DocWatts

To start with, making sure that activism has a clear and easily articulable goal that takes in to account the pragmatic realities of the socio-political landscape is one part of it, so political resources and effort can be spent in economical ways. Understanding Power dynamics is another aspect of this, in order to pressure governments and organizations in efficient and effective ways. This means understanding what institutions that you're trying to influence care about, and how to gain leverage for negotiations. Having good understanding of where societal Attractors lay (an Attractor being something that is driving how and in what direction systems change) is also important, because it will help to identify and address Root Causes rather than symptoms. An awareness of how changing a dynamic system can result in unintended consequences is also a part of applying systems theory to activism. Related to this, systemic understanding in this regard involves having an awareness of how various problems are interlinked and interdependent. To use Climate Change as an example, tackling this problem in a productive way will by necessity have to involve democratization efforts that combat the ability for corporations to influence the outcomes of elections, misinform the public, and use lobbying to prevent governments from taking steps to address the climate crisis. In the United States that would involve working with other groups to prevent the collapse of democracy over the next 5 to 20 years, whether that might be due to a successful coup or through a more gradual process of gerrymandering and voter suppression. The best citizen's lobby in the world won't be able to accomplish much in the US if it backslides in a serious way towards an authoritarian regime.

@Carl-Richard Very well put, and I would say that in the broad strokes it captures much of my thinking in this topic as well. Thinking back to when I was first learning about the Stage theories that are used in Integral communities, with a bit of distance it's easy to see how easy it is to misuse these theories, and to mistake the map for the territory. Approaching this some years later from a broader perspective, I find the Stage models more useful if you hold on to them lightly, and are mindful of the map-territory distinction inherent to all conceptual models of Reality. I see their utility primarily in providing a dialectical schema for framing the way one thinks about development, that can provide a loose roadmap for how one's meaning making apparatus (or their agent-arena relationship as John Vervaeke describes this) changes as one develops throughout life. Your analogy with developmental 'altitudes' is very apt way of putting it; one has to develop the capacity for rational thought (in the usual way that rationality is understood by most people) before one can develop the capacity for systems thinking, for instance. What also strikes me as a valid insight from Stage models more broadly is that there's a dialectic between differentiation and integration in the process of development, and that later stages or altitudes lead one towards various kinds of deconstruction.

https://www.non12step.com/resources/tests/109-the-sentence-completion-test If you scroll down a bit, there's two links to one for Men and one for Women. So technically this is the test used for Loevinger's model, which Greuter used as a jumping off point to develop her own model. This was owing to her feeling that Loevinger's model didn't do enough to distinguish and articulate the higher stages. I've been reading through Cook-Greuter's dissertation, and it's been interesting getting a sense of the methodology used in the construction of one of these developmental Stage models. The questions are designed to be open ended, with the idea being that the researchers can use the criteria they develop to tease out what the likely minimum level of ego development is for someone to articulate a particular response. What the researchers expected to find is that awareness of the mind's role in constructing Reality increases as a person's ego develops towards the higher stages. What's interesting about the methodology used here is that it shines a spotlight on how indispensable qualitative interpretation is to scientific models, something that's especially prevalent in the social sciences. While unavoidable, it can also call in to question the criteria being used to draw up qualitatively distinct categories (would a team of researchers and subjects without a W.I.E.R.D. bias have arrived at the same results?). Are these models better thought of in more philosophical terms as schema for thinking about an aspect Reality, similiar to how we might think of something like Hegelian Dialectics? Obviously the use of developmental Stage models is huge in Integral communities (which I would consider actualized.org to be, at least in part). So it behooves us to be critical about how the value and emphasis we place on Stage models.

I'll second this, that's a great idea. @Leo Gura Also, any plans for doing a video on the discipline/practice of Philosophy at some point in the future?

I wouldn't even bother unless the person you're speaking to already has some sociological understanding under their belt, and the capacity to think in terms of systems and perspectives. In the same way that knowing arithmetic is a prerequisite for learning algebra, a capacity for systems thinking and for perspective taking are the bare minimum for someone being able to get any value out of Spiral Dynamics. In absence of this, the model likely won't be salient and will almost certainly be misused even if parts of it are understood.

Let's hope that the US and the West doesn't squander the opportunity to integrate Russia in to the West by actually supporting democratization efforts this time around, instead of using political crisis as an opportunity for multinational corporations to impose disaster capitalism. Sad to say that with the declining State of US democracy, if Trump and Republicans are in power the US will almost certainly be working to prop up Putin's regime

Yeah I don't get it. Wanting to pursue Truth while at the same time participating in politics at a very low level of consciousness makes little sense to me. I wonder if a portion of the Trump defenders who make their way to this community are really just looking for a method of spritual bypassing that can give them a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives, without them having to actually do any inner work. Hell, political ideologies like fascism (and to a lesser extent Conspiracy Theories) tend to be attractive to people for exactly this reason; they imbue one with some semblance of meaning and purpose without actually having to pay the emotional costs of introspecting on one's values.

Benny P. is a good case study for some of the tactics that right Wing ideologues use to manipulate and deceive you, and it's (usually) not through outright factual lies (at least if the ideologue is at least somewhat intelligent and sophisticated). Until you develop your ego to the point that you're comfortable (or even intrigued) by uncertainty and open ended questions, having someone come along who can simplify the world for you by speaking with the illusion of authority on a variety of issues is like crack for the ego. It saves you from the emotional labor of having to introspect or explore additional perspectives. De-contextualization is a huge aspect of this. A great example of this is how Right Wing ideologues love citing the statistics about crime in black neighborhoods, while completely obfuscating the sociological and historical context in which that is happening. The reason that Right Wing ideology is able to get away with this is because it relies on people being sociologically, historically, and epistomologically illiterate. It becomes much harder to deny the existence of systemic racism when one is knowledgable about the history of practices such as redlining, to list just one obvious example. Controlling the context and environment in which information is presented is another a great example of this. The sort of worldview in which Trump is somehow seen as the savior of America can only survive in a closed echo chamber, because such a titanic distortion of basic facts positively requires a highly curated version of Reality to remain viable. This also extends to ideologues like Shapiro preferring to 'debate' people that aren't versed about the minutia of a highly curated subject, which results in him not looking so clever when he's up against someone who actually knowledgable.

Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe, considered by some to be the Uylessys of the sci-fi genre for its depth and originality. The book is set in a far off future where the sun is dying and human society has regressed from an interstellar empire to a Stage Red feudal society trapped on a dying world. The story is written from the point of view of an unreliable narrator, as an in-universe political memoir of how a lowly executioner ascended to the throne. The work explores spiritual and metaphysical ideas, while also being a deconstruction of the Hero's Journey. In addition it's as chock full of literary allusions and references as a Herman Melville book. That said I wouldn't recommend this book to everybody, as it's not a by any means light reading. It's a thought provoking and challenging book that rewards paying close attention, and rereading. If I had to try and think of a comparable work it would probably be Frank Herbert's Dune.

Even if midterms and the 2024 elections aren't completely disastrous for democracy in America, the Republican Party isn't going to be out of power forever. US institutions have done little in the way of enacting safeguards to prevent a better organized Republican Party from being successful in thier next coup attempt. It's highly probable that in the next 10 to 20 years the US will shift to what's known in political science as hybrid regime (that's a mixed democratic authoritarian regime, ala what exists in Russia). This isn't a doomer mentality, as there are structural reasons for this. US political institutions literally don't have the capability to address the underlying root causes behind the rise of authoritarianism, as those who benefit from the destruction of democracy are in a position to block reforms that could begin to address underlying root causes . Root causes such as wealth inequality, for-profit propaganda syndicates given free license to manipulate public sentiments, and the undemocratic nature of the US Senate and Supreme Court, just to name a handful of things that are making the gestalt shift away from SD-Blue so tumultuous. So hang on to your butts, it's going to be a rough ride here in the States. The only solution I see is social solidarity around democratization politics, but I suspect that won't gain significant traction until Right Wing authoritarianism makes things so bad for ordinary people that the country can unite around tossing Right wing autocrats out of power.

If Putin had concerns about NATO expansion along Russia's borders, he's sure as hell made that a self fulfilling policy through the way that Russia's been treating its neighbors. That said, a cornered animals is when it's at it's most dangerous, as Putin's failure in Ukraine could mean the beginning of the end of his regime. So it's important to give Putin a way out of Ukraine while saving face.

Both CNN and Fox News are for profit businesses that are dependent upon a 24 hour news cycle supported by advertisements, so of course this profit motive biases everything they do. That said, Fox News is leagues worse in this regard. In addition to the problems that come with for profit news coverage, it's also a propaganda platform for far right ideologies that's found a way to become highly profitable by spreading emotionally manipulative, very low consciousness content. Pay attention to the style and tone of CNN and Fox News, and in particular the use of emotionally charged language meant to trigger thier audiences. I guarantee you that's it's at least 10 times worse for Fox News than CNN.

Then add to that demographic anxiety, as America is becoming less Christian and less white, with whites poised to no longer be the ethnic majority in America in a few decades. An aggrieved majority that's anxious about losing its privileged status is a dangerous state of things, as it's a scenario that's ripe for manipulation by bad actors. In fact it tends to be a fairly reliable warning sign before genocides. Not that I'm suggesting things will go that far here, but the intention on the American right to reinstate of aspects of Jim Crow (such as the effective repeal of the Voting Rights Act) should make us take pause.

While Reagan was a terrible president whose brand of ideology is responsible for many of the problems we're experiencing today, I'll also agree that the level of narcissism and mask off authoritarianism among the American right has gotten much worse in the intervening decades. The difference is that Reagan's ideology was a more straitforward Blue / Orange, while what we're seeing with the cult of Trump is Red taking advantage of and manipulating Blue for its own ends.

Barbs aside, conservatism exists on a spectrum. One one end, there are plenty of conservatives who are liberals 15 years removed, judging from the shifting Overton window on things like marijuana legalization and gay marriage. On the other end, some portion of conservatives will end up supporting fascism. Not that they'll come out and say this, just that given the choice between progressive social democracy and fascism, they'll consider fascism the 'lesser of two evils.' Of course the majority of conservatives will fall somewhere between these two poles.

Conservatism : The fear that somewhere out there, those you've deemed to be your social inferiors may have the audacity to demand equal treatment.

Extreme forms of Relatively are ultimately self undermining, and unworkable as a pragmatic way of engaging with the world. This is because we're constantly having to make Value judgements as part of Being-in-the-world with others. The goal of the deconstruction that comes with Relativity should be to eventually synthesize more Truthful, Compassionate, and Authentic values afterward.

We can thank a corporatist political platform that the Boomers voted for for that. One that systemically dismantled the very support structures that the Boomers used to achieve thier middle class lifestyle.

Millennials and Zoomers get to be the guinea pigs for what happens to society when an entire generation is pushed out of being able to afford a home and denied opportunities to build wealth that they can pass on to the next generation. Perhaps a gestalt shift towards housing as a basic human right might be the result of this, but it's going to be long, difficult road to make it to that point.

The best modern guess is that Nietzsche was likely suffering from dementia by the time he was institutionalized. In addition, his upbringing under the thumb of two overbearing sisters likely created a shadow around his relationship with women, which could explain why he was never able to form a healthy relationship with women throughout his life. Regardless of the merits of his philosophy, he was also basically the 19th century equivalent an an incel. My own take is that he was a highly flawed genius, someone to learn from but not idolize or try to emulate.

VR will in all likelihood become increasingly accessible and useful for all kinds of niche applications, but don't expect them to replace flat screens in your lifetime. As someone who uses VR regularly, some of the claims about it (both advocating for it and decrying it at dystopian) are just out of touch with reality. The average person isn't going to want to sit with a device strapped to thier head rather than looking at an external device such as a phone or television, especially since more often than not we're interacting with other people when we're looking at a screen. In my view, an optimistic scenario that's at least somewhat plausible is one where maybe %5 of electronic media migrates over to VR as the technology becomes more accessible. Perhaps a good analogy would be something like drone technology, which has made a noticeable impact in niche areas, but has barely made any noticeable impact in the lives of.moat ordinary people.

@Vercingetorix For me it's a tossup between The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed. The former deconstructs the sociological implications of gender and how survival challenges shape socio-political institutions. It takes place on a planet where the male/female dichotomy doesn't exist, and where brutal survival conditions impact every area of life and society. The book is also a very moving and sincere portrayal of friendship. The latter is a loose Cold War analogy that explores the strengths and weaknesses of both socio-economic systems in a nuanced way, that also shows how science proceeds in a divided world. The main character is a scientist who's trying to cross the Iron Divide to work with his colleagues from the other society. Both take place in a shared sci-fi setting, with varients of the human species spread out across different planets. Her short stories are also really good. Those Who Walked Away From Omelus is a relatively short read / listen, and is a really thought provoking and relevant philosophical thought experiment.

If you're looking for high consciousness sci-fi / fantasy, I'd highly recommend Ursula K Le Guinn If you're looking for sword fights you won't find it in her work, but if using fantasy as a unique lense to explore sociological and philosophical ideas, Le Guinn is one of the best.

You might also appreciate John Vervaeke's Awakening From the Meaning Crisis series on YouTube, he talks quite extensively about mystical experiences from a philosophical and scientific perspective (without taking a reductionist approach to these experiences). Best explanatory content I've seen for this sort of thing, as he strikes a nice balance between taking an analytic explanatory approach while not trying to reduce these experiences in a way that robs them of their meaning.