Ken Wilber’s take on conservatives

[How to be wise]

In his book Theory of Everything, Ken Wilber describes today’s right-wing as a healthy version of a lower level, and the left-wing as an unhealthy version of a higher level. He sounds a lot like Don beck if you ask me.

[Leo Gura]

That's a pretty old book.

But he's also biased due to his experience with academia.

This is a consistent problem with people who react against academia and universities. They see the corruptions of the university first-hand, up close, but then they forget that universities are not at all representative of average people. And so even the dumbest things that happen on a university campus are way smarter than what is happening in a church in the Alabama.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Hello from Russia]

Lol you guys should compare your conservatives to what's going on in Russian region 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Hello from Russia

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

20 hours ago, How to be wise said:

In his book Theory of Everything, Ken Wilber describes today’s right-wing as a healthy version of a lower level, and the left-wing as an unhealthy version of a higher level. He sounds a lot like Don beck if you ask me.

   So, because he sounds like Don Beck, says the left-wing is an unhealthy version of a higher level, and today's right-wing as a healthy version o a lower level, that we shouldn't take Ken Wilbur seriously? Is this what you mean?

[Danioover9000]

@Hello from Russia

10 hours ago, Hello from Russia said:

Lol you guys should compare your conservatives to what's going on in Russian region 

   Okay, what type, and nationality, and religion, and nationalism of conservative should we start comparing the Russian equivalent to?

[How to be wise]

Up until recently I was convinced that all right wingers are Orange and all left wingers are Green. Now I’m not so sure anymore. You just shared in your blog someone who understands reality very well (we can assume tier 2), but he is a trump supporter. And I’ve seen too many people in tier 2 who are right wingers and conservatives. I guess how aware you are doesn’t translate to which party you vote for.

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

2 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

Up until recently I was convinced that all right wingers are Orange and all left wingers are Green. Now I’m not so sure anymore. You just shared in your blog someone who understands reality very well (we can assume tier 2), but he is a trump supporter. And I’ve seen too many people in tier 2 who are right wingers and conservatives. I guess how aware you are doesn’t translate to which party you vote for.

   Of course, higher consciousness and spirituality /=/ good political takes and understanding governments and how to lead people. These are, to me, two distinct developmental paths, both seperate and sometimes overlap with each other.

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

I guess how aware you are doesn’t translate to which party you vote for.

It largely doesn't because the mind is a very powerful beast and people do not automatically gain political insight, knowledge, and expertise simply through enlightenment, meditation, or spiritual practice. Politics is its own specific domain.

The mind is filled with so much bias and cultural conditioning that no amount of enlightenment will fix it. And I don't think Langan has even had enlightenment.

What I notice is that most spiritual people have bad politics, because spirituality does to teach anyone how to think, it just teaches them a set of dogmatic practices and spiritual paradigms. But that is not the same as a deep study and critical thinking about how complex social systems work. Having good politics requires thinking very independently and originally. But most spiritual schools teach people to stop thinking, not systems thinking. To have good politics requires a deep study and critical study of history and social dynamics. No amount of meditation or mystical experience will get you that. For the same reason spiritual people are bad at running a large business. The Buddha would not know how to manage a company like Walmart.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It largely doesn't because the mind is a very powerful beast and people do not automatically gain political insight, knowledge, and expertise simply through enlightenment, meditation, or spiritual practice. Politics is its own specific domain.

The mind is filled with so much bias and cultural conditioning that no amount of enlightenment will fix it. And I don't think Langan has even had enlightenment.

What I notice is that most spiritual people have bad politics, because spirituality does to teach anyone how to think, it just teaches them a set of dogmatic practices and spiritual paradigms. But that is not the same as a deep study and critical thinking about how complex social systems work. Having good politics requires thinking very independently and originally. But most spiritual schools teach people to stop thinking, not systems thinking. To have good politics requires a deep study and critical study of history and social dynamics. No amount of meditation or mystical experience will get you that. For the same reason spiritual people are bad at running a large business. The Buddha would not know how to manage a company like Walmart.

   In regards to the Buddha though, wasn't he renowned for his debate and argument skills? He was able to convince the majority of spiritual masters of Buddhism on his side, which required some critical thinking on his part?

   Is there also a tradeoff here, of having more systems thinking and less mystical/spiritual experiences? And Vice versa?

[Leo Gura]

Debate skillz are not political analysis skillz.