An Integral Metatheory of Conservatism

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

You bring more Tier 2 thinking, but I suspect there's still quite a bit of overlap.

I actually have this debate with one of my close leftist friends. His viewpoint is incredibly similar to yours. 

"Evil" for most lefties is anything outside or against their SD Green value system. But their Green value system still tends to include seeing people as inherently good.

Even the lefties calling for the guillotines are often doing so while believing in the inherent goodness of people.

Here's a quick convo I had with GPT on this, which I think mostly nailed it:

https://chatgpt.com/share/67c660ff-be24-800c-a9a7-5d78ae66ca3d

 

My perspective would be that limitation is in service of preservation.

Preservation is the goal, limitation is the tool.

As long as we wish to preserve, conservatism will be relevant.

I certainly am a progressive in terms of my political views with regard to the possibilities currently on offer and the issues that face contemporary people. There's no doubt about that.

And while I do see the value in the actual holistic conservative values, I really don't see much in the way of constructive or healthy conservatism in the government nor in the populace at present.

Growing up in a conservative redneck town AND observing the current state of politics, I can tell you it's usually just all just the most socially degenerative human impulses disguising themselves under the labels conservative, patriotic, and pious.

And it's not wise to "both sides" it or seek balance as long as the conservative forces at play are taking this lower form that will cause tremendous amounts of suffering.

We must ACTUALLY preserve our system the best we can by interrupting and pushing back against these eroding forces.

So, I don't make any bones about it. I'm definitely on the left, with regard to the current state of politics... though my visions for the future of society would vary wildly from leftists and liberals.

But there is a lot of overlap with liberals and leftists in terms of what causes we would ally around.

And most liberals and leftists may see people as fundamentally good to some degree... but will define goodness very differently (from each other and from how I define it). And most do still somewhat believe in a fundamental evil to some degree.

But I've been in each one of those paradigm frames at different points in my life, and I can tell you that neither the liberal nor the leftist viewpoint remotely scratches the surface of understanding how to exercise deep levels of unconditional compassion... nor how deep that fundamental goodness goes.

And they don't understand the nature of goodness well enough to know what alignment looks like.

And in terms of solutions, both liberals and leftists tend to focus more on the system itself as the root cause of social issues and to suggest reform and revolution (respectively) as a means to improve the state of humanity.

And while I see both reform and revolution (as well as preservation and re-integration) as part of human evolution... I don't see the geo-political systems and institutions (like government/society/etc.) as being a root cause of problems.

For example, leftists often say "Capitalism is the root cause of ____." And they will see getting rid of Capitalism as a solution.

But I say that, while leftists are correct that there are some fundamental corruptions in Capitalism that are irremovable... you cannot improve the situation solely by getting rid of Capitalism, as Capitalism (and its level of irremovable corruption) is just a natural outgrowth of the current level of technological and ideological development... and level of alignment/dis-alignment to the deep fundamental goodness that humanity is currently in.

Capitalism is itself a symptom. But leftists make the mistake of seeing it as a root cause.

And if you try to get rid of Capitalism prior to us fully transcending it, you will just get another system with similar levels of corruption (which is the problem of cutting the head off the Hydra), until that which keeps us misaligned to the fundamental goodness is resolved.

And you can't even effectively move a society past Capitalism prior to lots of inner and outer work without destabilizing humanity for a while.

But I'd argue that conservatism (in it high form) does preserve... but moreso than that, creates limitations so that people can be socially grounded in the context of collective meaning.

 

[aurum]

20 hours ago, Emerald said:

And while I do see the value in the actual holistic conservative values, I really don't see much in the way of constructive or healthy conservatism in the government nor in the populace at present.

Growing up in a conservative redneck town AND observing the current state of politics, I can tell you it's usually just all just the most socially degenerative human impulses disguising themselves under the labels conservative, patriotic, and pious.

And it's not wise to "both sides" it or seek balance as long as the conservative forces at play are taking this lower form that will cause tremendous amounts of suffering.

That's the whole reason for doing an inquiry like this.

If healthy conservatism is difficult to find, we must seek it out.

It's like mining for gold.

20 hours ago, Emerald said:

But I've been in each one of those paradigm frames at different points in my life, and I can tell you that neither the liberal nor the leftist viewpoint remotely scratches the surface of understanding how to exercise deep levels of unconditional compassion... nor how deep that fundamental goodness goes.

And they don't understand the nature of goodness well enough to know what alignment looks like.

And in terms of solutions, both liberals and leftists tend to focus more on the system itself as the root cause of social issues and to suggest reform and revolution (respectively) as a means to improve the state of humanity.

And while I see both reform and revolution (as well as preservation and re-integration) as part of human evolution... I don't see the geo-political systems and institutions (like government/society/etc.) as being a root cause of problems.

For example, leftists often say "Capitalism is the root cause of ____." And they will see getting rid of Capitalism as a solution.

But I say that, while leftists are correct that there are some fundamental corruptions in Capitalism that are irremovable... you cannot improve the situation solely by getting rid of Capitalism, as Capitalism (and its level of irremovable corruption) is just a natural outgrowth of the current level of technological and ideological development... and level of alignment/dis-alignment to the deep fundamental goodness that humanity is currently in.

Capitalism is itself a symptom. But leftists make the mistake of seeing it as a root cause.

And if you try to get rid of Capitalism prior to us fully transcending it, you will just get another system with similar levels of corruption (which is the problem of cutting the head off the Hydra), until that which keeps us misaligned to the fundamental goodness is resolved.

And you can't even effectively move a society past Capitalism prior to lots of inner and outer work without destabilizing humanity for a while.

Their sense-making is often still shallow, yes. Those are definitely some errors leftists make.

I doubt almost anyone understands Goodness or comprehends the depth of our collective problems.

[Emerald]

28 minutes ago, aurum said:

That's the whole reason for doing an inquiry like this.

If healthy conservatism is difficult to find, we must seek it out.

It's like mining for gold.

Their sense-making is often still shallow, yes. Those are definitely some errors leftists make.

I doubt almost anyone understands Goodness or comprehends the depth of our collective problems.

I wouldn't necessarily call it sense-making... as that suggests something that's more about active intellectual rigor and reconciling multi-varied perspectives to produce a more holistic understanding of a given situation or the world at large.

To talk about it in Spiral Dynamics terms... that's a more Stage Yellow kind of perspective on things.

In contrast, these medicine experiences that I mentioned are more in Turquoise... if I'm to characterize them through the SD model.

And it's not so intellect-heavy, nor is it a state of active sense-making. And you cannot 'get there' through sense-making or anything that's too mind-heavy

It's more of an embodiment of Christ consciousness and being able to feel the unity and oneness... and from there deeper holistic intuitions arise that emotionally lay bare truths that were previously clouded and obscured by judgment and ignorance.

And the root causes of macrocosmic collective issues are effortlessly seen with crystal clarity without needing to figure them out because the understanding is already etched in the human heart... and then the solutions become obvious.

So, I'd call it more as unconditional compassion or Christ consciousness... which entails being in the wisdom-receptive state and depth of understanding and alignment that unconditional compassion enables you to be in.

And it doesn't really require intellectual rigor per se... nor sense making. 

It's more of a subtractive process of the removal of the judgments and ignorances that cloud the heart wisdom from our conscious awareness and prevents us from dropping into the embodiment of Christ Consciousness.

And while Stage Yellow is useful, you can't really get there from Yellow. 

But someone could drop into Christ Consciousness, understand the root causes and then use that understanding to choose a problem to solve on the deeper root level.

But I agree that healthy conservatism must be found and integrated.

Right now, what's on offer is dangerous and degenerative.

I suspect we will find healthy conservatism in the rise of the intentional communities of Stage Green.

Edited Wednesday at 02:17 AM by Emerald

[aurum]

44 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I wouldn't necessarily call it sense-making... as that suggests something that's more about active intellectual rigor and reconciling multi-varied perspectives to produce a more holistic understanding of a given situation or the world at large.

To talk about it in Spiral Dynamics terms... that's a more Stage Yellow kind of perspective on things.

In contrast, these medicine experiences that I mentioned are more in Turquoise... if I'm to characterize them through the SD model.

And it's not so intellect-heavy, nor is it a state of active sense-making. And you cannot 'get there' through sense-making or anything that's too mind-heavy

It's more of an embodiment of Christ consciousness and being able to feel the unity and oneness... and from there deeper holistic intuitions arise that emotionally lay bare truths that were previously clouded and obscured by judgment and ignorance.

And the root causes of macrocosmic collective issues are effortlessly seen with crystal clarity without needing to figure them out because the understanding is already etched in the human heart... and then the solutions become obvious.

So, I'd call it more as unconditional compassion or Christ consciousness... which entails being in the wisdom-receptive state and depth of understanding and alignment that unconditional compassion enables you to be in.

And it doesn't really require intellectual rigor per se... nor sense making. 

It's more of a subtractive process of the removal of the judgments and ignorances that cloud the heart wisdom from our conscious awareness and prevents us from dropping into the embodiment of Christ Consciousness.

And while Stage Yellow is useful, you can't really get there from Yellow. 

But someone could drop into Christ Consciousness, understand the root causes and then use that understanding to choose a problem to solve on the deeper root level.

Whether it's deep holistic intuitions or some rational, empirical inquiry, it's all understanding. And it's all happening with your mind and your intelligence, just to different degrees.

There is no escaping mind, intellect or understanding. There is no other process.

 Mind is using mind to understand mind.

44 minutes ago, Emerald said:

 I suspect we will find healthy conservatism in the rise of the intentional communities of Stage Green

On this we are in strong disagreement.

Stage Green cannot possibly offer healthy conservatism. The whole purpose of Stage Green is to begin the deconstructive process of societal norms and all your conditioning.

[Emerald]

16 hours ago, aurum said:

On this we are in strong disagreement.

Stage Green cannot possibly offer healthy conservatism. The whole purpose of Stage Green is to begin the deconstructive process of societal norms and all your conditioning.

I think you're misunderstanding both Stage Green and conservatism. Stage Orange is where the deconstructive process happens... but Stage Green is about recoalescence and re-ordering.

I notice that people often misunderstand what Stage Green is... and think about the current state of left politics as that is the closest thing to Green that is currently on offer.

But we live in a Stage Orange society. And current-day leftists are mostly Stage Orange with a smattering of Green. And that's because Green is merely a future vision at this point.

But because a Green society hasn't been fully lived or fathomed of on the world-stage, even the most Stage Green people amongst us are seeing Green through the individualistic lens of Stage Orange.

But Stage Green proper is fundamentally about re-coalescing back into community... and that requires a resurgence of collective ordering structures and the limitation of the individual.

So, you cannot move forward to Stage Green without integrating healthy conservatism.

But when most people think about Green, they think of lefty politics... as that is what Green is from the perspective of Orange.

But Green is actually about the re-coalescing of community that was present in Stage Blue... only with greater levels of human sovereignty realized and with greater skills with understanding how to come together as a community without sovereignty being squelched.

Purple, Blue, and Green all have that same community coalescence dynamic... but on levels that have a wider circle of concern as you go up the Spiral... and that have greater space for human potential to come forth.

And you can't have collectivism without containers and ordering structures.

Edited Wednesday at 07:47 PM by Emerald

[aurum]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

I think you're misunderstanding both Stage Green and conservatism. Stage Orange is where the deconstructive process happens... but Stage Green is about recoalescence and re-ordering.

To quote from Susan Cook-Geuter on the Individualist stage (4/5), which approximates to the transition to SD Green:

Quote

"The transition to the first postconventional stage is a watershed in so far as it is the first time that the vertical move and the questioning of previously unexamined ideas is no longer supported by society and its chief conventional representatives."

"With the turn away from the achievement-orientation and the external world towards inner experience—Individualists and Pluralists alike discover how subjective one’s perspective is and how much of what seemed objective is in the eye of the beholder."

"Stage 4/5 persons become interested in watching themselves trying to make sense of themselves. This constitutes an important change in thought mode. Individualists-Pluralists abandon purely rational analysis in favor of a more holistic, organismic approach."

"The transition from conventional to postconventional meaning making also signifies an overall, large-scale shift from increasing differentiation and the creation of an independent self-identity towards increasing integration and deconstruction of the separation developed in the first half of the growth trajectory."

This all correlates with the SD Green value system. So no, Green really is the first post-conventional, deconstructive stage in these models. All stages below that, including Orange, are conventional or pre-conventional. 

You can also look at Ken Wilber's Integral map and see this for yourself.

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

But Stage Green proper is fundamentally about re-coalescing back into community... and that requires a resurgence of collective ordering structures and the limitation of the individual.

So, you cannot move forward to Stage Green without integrating healthy conservatism.

But when most people think about Green, they think of lefty politics... as that is what Green is from the perspective of Orange.

But Green is actually about the re-coalescing of community that was present in Stage Blue... only with greater levels of human sovereignty realized and with greater skills with understanding how to come together as a community without sovereignty being squelched.

Purple, Blue, and Green all have that same community coalescence dynamic... but on levels that have a wider circle of concern as you go up the Spiral... and that have greater space for human potential to come forth.

And you can't have collectivism without containers and ordering structures.

Re-coalescing of community does not mean you have integrated conservatism. 

In practice, all these SD Green communities are full of hippy fantasies, leftist politics and delusional anti-mainstream thinking. That's what actually happens when you actually gather a bunch of SD Green people together. This is the opposite of conservatism.

And it's not just because they're not "truly Green". They ARE Green. That's the problem.

I'm sorry if I'm being blunt, but this is an absurd position you are taking.

You seem to truly value community, but don't let that bias blind you on this.

If you want to integrate conservatism, you must go beyond Green.

[Emerald]

@aurum It seems you're correct about Stage Green within the model itself. But I suppose, I disagree with that characterization within the model.

What seems quite evident to me is that each level of development forms a unique and sustained societal structure... from Purple to Orange. But Green never gets seen as a sustained collective societal structure. 

And in order for a Stage Green culture to truly coalesce into the mainstream (beyond just random political or hippie circles)... as all other stages have done, you have to have an ordering principle.

And the more individualist stages of human development require deconstruction and chaos where individualism is the highest value.

But in more collective societal structures, you actually have to have a structure.

So, I think the model is a bit faulty in that way because they are making conjectures about Green without ever witnessing a Stage Green society in the way that they have witnessed or have historical records of societies from Stage Purple to Stage Orange.

That's why I don't perfectly agree with the Spiral Dynamics framework in this regard to the quote you mentioned... as it's framing Stage Green and hyper-individualistic and deconstructive, when re-coalescing collectivist phases of human development require convergence and limitation.

Otherwise, Stage Green would be the only phase of human development that isn't possible to reach in a sustainable way. And that doesn't make any sense why we'd just have to skip that one as a collective.

[aurum]

21 hours ago, Emerald said:

@aurum It seems you're correct about Stage Green within the model itself. But I suppose, I disagree with that characterization within the model.

What seems quite evident to me is that each level of development forms a unique and sustained societal structure... from Purple to Orange. But Green never gets seen as a sustained collective societal structure. 

And in order for a Stage Green culture to truly coalesce into the mainstream (beyond just random political or hippie circles)... as all other stages have done, you have to have an ordering principle.

And the more individualist stages of human development require deconstruction and chaos where individualism is the highest value.

But in more collective societal structures, you actually have to have a structure.

So, I think the model is a bit faulty in that way because they are making conjectures about Green without ever witnessing a Stage Green society in the way that they have witnessed or have historical records of societies from Stage Purple to Stage Orange.

That's why I don't perfectly agree with the Spiral Dynamics framework in this regard to the quote you mentioned... as it's framing Stage Green and hyper-individualistic and deconstructive, when re-coalescing collectivist phases of human development require convergence and limitation.

Otherwise, Stage Green would be the only phase of human development that isn't possible to reach in a sustainable way. And that doesn't make any sense why we'd just have to skip that one as a collective.

The models are fine, you just have to synthesize the disparate pieces.

Individualism and collectivism feedback on each other in complex and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. If you read and understand her work, you will see Susanne Cook-Greuter is not enforcing a rudimentary hyper-individualistic / deconstructive frame on Green. Her framing is nuanced and understands Green's increasing interconnection with all of life.

There's no contradiction here.