Roger, David, Platt, et al
Thanks for the clarification about your comment that I quoted, Roger. While
it did appear pained and defensive, it seems I was wrong about that. However
it gave me an opportunity to explore the issue of stage transitions, which I
enjoyed.
You say "I am not a flag-waving, right wing, hawk,
"america-love-it-or-leave-it" person. I only appear this way in some
people's caricatures of me, or in the context of occasionally being the only
voice against what I have seen as some extremely questionable intellectual
positions." I accept that you are generally far too thoughtful to adopt a
"my country, right or wrong" approach, though it tended to read like that
when you reacted to David's comments. I actually agree with you when you say
"America has done evil things, and it must try to avoid
doing evil in the future. But that is not the HOLY GRAIL solution to the
issue of worldwide progress." I have been following your debate with Wim,
and while I don't find the topic as engrossing as you appear to, I accept
the validity of the discussion.
When you say "I too "want the world to be a better place"" my reaction is
that I never doubted that. However I have no intention of answering Platt's
"simple Yes, No questions: Do I, Roger and others who "defend" the U.S.
"care" as much as you? Do we also want to make the world a better place as
much as you?" Partly because I have no way of knowing how much any one
'cares', partly because they are irrelevant, and partly because their aim is
to attack character rather than to debate the issue. It is like the
barrister who insists that the person being cross examined answer 'yes' or
'no' to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?". They are not
simple, but simplistic.
David said some time back that "genuine American patriotism, for lack of a
better word, is to be found in the celebration of these highest ideals;
equality of rights, equal justice, equal representation in a principled
democracy, etc." I rather hope that these ideals are equally to be found in
any modern democracy, though I salute the founding fathers of the United
States for stating them so clearly and placing them so centrally within the
constitution they drew up. I think it was Gavin who pointed to the
perversion of these ideals that occurred when a very questionable court
decision in the US allowed corporations to claim the status of individuals
under the law. These same corporations have made it their business to ensure
that as many countries as possible follow suit, going to considerable
trouble to ensure this happened in South Africa post apartheid, for example.
Erin's list of corporate sponsors of presidential candidates in the US shows
where power is really located. It is very similar elsewhere.
In response to the challenge of how democracy might be reformed, or
improved, I would suggest that the twin issues of the status of corporations
under the law and the power of corporations to buy influence need urgent
attention. The legal framework under which corporations operated in the
United States (before the judgement that changed everything) was clearly
designed to limit their power and their ability to influence the political
process. The rise of monopolistic media empires since that time has further
implications for democracy.
However, democracy can do only so much. It can, with difficulty, ensure that
the dominant level of morality in the society is reflected in the justice
system, for example. What is difficult is for a higher level of morality to
prevail. This is evident in the discussions on the death penalty that arise
here. I remain bemused when some of the brightest minds on this forum
suddenly find it hard to understand what Pirsig means when he argues against
the death penalty. When most of the 'civilised' world has abandoned this
barbarism, justifiable, as Pirsig maintains, only in situations where the
very existence of society is under threat, its continued use in the US
should be a reminder of the limitations of democracy.
Ken Wilber has used the spiral dynamics colour coding to chart the state of
our world in terms of individual moral development. He suggests that the
archaic-instinctual level, (beige) where survival is dominant, influences
only about .1% of the adult population, which has virtually no power. The
magical-animistic level, (purple) dominant in ethnic tribes, affects perhaps
10% of the world's population, but exerts only 1% of the power. What he
calls the level of the power gods (red) where the powerful impulsive self
arises, and each person struggles to survive in a 'jungle' world, is
dominant in perhaps 20% of the population, and claims perhaps 5% of the
power. (Lila belongs here.) Mythic order (blue) dominates where there are
rigid social hierarchies, visible in such forms as religious fundamentalism,
patriotism, and the 'moral majority'. It claims perhaps 40% of the
population, with about 30% of the power. (Rigel fits here.) Corporate states
are based on the (orange) level of scientific achievement, rational,
individualistic, and competitive. While encompassing only 30% of the
population, it exerts about 50% of the power. (I would place Pirsig, 'the
captain', here, though with some provisos.) The emergence of the (green)
sensitive self which builds value communities is characteristic of many
relatively modern movements, including deep ecology, humanistic psychology,
liberation theology and human rights groups. While only 10% of the adult
world population, it exerts perhaps 15% of the power.
These levels form what Wilber calls 'first tier' consciousness. 'Second
tier' consciousness is a 'momentous leap' into levels where thinking expands
both vertically and horizontally, using both ranking and linking to "vividly
grasp the entire spectrum of interior development, and thus see that each
level, each meme, each wave is crucially important for the health of the
overall Spiral." ('A Theory of Everything', p 11) At the integrative
(yellow) level, "knowledge and competency should supersede power, status, or
group sensitivity", and excellence is the goal. With only 1% of the
population, it exerts perhaps 5% of the power. Finally the (turquoise)
holistic level, uniting feeling with knowledge, and possibly including a new
spirituality, involves just .1% of the population, with perhaps 1% of the
power.
The existence of these levels explains why "many arguments are not really a
matter of the better objective evidence, but of the subjective level of
those arguing" and also explains why "'cross-level' debates are rarely
resolved, and all parties usually feel unheard and unappreciated." ('A
Theory of Everything', p14)
That is why I thought David's point so important. It bears repeating "To
take criticism of your nation as a personal attack only shows that you
indentify yourself with the giant. It demonstrates an attachment to social
values and an enslavement to the giant. And clinging to this third level
value system is immoral to the extent that it contradicts intellectual
values. The highest ideals of
the USA are intellectual values".
In response to your most recent post, David, (where I did feel heard), I
think the spiral dynamics outline above goes part way towards answering your
questions "I'd very much like to hear about the higher levels. What sorts of
skills and outlooks characterize them? I'd even like to know more about
those "seven to ten functional groupings", which I suspect are more commonly
known. Please dish it up or I'll be forced to buy more books." Perhaps I can
come back to those higher levels in a new thread, but this post is already
far too long.
Regards,
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:01 BST