powerful statements & action methods

[Ivo Banaco]

Hi Adam and all,

Just some quick notes. When Ken Wilber differentiate between Lower
left and Lower right quadrant he moves to the right all objective
stuff, even cultural institutions, even language is in the right. When
a Chinese (who doesn't understand any foreign language) try to engage
in a dialogue with a German they eventually reach some kind of mutual
understanding beyond any formal rule of language, environment or
specific subjective mind set. When an I meet another I they could form
a We space. If they fail, they fail to reach a fundamental perspective
- the lower left quadrant. They become alien to each other, an it, an
object to each other - not an I not a We…an It. Economics is a science
that formed theories with a strong lower right basis. And has a rather
limited understanding about the other perspectives.

A more complicated thing, I believe, is to define cultural conserve
that could have a direct correlation to LR institutional framework,
but also I think could be a more LL informal conserve rules. Douglass
North, a Nobel Prize winner, makes an interesting distinction between
formal rules (LR) and informal rules (LL), both of them cultural
conserves I believe.

Another important point and related to this is that of the difficult
concept of "people". AB: "the idea that we can communicate to the
heart of people assumes that there is a category called "people," and
the art of politics shows this to be illusory, like "structure." It is
a gross overgeneralization. There are many many sub-sets,
sub-cultures, demographic niches, and ultimately, the peculiarities of
individuals. Even the individual is a combination of sub-selves or
roles, many of which are in conflict or "undecided." Many of these
roles are further rather unconscious or disowned."

I agree. But it is impossible not to make generalizations. The biggest
problem is to distinguish between individual and groups. Many
theorists make the mistake to claim that a group is a super I, in the
sense that in their taxonomy the group is in a higher level relatively
to individual. Not so I think. I am again with Wilber in this, as I
believe that individual and group arises simultaneously. There are no
groups without individuals, but the inverse is also truth.  An
individual, as Whitehead notes, has a dominant monad or an ego that
coordinates all the different selves – however, most of the times it
is not a democracy! A group has a dominant mode of discourse (see
Integral Spirituality, chapter 7). Ideally, in the US elections, both
candidates will try to capture, within their ideas, the largest number
of persons. They either could resonate with the predominant mode of
discourse or create a new one. But of course this is a big
generalization. As Adam says there are many sub-sets, sub-cultures,
and so on, we are all holons, which are wholes at the same time that
are parts of a higher holon.

Best,
Ivo











On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:

>  Hi Ivo, thanks for your comments. A few points. In your item on Ken
> Wilber, when you spoke of economics I think you meant the lower "right" (not
> left" column, the objective cultural institutions and arrangements (i.e.,
> cultural conserves).
>
>     The other point: You wrote: I  think in our informational era, the
> importance that the written form has and how badly it is treated,
> particularly by the media, but also by the blog sphere and generally by
> Internet have to be a central concern for our society. The distorted
> messages, the shadow projections, the toxic arguments...  Adam, I can see
> your point of giving more emphasis on action methods rather than bold
> statements. Perhaps we really need both, if we think the people who have the
> social power are the ones that can influence groups with nothing
> but illusions (but than using manipulative power and individual agendas). We
> need both an approach where we can communicate to the heart of people and
> simultaneously to deliver really concrete action methods. Is it possible to
> put the emphasis in both?
>
>           AB: this struck me at a time when I've been thinking of the
> psycho-socio-cultural roots of epistemology---that big word referring to the
> question of how do we know what we know. I've been reading some books about
> critical thinking and psychology recently, and several points seem to be so.
> (I'm laying a foundation to reply to the paragraph above.)
>     1. People have been educated to "know." Knowing answers, having
> confidence in what you know, is seen as strength. Being unsure, still
> investigating, is weak. Some corollaries:  a. Debate is good, and people
> should present their positions with passion, argument. (My whole point is
> that many of these positions are actually misleading and largely mistaken!)
> b. The older you are the more you should be "confident." c. Political
> leaders would not be voted in if they say, "I have some plausible ideas that
> we're going to try out; they seem better on medium close examination than my
> opponents. I am better at improvising (i.e., Moreno's ideal of spontaneity)
> than my opponent, and that is why you should vote for me. Circumstances
> change, and my campaign promises will likely need revision.... etc."  People
> want certainty. The media feed this childish illusion.
>             To restate: I don't hold with some of the unspoken rules about
> pretending that you know and it's okay to express this knowledge with
> confidence. Not only is this misleading, but it offers a model to young
> people that they, too, should develop a persona of pseudo-confidence. There
> are few heroes, models, out there offering models of reasoned inquiry, which
> is then the foundation for improvisation.
>
>      2. We have centuries of adults, authority figures, clergy, etc. saying
> "I know truth." This is the model. We have no tradition of God saying, "I'm
> improvising, and I'm not finished with creation; furthermore, I am not
> ultimately powerful: I cannot make you as co-creators behave. I am but a
> still, small voice in your souls."
>
>     3. People in their childish mentality associate the illusion of knowing
> (or its second-best status, believing in the face of mystery) with security.
> They feel insecure if anyone who is supposed to "know" hints that knowledge
> is provisional, a working model for the moment, and in need of ongoing
> revision. This demand for certainty has not yet been widely recognized as
> immature. Rather, authorities have pandered to it. (See the story of the
> Grand Inquisitor, in the middle of Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov.")
>
>       3a. There's a tendency towards either-or thinking, so being less than
> confident about knowledge (which seems "strong") must then be viewed as
> "weak."  Too few people have seen adults use the maturity and strength of
> persistence, diplomacy, negotiation, discussion, dialogue, listening, role
> reversal, empathy, and realized that this was a more authentic type of
> strength. Rather, we are exposed to superheroes and other movie figures who
> resort to simple physical power, force, intimidation, and violence to "win."
> The idea of coming to a "draw" is inconceivable to the immature mind, though
> in fact that's what we do all the time in a good disagreement with close
> family. How can we generate what seem to be win-win arrangements? That is
> the wisdom of diplomacy.
>
>     4. Returning to Ivo's comments about "bold statements." This is a
> strategy, a policy, and one should become clear where and how it is likely
> to be effective. In many contexts, bold statements tend to become free of
> qualifications and therefore oversimplified. This is a problem with politics
> and rhetoric. Half the time bold statements are misleading, stupid, can
> backfire, and /or are ignored. Occasionally, a bit of rhetoric is useful,
> depending on the situation and especially the audience! Who are you aiming
> your statements at?
>
>      5. There are other categories besides action methods and bold
> statements, other alternatives. One is an invitation to dialogue, one in
> which parties truly listen and are willing to revise their own positions
> according to their interaction.
>
>      6. The idea that we can communicate to the heart of people assumes
> that there is a category called "people," and the art of politics shows this
> to be illusory, like "structure." It is a gross overgeneralization. There
> are many many sub-sets, sub-cultures, demographic niches, and ultimately,
> the peculiarities of individuals. Even the individual is a combination of
> sub-selves or roles, many of which are in conflict or "undecided." Many of
> these roles are further rather unconscious or disowned.
>         So politics as the art of the possible asks, "What group are we
> talking to and what do they need to hear? What can't they hear? What must be
> said if they are to vote for us? Can we lie? Can we get away with lying? How
> much can we stretch and distort the truth?"  etc.
>
>        (You may discern that I'm also reacting to the current swirl of
> political debate as we prepare for our national elections.)
>
>               Well, that's enough for now.  Warmly, Adam
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20081014/b9535cf5/attachment.html>