Agreed on our unconscious programs and biases. But that is the beauty and horror of political manipulation through framing. It is a conscious method to downwardly affect our unconscious prejudices. We cannot access that unconscious directly but we can influence it strongly with such conscious methods, reinforcing unconscious desires. And we can use this methodology for good or ill, for the people as a whole or to further enrich the top and disempower the bottom. I’d suggest that the Obama campaign finally listened t Lakoff in the last election and hence via its own framing overcame an unprecedented spending spree of frequently reinforced and unadulterated lies by the opposition, countering it with the same framing methods but based on authenticity and truth. Well not entirely, but certainly more that the regressives.
Now granted there are already existing cultural memes
already setting the stage. Hence such research into overarching developmental worldviews.
So there is truth to the notions that worldviews are co-instituted with stages
of human development and their socio-economic formulas. I’d question though, as
you do, whether capitalism is an outgrowth of the so-called orange stage, i.e.,
egoic rationality. Wilber notes it is the first stage of equality for all and
capitalism is most certainly not about that. I’ve suggested often that democratic
business, like democratic politics, is indeed an example of this stage. And
that capitalism is still a regressive holdover from the aristocratic feudal
period. Or in kennilingus, the politico-economic line in our culture is lagging
behind other developments. Capitalists are still the privileged aristocrats
that do not want equal opportunity but to maintain their privilege. So when
governmental forms shifted from the old aristocracy to democracy with a vote
for all they fought tooth and nail to subvert that process by refining quickly
the art of rhetoric backed by the science of linguistics. And of course coupled
with a heaping pile of bullshit lies to feed an already abused mass starving
for promises of hope.
As to the myriad questions of to where we should go, for now
I’d just like to recommend two classics by Ray Harris at Integral World, “Left, right or just plain wrong”
and “Thoughts toward an
integral political economy.” The first is a critique of kennilingus on the
topic and the second are some general guidelines for how to go forward. Written
in 03/04 they are still applicable today and a good base from which to proceed.
As but one example from the latter on private property:
“Although its origins are debated it is generally understood
that capitalism, as distinct from commerce as such, arose in England as a
result of the agrarian revolution caused by the 'enclosure acts'. These were a
series of acts of parliament that essentially handed common land used by
peasants to wealthy landowners, in other words, open lands were enclosed and
privatized (this was accomplished in stages over a long period). This did a
number of things. It displaced thousands of peasants who lost the ability to
provide for themselves and turned them into waged workers. It also turned the
landowners into landlords (the origin of the word) who then charged a rent for
land that had previously been rent free. This then created capital which could
be used either as investment or as social leverage. The enclosure acts
coincided with the beginning of the industrial revolution and the landless
peasants became the workers in the new factories.”
He goes on to note that both capitalism and socialism are
modernist movements and some combination is needed “to facilitate the ethical
redistribution of the surplus to best serve the evolutionary requirements of
the whole spectrum.” Although in another ’04 article he
did note this developmental sequence:
Red
|
Feudal
|
Blue
|
Stratified state
|
Orange
|
Capitalist
|
Green
|
Socialist
|
Yellow
|
Communist
|
Turquoise
|
Anarchist
|
“I don't mind if this scheme turns out to be wrong. But is
it? The thing is that integral philosophy has not yet fully examined the
question.”
It’s too bad Harris gave up on the integral movement due to
being shunned for this kind of work. He’d be an invaluable leader to take the
movement forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.