generalities

Tue Oct 14 21:48:03 CDT 2008

But it is impossible not to make generalizations.
         ab: how so? What circumstances? I think each time one makes a generalization, some rationale for how this is useful needs to be explained.

  IB  The biggest problem is to distinguish between individual and groups.  AB: this seems worse than a generalization, it's impossibly vague. 

IB 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. 

      AB: Good for you. That one is a theorist or makes a claim or is a recognized authority does not mean that these claims are correct or useful.

   IB   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.

AB: I'm not sure that I disagree, but these generalizations are too broad to be meaningful to me; I think that attempts to draw conclusions at this level of abstraction are quite vulnerable to over-generalizations. 
            mentioning Whitehead again:     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness

        So let's get down from the empyrean heights to asking: Are there any specific issues here? What are they? 
  It's as if at a certain level of abstraction I lose the thread and along with it my warm-up. 
           Ivor, what point do you want to make here? (Any specific examples?) Or any questions? 

  Warmly, Adam

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ivo Banaco 
  To: Adam Blatner ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:16 PM
  Subject: Re: powerful statements & action methods

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1724 - Release Date: 10/14/2008 2:02 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20081014/c89a4275/attachment.html>