.

This is soul soup for the soul.

No artificial (or arbitrary) colors.

12/13/2006 03:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Sal said...

Will,
Let's call it "the Spirit of Vatican II" instead - the willful distortion of what the Council actually said by the agenda-driven.

Pendulum's swinging back - and if we read, say, Belloc's first chapter in "How the Reformation Happened" the whole cycle is just BAU.

Reject the actual Council and you get the Gibsons on one hand and a long list of 'progressive' loonies on the other.

But an excellent point, all the same. Beat does go on.

12/13/2006 07:14:00 AM  
Blogger MikeZ said...

"If there is real trouble in the world, who does the world turn to? China? Russia? France? Germany? "

The thing about being a "world policeman" is that while it's a rotten job, somebody has to do it - for once, I say that without sarcasm.

Look at things on a small scale. Take away policemen from any big city. Result? (You don't wanna know.) I believe the same is true on a world scale. What holds many countries in check is the realization that bigger countries will do something about it if they get out of line. (I suppose that was one of the things the League of Nations and the UN were supposed to accomplish, but both have fallen by the wayside.)

We're one of the few with the will and the means - and we use both perhaps a bit too sparingly. And these days, the will is being sapped by the constant barrage from the MSM.

12/13/2006 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger PSYCHO_PRINCESS said...

RIVER C: Excellent corrective point, spelled out in detail about the spectrum from Worldcentric to TheoCentric! I was wondering when/if anyone would speak up to refute the 1/2butt spectrum given as "truth" - nice stroke of genius! Keep up your Sword Practice!

- P2 -

12/16/2006 12:17:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home