The debate began with Matthew Dallman's post back in late December. He argued that Integral is essentially conservative, using sociological conservativism as his model. Dallman tried to distance his view from traditional conceptions of political conservatism, but I'm not sure he succeeded. CJ Smith and Joe Perez both had some very intelligent things to say on the subject, both finding problems in Dallman's argument. I think Joe nailed the problem in Dallman's logic:
My impression in reading Dallman's post is that he somehow came up with a list of attributes (respect for institutions, the need for rigorous debate, a rebirth of interest in history, etc.), proclaimed that the items on the list are important both to integral and to conservativism, and therefore concluded that the essential ethos of integral and conservativism is virtually identical. There's some truth in there, and I certainly have no qualms with any of the items in the list as being linked to some degree with integral thinking, but it hardly proves an identity between integral and conservativism. One could just as easily come up with an alternate list of attributes and argue that integral is really liberalism or Marxism or something else entirely.I think Joe correctly concludes that it is not advisable to define Integral from a traditonalist/rationalist values system--essentially trying to elevate Blue/Orange Meme values to second tier.
Today ebuddha waded into the debate. I have to admit that I clicked with ebuddha's use of the Apollonian/Dionysian conflict on this issue, but mostly because I am developing a post on that conflict in relation to my Birth of a Poet series. Essentially, in this view, Integral's quest for order and discrimination is Apollonian, and therefore conservative (as opposed to Dionysian disorder and its quest for the ecstatic). Finally, ebuddha concludes with my original point:
Lastly - because of the "fuzziness" and complexity of integralism, to a degree, there is danger of rorschach blotism - seeing in the model a reflection of one's own pre-existing ideas - which of course are only, to use the well-worn phrase, "partial"!So, where does that leave us?
When in doubt, go to the source. Ken Wilber has a fairly comprehensive definition of liberal and conservative that I think applies to this debate. In Part II of his essay "The Deconstruction of the World Trade Center," Wilber claims that the way to define what is liberal and what is conservative is to ask the question, "Why do people suffer?"
Well, if you ask the simple question-- Why do human beings suffer? --you will get two different, basic answers. The conservatives will say, You suffer because of yourself ; the liberals will say, You suffer because of someone else.For Wilber, the difference is that conservatives look at the inner state of the person for causes of pain and suffering, while liberals look to the outer conditions that can cause a person to suffer. Essentially, liberals blame the right side of the quadrants for human suffering, while conservatives blame the left side of the quadrants for human suffering.
By these definitions, conservative thinking cannot be Integral because it only focuses on the interior of the individual (from an exterior point of view), nor can liberal thinking be Integral because it only focuses on the exterior of the individual (from an interior point of view).
By definition, Integral is an integration, AQAL--not half of the quadrants and some of the lines.
From the Spiral Dynamics viewpoint, things are still a little murky. Second tier recognizes the value of the traditional Blue/Orange worldview AND the value of the progressive Orange/Green worldview. But in SDi, each Meme fluctuates between self-focus and group-focus, so that Yellow, the first Integral Meme, is a warm color that is self-focused. Can it still be Integral by Wilber's definition? I think so.
Third tier is likely to be a LONG way off in our future, despite Wilber's claims to the contrary, but it seems that may be when the Memes quit moving back and forth from self to group focus and become truly Integral. Maybe Coral will change the landscape, but that is still 50 years away from emerging in any real number of people.
17 comments:
Hola William,
Glad this debate is happening. I do think you've mischaracterized my position. CJ Smith already acknowledged that he missed the distinction I made when he said "my bad", in the comments section of his post. He went on to say, "I agree with everything you have to say about this integral conservatism."
In lieu of a long comment explaining why I think you've mischaracterized what I wrote, let me forgo that for the moment and ask a simple question.
You wrote:
I think Joe correctly concludes that it is not advisable to define Integral from a traditonalist/rationalist values system--essentially trying to elevate Blue/Orange Meme values to second tier.
Where, exactly, did my argument do so?
You also might note what I wrote today on this topic.
take it harmonic,
md
Matthew,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
I read your new post and I still feel that conservativism is a Blue/Orange values system. Integral certainly has many of the traits that make conservativism useful in the philosophical sense (ignoring, as you say, American politics), but I think that defining Integral as conservative is to elevate first tier memes to second tier status. That was my main disagreement with your post.
I cannot argue against what you say about Integral having a strong streak of conservative values, but I also can't allow that to stand as the defining characteristic of Integral.
By definition (whether one reads Beck or Wilber or others), Integral is second tier. What marks second tier consciousness is full access to the first tier Memes as needed or appropriate. This "random access" capability is the defining characteristic of Integral in the SD model--add the AQAL element and it fits Wilber's definition as well.
Liberalism is not radicalism, as you clarified in today's post. Clearly, Integral does not embrace radicalism as a major component (although peak exeriences through practice can be said to be radical in their ability to produce a profound impetus for change, but not the change itself). I feel that Integral must include the Liberal values of individual autonomy, relativism, and the desire to instigate change (improvements in life conditions) through social structures (Capitalism, Democracy). These are distinctly Orange/Green values systems.
[I find it amusing that both conservativism and liberalism have been accused of being too focused on individual self interest.]
As I said in my post, relying on Wilber's defintion of conservativism and liberalism, an Integral model must be AQAL, including all the first tier values Memes. My sense is that conservativism by itself is focued on the interior side of the quadrants (from a Blue/Orange worldview) and that liberalism by itself is focused on the exterior side of the quadrants (from an Orange/Green worldview). Integral incorporates both of these.
As a side note, I totally agree with your views on "third tier." I also agree with your view of stewardship in relation to the Turquoise Meme.
I hope that addresses, however obliquely, your concerns with my post.
-Bill
I am also unpersuaded by Matthew's claim not to be elevating Blue/Orange Meme values to second tier. He does so specifically and exactly by proclaiming conservativism as the defining ethos of integral. Even when he defines conservativism in a peculiar way and de-emphasizes the political dimensions, he is still left with orange-level values (integral is basically "informed restraint" for "reasonable people" who prefer slow to fast modes of social change) and encompassed by a worldview that by his own admission includes political conservativism as a component. I think Matthew denies that he is elevating orange values to integral because of his rejection of concepts such as levels of consciousness, memes, Spiral Dynamics in general and AQAL. I'm still trying to figure out what it is Matthew is calling integral, so perhaps he's right about integral in his own model of what integral really is. ;-)
In the above, I should have written: "encompassed by a worldview that by his own admission includes political conservativism as a DEFINING component."
Hey William,
I'll respond to your points soon. Thanks for answering my question, though I'm not sure I got the "exactly" as I asked, but I appreciate the attempt nonetheless. Overall, I'm of the opinion that an integral worldview is best served by really working to use everyday language, and not the jargon of SD and some of Wilber's model. To me, importing an invented jargon smells of "literalism" as well as simply not thinking things through, according to the real world. I will continue to make this case (and long have) if you follow my work.
Here's another question for ya: what exactly is "first-tier" about what I've described, in my writing, as "conservative"?
I'll say again that the kind of conservatism I'm talking about is not found in its political usages or contexts, and thus not in your "blue/orange" zones), but rather is founded upon the simple axiom: everyone is conservative about what they know best. Aligning conservative with "blue/orange" is indeed faithful to parts of Wilber's written view. I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is something counter to Wilber's view, so saying "Wilber thinks this or that" may have value on the merits, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with my contention. I don't hold Wilber on a pedastal, in other words, and I think he can be quite wrong.
And furthermore, the very qualities I'm associating with this conservatism are required to attempt to prove my contention false. In other words, in order to attempt to disprove that an integral worldview aligns with conservatism, you have to operate conservatively, as I have and will continue to define it. This is a real problem for people who contend against my position -- in order to criticize justifiably, you have to use the methods of exactly what you are saying is not true. For what it is worth, I basically think that everyone involved with this discussion is more or less sympathetic with an "integral worldview".
William, I make one more point about your post in my comments below.
But I move towards what Perez wrote,
NEVER did I say I reject levels of consciousness. Yet again you put things in my mouth. Will it cease? And, sir, do you have no shame? My god. This broken record is getting rather pathetic. I have acted with respect towards you, and you not to me, and so I'm starting to get more than a little annoyed at the one way street. STOP attributing things to me that I have not said.
I have called "memes" into question (this includes vMemes) because you need a context for truths to emerge. More particular terms such as "ideas" "patterns" "opinions" "behaviors" and more that "memes" attempts to umbrella serve to clarify contexts (depending upon the contexts in question, whatever it is), and thus I believe are more preferable. This may just be a preference, but I'm still going to argue for it, because I think the integral community is suffering from a deep lack of specificity when it attempts to talk about real world things, and people, and their perspectives. Too much vagueness in what passes for integral, in too many quarters.
Spiral Dynamics (to which offered limited praise in my original post on integral and conservative -- yet, still, praise) suffers from a lack of any evidence to support it as real research-driven conclusions. Graves lost it all before he died. This may not be a problem for some, but it is for me. And with that situation, I am prepared to treat it as speculative poetry, which I think has resonance in some spots, but ought not be taken literally in any way shape or form.
One of the problems with William's points above is that I sense a literalism with regard to Spiral Dynamics. This is known as "boilerplate" arguing, where you simply repeat verbatim something as if you can just assert that it is true. But you cannot do that, reasonably. There are also a lot of unquestioned assumptions about Wilber, his conservative/liberal dichotomy about the sources of suffering, and more which would take time to unearth. Time I'm not sure I have, but I will attempt at least a couple in a subsequent comment. In general, my advice is to really question ALL assumptions found in Wilber's work, and ask if he has REALLY justified their validity, with evidence.
And as far as the legitimacy of Wilber's AQAL, I have NEVER rejected it out of hand. Recently, in my "Let Me Set The Record Straight" post on my blog, I said AQAL was often useful as a starting point for many, but not all, areas of life. Doesn't sound like rejection to me, but I guess to the ears of Joe Perez, I may as well have tossed it off the building. Yet another of Perez inventing things about me. Will no one besides yours truly call him to task for this? Sheesh.
Look, my entire investigation is predicated upon the axiom, well demonstrated and as far as I can tell, generally valid for all humans, that we are all conservative about what we know best. I have taken this to be the premise upon which I've formed a hypothesis, namely that because "turquoise" (to take an example from SD) was described in such terms as stance of "stewardship", that holds a lot of rings of conservative if you negate and preserve what is commonly held about "conservative" as an everyday temperament in one's life. I hypothesize that you can do so, still retain "conservative", and get a better understanding about what an "integral worldview" feels like, and how it really works, not as speculation, but as real practice, in real world situations where using jargon is going to get you confused stares, and make you no friends.
Attempting to argue against this position is fine, and I've cited people who have done so with respect and dignity, as befits any real debate. I don't mind disagreement with what I'm saying (I support it!), but when disagreement becomes a moment to call larger issues into question -- my own psychograph, my own "integralness", my own level of thinking (which Perez has referred, odiously, as aligned with his "rationalist" tag -- then his is a problem. A big problme.
I'm tired of dealing with Perez's approach to debate, which is childish. His approach is highly irresponsible, based upon superficial rendering of my positions, quick categorical judgements that show little to no actual consideration of a) my positions and nuaced arguments I've forwarded, and b) for me, a person with a beating heart and a lot of care for "integral".
Perez should be ashamed of himself.
I hope respectful, thoughtful, passionate, and intellectually curious people will continue to collaborate upon an investigation of the contention I've forwarded, and do so with basic respect and (gasp) humility. I'm not interested in boilerplate debate, where we all just "dittohead" Wilber's work, all or even portions of it. That spells dead-end for integral, and if you don't see the merits of that, then maybe we really should just end this discussion.
shaking my head at the thought of Perez, yet optimistic about further conversations with William,
md
For William and his readers: My claims intended to show that Dallman's views are outside the integral mainstream are, I believe, accurate. As always when attempting to summarize complex and controversial ideas briefly, it is possible to oversimplify. Perhaps I have been guilty of some oversimplifications of Dallman's views, but if I have, it's not to the degree he thinks. It's wonderful that he has the time and energy to write long flowing mini-essays in response to comments on blogs, but I seldom have time to write more than a few hundred words. Blogging can be hasty writing, and phrases like "rejecting AQAL" are short ways of expressing conclusions that could be dissected in thousands of words. I make no apologies for not writing posts and comments in the lengthier style of Dallman.
For example, when I have used the term "level of consciousness," Dallman calls it pop psychology and meaningless jargon; but when it suits him, he now denies that he denies the concept. He also denies that integral is a level of consciousness, and says that it is wrong to use labels to describe people's level of psychological development. I have provided examples for the other claims as well (rejecting AQAL, etc.) and have done so on my blog. I disagree with Matthew that I've misrepresented his work. But if I am guilty of oversimplifications, then I apologize for any confusion that may inadvertently be caused by not having more fully explained and defended the overall accuracy of my views. I have also addressed on my blog the problems I see in Dallman's rhetoric and style of debate. It is worth noting in this context. Anyways, the discussions about conservativism, integral, and so forth are all in public record, so folks can decide for themselves.
A brief response, then I'm out of this one.
Matthew--I appreciate and respect your efforts to recontextualize "integral," but I find nothing in your definiton of conservativism that suggests to me anything other than what I read in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy--which is the view I expressed in my post. I think we may have to agree that we do not agree on this one. I also have a different sense of SDi than you seem to hold--if I am not mistaken, you agree with Wilber that SDi is simply a "values" line in the LL quadrant? I think that SDi as Beck is now teaching it covers more ground than that, and is more usable in the "real world," which is the final test of any hypothesis. I hope to soon post a "Defense of the Spiral."
To both Joe & Matthew -- you guys are leaders in the online integral community. I aspire to the readership each of you now has. I don't expect everyone to agree on every topic, but I also don't think it serves the greater purpose--exploring and expanding the vision of integral--to foster animosity among it brightest exponents.
I look forward to future learning and dialogues with each of you and hope that you feel the same.
Peace,
Bill
Hi William,
Did I miss the reference to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy? Where is this, and how did it impact your perspective on this matter?
[And if there is any question, I come in peace, bearing peace pipe...] :)
My question from my last comment still stands, namely what, in precise terms, is "first-tier" about what I've described, in my writing, as "conservative"? I know you are asserting this, but I'm missing the reasoning behind it.
In case it isn't clear, I generally chose to frame my arguments in plain-spoken language; I'm well-versed in the SD stuff, but I think usage of it in the world veers on ghettoizing the truths of an integral worldview. I think part of the challenge (and fun) posed by an integral worldview is to describe it without need of its jargon. I consider my work as a philosopher to make truths self-evident, not evident based upon learning a new tautological code or pseudo language. My approach follows Coomaraswamy -- the prime imperative is to demystify (in my case) the creative process. If I can demystify "integral" in the process, all the better.
Also, I'm deeply ingrained in the argument famously forwarded by George Orwell, which likewise argues that plain-spoken language is far more effective than an imported jargon, fancy words, and obscure references. I don't exclusively hold to this, but I find it a good general rule, just to explain my approach, and just to make clear that my choice to not use SD language is not out of ignorance of it.
I'm sympathetic with the downsizing of SD as a values line. I'm also skeptical about the whole project of SD and Graves' work because of a lack of ANY case studies or evidence to support the claims of the book, as any kind of science. I'll say again that I find SD, the book, to have moments of excellent prose poetry, very elegant in its evocations of a more compassionate and informed worldview. The colors used, and the distinctions between them, are all very debatable, moreso in light of the lack of evidence or case studies. So my feeling on the SD book is mixed -- it contains merit as well as sticky wickets. SDi, I'm not that versed in at this time, and I haven't commented about it either way.
More back and forth on what you've written:
I cannot argue against what you say about Integral having a strong streak of conservative values, but I also can't allow that to stand as the defining characteristic of Integral.
I've attempted to be precise in my writing on this. I use the term "temperament" for a reason. Temperament, for example, says a lot about the way a piano is tuned, and nothing about the music that may flow from its playing (save that its fundamental sonic grounding is in the system of temperament used). So, I would say either that conservative is a defining characteristic; that is too simplistic an assertion.
Temperament has to do with something deeper. And I believe that once you live into the question of "what is integral and what can I do to embody it?", you can't get around the fact that it compels one to consider many, many perspectives. Doing so brings the need, hand in hand, to be very discerning about those perspectives, and have a mild skepticism in order to separate wheat from chaff.
You don't, you can't, just jump onto the first big recognition or point of resonance you find with a perspective; by nature, there are others, which might have some kind of real truth for whatever context you are in.
This is not to say that decisive action is not also part of an integral worldview. I took this as the gist of one of Perez's critiques of my argument. I acknowledged that part of what I wrote in one spot may have sounded to the contrary, and so I'll say again that having a conservative (informed, measured, mildly skeptical, multiperspectival, restrained, like a "steward", and more) temperament brought about my the operations of an integral worldview is not exclusive whatsoever from decisive, clear, even aggressive action or thought.
I used the term "gradual", associated with my ongoing description of conservative. The reason I like that word is because if it indeed applies to the temperament I'm describing, it suggests there are almost imperceptible degrees of perspective integration. In other words, the reckoning of perspectives required (and valued) by an integral worldview happens is a flowing fashion, not regimented or robotic. This includes "cutting off" the full consideration of perspectives, and this "cutting off" was what I was referring to when I cited the opposing temperament of "radical". Though since Tuff Ghost pointed out the true definition of the word ("at the root"), then my usage of "radical" is problematic, I acknowledge. My point underlying this is unchanged, though -- that an abrupt cutting-off of the consideration of perspectives is both antithetical to conservativism as I'm defining it, as well as to the needs of a truly integral worldview.
And you can't get around the fact, as Wilber has rightly written (but not always followed, fwiw) that one follows the evidence. That very attitude is conservative, in a broad, inclusive version of what that word means. That is not to say it is strictly empirical, exclusively linear/rational, or only materialistic. Evidence exists on many levels of energetic density, and in many different contexts. But the sheer attitude of following evidence (which includes reasoning), is conservative in that you, again, discern useful from unuseful evidence, or again -- the wheat from the chaff.
As a last note, I'll remind that "transcend and include" can also mean "negate and preserve". I actually get more truth from the latter than the former. Maybe it has to do with the creative process, which many times involves a lot of brainstorming, coming up with lots of ideas, which are then cut away, edited out, and tweaked so as to create something, some piece of art, that is really sculpted. I like the precision of the words "negate" and "preserve". And both negating and preserving, I probably don't have to say, are acts/attitudes deeply consonant with conservatism (again, not in a political sense, but in a sociological temperament sense).
Tossing out the bathwater, but preserving the baby, requires deep discernment, the ability to spot and consider the root of a context, restraint, the consideration of many perspectives, a lack of enmeshment in any of them, and a reasonably presented case/perspective why something is bathwater, or why something is baby. I wrote in my first post on this matter that I'm calling for a "new conservatism" as the temperamental embodiment of an integral worldview, one that goes through a negate-and-preserve washer and dryer. Within that temperament, strains of progressive and reactionary, of change and inertia, of conventional and nonconventional, of agreement and disagreement, all live in the being, doing, and thinking of people engaged in the world.
As is my habit, a longer version of the above is here.
I take solace in the fact that all of my writing teachers say that the fundamental dynamic of being a good writer is, in practice, re-writing the shit out of your stuff.
:)
Hi Matthew,
I did not reference the Oxford Companion in my post, but I used it to be sure I knew, in general, what you intended by a sociological definition of conservativism. My view that your definition is first tier is based on the definitions of the Blue and Orange vMemes as given in Spiral Dynamics. Those qualities you define as conservative arise with the Blue Meme (reliance on tradition, hesitancy to change, favoring structure over chaos--this is a paraphrase) and the Orange Meme (reliance on reasoned thinking, verifiability, and so on). Obviously, if Integral is integral, those qualities will pertain to second-tier worldviews.
Your "simple axiom everyone is conservative about what they know best" doesn't really hold up for me. Offer me proof. Sounds like it might be true, but has anyone ever tested its validity?
The Spiral Memes have held up in the real world (South Africa: The Crucible: Forging South Africa's Future, Chicago, Mexico, The World Bank, and on and on), and they feel "right" intuitively. And I have found them useful and accurate when working with my clients. I trust that.
Common language may be a nice ideal when working with lay people, but we are all familiar enough with the Intergal terrain to use the precise words--it eliminates misunderstanding. I am a writer at heart, so the precision of the right word, jargonesque or not, works for me.
It seems to me that Integral is an accepted idea now, at least among those of us who are working with it. It helps us develop and refine the ideas if we are all working on the same page. You are working to reshape things you object to in the existing Integral model, and I admire and respect that. Joe is doing the same with his STEAM project, again, something I admire. But the real work is advancing Integral in a way that becomes useful in the real world.
It feels to me that your statement, "What I'm arguing is something counter to Wilber's view, so saying 'Wilber thinks this or that' may have value on the merits, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with my contention. I don't hold Wilber on a pedastal, in other words, and I think he can be quite wrong" is half right. If Wilber is wrong, let's correct the error before it gets solidified as dogma. But just because you disagree with Wilber on something doesn't mean we should not use him as a primary reference for the theory--after all, he has written more extensively on Integral than any other human being. Likewise, we would not reject Gebser as a source of reference just because we find something to be wrong in one area of his theory.
Back to my original point: the qualities you define as conservative arise, in my mind, with the first-tier memes. If they are valid (and they are), they will resurface in the integral worldview of second-tier. Come to think of it, we might be disagreeing about what Integral is, at its most basic level.
For many of us, Integral is a stage of development [a la Gebser](a combination of cognitive, emotional, spiritual, and other associated lines). I think you are seeing it as a mode of being which would be available at first tier as much as at second tier, and therefore would reject the notion that integral conservativism is a first tier value. Is that possible?
Anyway, I appreciate the dialogue and the effort to understand each other.
Gotta go back to work,
Bill
Bill,
Would you be able to flesh out a little bit more about first tier and second tier, in practice - which I think where it counts?
Forgive me for my lack of reference for the studies of SDI - I came to the whole Cowan/Graves/Beck work late - but The studies that I've seen referenced talk about - for example - more complex VALUES - as one goes from one level to another.
But it seems to me there is quite a difference between VALUING something, and then also ACTING on something. Say the person who professes the VALUE of trusting his partner - and quite truthfully - but then still struggles daily with a tremendous amount of jealousy.
It's a bit of a difference between embracing a world-view, and acting from another level of consciousness.
I'll give an example - and Joe also speaks about this - a person who is smart, spiritual, and who values both the accomplishments of the science world, the freedoms of the western world, and the accomplishments and states of the interior mystical world, as real, and valuable. This person comes to the reading of Wilber with an "aha! finally! A way to integrate the world's truths!" But that person could be at any level of development, and reading more and more of Wilber's books - in itself, won't make that person 2nd tier, right?
Just as someone can talk about spiritual insights for years, and never really embody any of these insights himself - someone can talk about a "2nd tier", without ever embodying whatever the difference 2nd tier give you.
What is that separate a "1st tier" person - like the spiritual intellectual, who never really actually practices or imbibes the benefits of a practice - from a "2nd tier" person?
Also, I would believe that blogs like this - it would be impossible to tell, right? Even with MD's case here, how are you making a distinction between you (or Perez, or me, or anybody), being 1st tier or 2nd tier, as opposed to simply a world view intellectualization of true 2nd tier?
a. the deepness of meditation would distinguish the meditation practitioner from the non-practicing intellectual.
b. the amount of inner security and calm would distinguish the man being comfortable with his partner's independence and freedom.
I'm thinking that you the discernment you are seeing IS a matter of the display of values, and not some lived level of consciousness. But I'm curious what this would be.
Maybe you can answer this as a new post...
"You are working to reshape things you object to in the existing Integral model, and I admire and respect that. Joe is doing the same with his STEAM project, again, something I admire."
Hey thanks, I appreciate that, William.
Just one note, though. STEAM is mainly a different acronym for AQAL. It's a teaching device and memory aid. In the future, I may choose to differentiate it from AQAL if the need arises, but currently don't seen the need. My criticisms of AQAL are offered from within the AQAL framework, by attempts to enhance its usefulness, completeness, and adequacy. For example, I have published a diagram describing my theory of "gayness," a concept not in Wilber's theory, and showing how it relates to the four prime drives of holons. I am building, or trying to build, within the AQAL framework. The critique is thoroughgoing, but largely implicit. It says implicitly: Look, here's what was missing in Wilber's theory, and it didn't need to be, so here's how I've enhanced it in this context. In contrast, others commonly different approaches to critique that are more deconstructive.
Hey William,
I'll try to be be shorter this time.
You write:
Those qualities you define as conservative arise with the Blue Meme (reliance on tradition, hesitancy to change, favoring structure over chaos--this is a paraphrase) and the Orange Meme (reliance on reasoned thinking, verifiability, and so on). Obviously, if Integral is integral, those qualities will pertain to second-tier worldviews.
This is far too simplistic a rendering of what I've said at more length elsewhere, and even what I write above, immediately before this current response. The qualities of the temperament I described above included "informed, measured, mildly skeptical, multiperspectival, restrained, like a "steward"." I have also mentioned a valuing of reason, respect for (not "reliance" upon) traditions and institutions (which also may lead to informed changing of those institutions, which is also a form of respect).
I have never written "hesitancy to change", "favoring structure over chaos". You say you are paraphrasing. I respect that, and you must also respect my opinion that this is a paraphrase that doesn't at all do justice to what I've written. I pay far too much attention to precise words (I believe words mean something, and must if a writer is to be worth his/her salt) to be paraphrased like this.
This is a case, I see now, of you taking what I've thus far described, and essentially ordering it according to the demands/coding of SD and each of its color/memes. You do this to assert that SD, in its literal sense, describes what I'm saying. That is false, because you've cherry-picked what I've said and simply assumed SD is valid. Thus because my ideas, paraphrased by you, fit into the presumed validity of SD, my description must be "first-tier".
Somehow, the idea has spread that doing using SD for this tautological purpose is useful. I rather find the limited value of SD in something more simple, and more profound -- by poetically naming what has come before, we thus set up a scenario whereby we can negate and preserve in order to make self-evident what is the real, underlying hypothesis of SD -- that a more compassionate, informed, restrained, wise, planet-centric, engaged, and courageous worldview exists, and that it is something we all can step into. The idea that SD is some kind of assessment tool I think is doomed from the beginning; whether or not Beck and Cowan realize the true hypothesis of their book, I have no idea. And I understand that Beck has had success in South Africa and he is to be applauded for that. Before we lionize SD because of those successes, let's see the writeup that detail, exactly, how SD the system actually worked, and whether it was the system, a combination of the system and something else, or even something else entirely that fostered success and change.
Let me say it simply. SD entirely collapses Piagetian "structures of cognition" with Gebserian "worldviews". I have a blog entry from yesterday that gets to the former to some degree. It is a difference between enduring development, found in structures/levels of cognition, with transitional development, found in worldviews. It is a very confused model, on this distinction, and for that I think it is fatally flawed in most regards, save the heightened moments of clarity brought about by its ocassional but powerful prose poetry. In any event, I refer you to my recent blog entry, "What is missing from this picture?"
For many of us, Integral is a stage of development [a la Gebser](a combination of cognitive, emotional, spiritual, and other associated lines). I think you are seeing it as a mode of being which would be available at first tier as much as at second tier, and therefore would reject the notion that integral conservativism is a first tier value. Is that possible?
Um, no on your premise and your conclusion. I'm trying to describe the working temperament at the core of multiperspectivity. What that fancy term actually feels like, and how it operates, at least in general terms. Multiperspectivity is a fancy, modern way of saying "fullness". Noble efforts towards fullness in the world are, historically speaking, best seen as a sliding scale, because we (in the West, anyway) are always pushing boundaries, and redrawing what is possible, based upon the efforts of certain pioneers in the arts and sciences. "Whole living" goes back to Plato. Hildegard von Bingen's music was as "full" for her day (12th century) as Bach was for his (18th). Galileo was as full for his day as Einstein was for his.
The particular varitety of "fullness" today is best described, I argue, by "multiperspectivity, of mind, body, and spirit", though other scales offer most particular truths than that very general (and cliched) scale. I argue, and will continue to argue, that there is nothing but an integral worldview (a fullness worldview, a worldview of multiperspectivity anchored in the body), within which there are many possible systems, models, and organized structures of thought. AQAL is one such model. I've said enuff times that it has merit.
Within any worldview, a person can have a whole variety of development of upon most any line you want to look at. Wilber suggests that the cognitive line is necessary but not sufficient. I generally agree with that. The general semiotic marking of an integral worldview is its built-in capacity to reckon multiple perspectives. Worldviews, I have begun to argue in my work, are a semiotic phenomena; thus worldviews are made of signs, deeply held, profound communicative signs, and in fact a multiplicity of signs upon many levels of being. And in any event, "level of consciousness" is a generally meaningless term, inclusive of too much and thus imprecise, which even i-i has sought to clarify, at least as of my last contact with that outfit.
If you investigate the nature of Piagetian structures of consciousness, you will find that what you assign to Blue and Orange are no where to be found. Wilber to some extent has sought to update the Piagetian spectrum, in rather confusing fashion with the addition of "subtle, causal, nondual" but I think he's moved on from those particular additions to something less, well, spiritual sounding. He did as of a year ago, anyway, in private conversations.
One can investigate these technical distinctions about psychology all one wants. I argue that it will inevitably lead one to the conclusion that integral is a worldview, full of many, many possibile behaviors, characteristics, attitudes, distinctions, preferences, choices, lifestyles, and so on and so forth. I have further investigated what the deep, deep feel of multiperspectivity might be, and used an umbrella term "conservative" and redefined that entirely dead term with resonant sub-dispositions that I think are compelled by an integral worldview, and compelled by an overall valueing of "fullness" as best we can make such a thing possible in our world. I would be deluded to think that "conservative" is the actual word used in regular practice -- there will be no neo-neo conservatism that is the integral worldview. I simply follow McLuhan in that what is new is in part defined by what came before it. "Conservative" will remain a dead term, even as an integral worldview flourishes in the coming decades and centuries. But the particular feel of an integral worldview, as best I can make it out right now, includes the qualities I have thus brought under the umbrella tag. And to the extent that people's buttons about the mere word "conservative" had to be pressed into awareness, I have gladly done so.
The main problem (outside of inventions, misinterpretation, and mischaracterization of what I've written) is not even the semantic issue of "conservative" that I have already mentioned elsewhere. It is rather in taking what write in far too literalist fashion. I usually choose words for their artistic, poetic value; their implicit multiple meanings if treated openly without the bias of Foucault-based thought. Anyone who has read my bio ought rightly assume that I'm not going to investigate something, and really live into it, without full knowledge of what the common "integral" books have to say. I can take this further and get very pretentious about it, but I'll end that I was asked to be the first leader of iu-art, as well as had a paper included in the first integral studies course at iup for a reason. I realize we all have to earn the credit we are given, and that nothing in life is fair. And with that, I bid you goodnight.
So I guess my "trying to be shorter" thing was a crash and burn. Maybe next time. :)
Matthew,
First off: my apologies for any way I might have offended you. I may be guilty of misunderstanding your intent/meanings (more on that below), but I have not intentionally done so.
That said, a little self-defense is in order.
"The idea that SD is some kind of assessment tool I think is doomed from the beginning"
SD is not an assessment tool, so I can see why you might not appreciate its value. SD is a developmental hierarchy, the same as Wilber's states/stages, or Gebser, or Aurobindo. Beck & Cowan have a separate assessment tool that they created to apporoximate a person's developmental stage within the SD framework.
"Before we lionize SD because of those successes, let's see the writeup that detail, exactly, how SD the system actually worked, and whether it was the system, a combination of the system and something else, or even something else entirely that fostered success and change."
Read The Crucible: Forging South Africa's Future by Don Beck & Graham Linscot. If after reading the book you think SD wasn't the tool that helped create the solution, that's cool.
"Let me say it simply. SD entirely collapses Piagetian "structures of cognition" with Gebserian "worldviews".
Maybe, but the SD book is 10 years old, or more. Beck's SDi, as far as I can tell, recognizes developmental lines within the unique stages. Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Erickson, et al, can each find their space and value within the developmental levels. A person may be traditional/authoritarian in their emotional developmental line, and/or post-modern/egalitarian in their morals line, and/or rational/materialistic in their spiritual line. And as Wilber says and you acknowledge, intellect is necessary but not sufficient for higher stage development.
"I'm trying to describe the working temperament at the core of multiperspectivity. What that fancy term actually feels like, and how it operates, at least in general terms."
Since what multiperspectivity "feels like" is a subjective thing, by definition, you might understand our inability to know how you think it feels.
"If you investigate the nature of Piagetian structures of consciousness, you will find that what you assign to Blue and Orange are no where to be found."
I never thought, or said, I would find a Blue worldview--with all its varied morals, intellectual capabilities, aesthetic sense, emotional intelligence, spiritual values, and so on--in a Piagetian developmental stage. Apples and oranges.
"Wilber to some extent has sought to update the Piagetian spectrum, in rather confusing fashion with the addition of "subtle, causal, nondual" but I think he's moved on from those particular additions to something less, well, spiritual sounding."
Not as of "What Is Integral Spirituality?" He's still using those terms and has included them in the Wilber-Combs matrix, or whatever he's calling that thing.
"It is rather in taking what write in far too literalist fashion. I usually choose words for their artistic, poetic value; their implicit multiple meanings if treated openly without the bias of Foucault-based thought."
With this thought in mind, maybe you can appreciate our challenge in guessing which meaning--poetic or literal, precise or multiple--you have in mind at any given time. I think some of Joe's frustration was a sense that the field of play kept shifting.
"Anyone who has read my bio ought rightly assume that I'm not going to investigate something, and really live into it, without full knowledge of what the common "integral" books have to say. I can take this further and get very pretentious about it, but I'll end that I was asked to be the first leader of iu-art, as well as had a paper included in the first integral studies course at iup for a reason. I realize we all have to earn the credit we are given, and that nothing in life is fair."
No, thanks, I think that was pretentious enough. I recognize your position, and I have been nothing but respectful of that. I'm guessing based on these words, that I haven't earned "the credit" to challenge or disagree with you. That's fair. I don't have the credentials you have.
We don't agree on this issue--or at least you haven't convinced me yet. That's okay with me. Again, I apologize for any misquotes, wrong interpretations, or any other way I might have offended you. I try to argue fair, so any misunderstanding on my part was purely a misunderstanding--not intentional.
Peace out,
Bill
Hey William,
SD is not an assessment tool, so I can see why you might not appreciate its value.
But didn't you use it to assess my argument, namely that what I was talking about was "Blue/Orange"? Is saying "Blue/Orange" using it as an assessment? Certainly seems so to me. You attemped to "name" what I was talking about, did you not?
And:
I'm guessing based on these words, that I haven't earned "the credit" to challenge or disagree with you. That's fair. I don't have the credentials you have.
No, that's not what I was saying. Please forgive me if it sounds like that. I was merely making a bit of a plea (which I know is not an argument, or really anything except a simple plea) to at least make a small assumption that I wouldn't throw something out there was hadn't taken into consideration SD and frankly most of Wilber's work. Maybe you already had, which would render my silly little thing at the end moot.
It bothers me quite a bit that I came off as pretentious, so forgive me. That is not what I intended, because I can't stand pretension pretty much anywhere.
My bad.
And I wasn't offended. No worries. I write strongly, so it may come off that way. I was just trying to be clear about where I felt I was misquoted, so you understood and I made my point granular.
Have you read the Beck/Linscot book? (This is a new one for me).
Beck's SDi, as far as I can tell, recognizes developmental lines within the unique stages. Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Erickson, et al, can each find their space and value within the developmental levels.
let's consider the assumption that within stages there are lines.
doesn't that sound a little off? what exactly are stages but the various stages of various lines? So it is actually a redundant thing to say, and it presumes that "stages" are distinct from lines, which they are not. all stages are anchored to their respective lines. there are no "stages" just floating out there, through which lines flow.
Has Beck stopped using the colors? My impression was that he continues to use them. And THAT is the confusion between enduring and transitional that render ANY such system confused, no matter how he might try to add in lines of whatever name.
And isn't his model, at least visually, based upon the idea that "through" colors flow lines? If so, that would render it problmatic, for the above reason.
Since what multiperspectivity "feels like" is a subjective thing, by definition, you might understand our inability to know how you think it feels.
Well, sure. But at least you can understand, I hope, objectively what I've been trying to do, somewhat specifically. This is entirely better than thinking I'm talking about something "first-tier". If you can see what I'm trying to do, and then disagree with the particular flavors I might attach to the "temperament" of multiperspectivity in action, we are miles closer than we were before.
It is also crucially important, I'm now realizing, to understand that I'm talking about the temperament of a piano, and not what is played through the piano.
I never thought, or said, I would find a Blue worldview--with all its varied morals, intellectual capabilities, aesthetic sense, emotional intelligence, spiritual values, and so on--in a Piagetian developmental stage. Apples and oranges.
Nor did I say that you did! My point is to start to show how SD is flawed, in that the "colors" are basically meaningless. This is profound, for many people choose to use SD colors, or a version of them, in their assessments of things and people.
Not as of "What Is Integral Spirituality?" He's still using those terms and has included them in the Wilber-Combs matrix, or whatever he's calling that thing.
Then he continues to be all over the map on terms.
With this thought in mind, maybe you can appreciate our challenge in guessing which meaning--poetic or literal, precise or multiple--you have in mind at any given time.
well, i mainly wrote this because the term "conservative" was being taken in its literalist meaning. I also think people take SD far too literally, almost as if it is scripture, or unassailable. Where is the research to support it?
best,
md
p.s. "everyone is conservative about what they know best" is an axiom. it means a couple things. that everyone has a natural resistance to the questioning of what they hold dear. and that everyone will generally rely upon what they hold dear (in terms of tuning) as they look at, assess, analyze, interact, or consider the world. i would guess that there is some clinical definition or evidence that shows people have a natural, healthy sense of inertia. I don't know any offhand, but it seems far to demonstrable and common sense for there not to be.
The Temperament of an Integral Worldview, A Status Report
fyi.
Just want to say, again, William that I appreciate the exchange with you. I apologize for my moment of pretention, appreciate that you recognized the couple misquotes of my position, and been willing to extend the dialogue even when it seemed like nothing but flames.
It is 55 degrees and sunny in Chicago today. Time to go outside.
harmonic bows,
md
Thanks Matthew,
I look forward to future learning experiences in dialogue with you.
Enjoy the nice weather.
-Bill
Post a Comment