More on the kennilingus warping of the green meme

There's a lengthy and at times ascerbic debate at the IPS FB forum once again on the green meme.
So I went to Morin's book Seven Complex Lessons for Education in the Future, available at this link. The section on false rationality begins on p. 17. He describes it as "abstract unidimensional rationalization" and "technobureaucratic rationality" (18) expressed in free market economics, since it is divorced from the sort of ecological thinking that takes account of multiple systems in interdependence, instead imposing on nature a fixed abstract ideal. In so doing environmental devastation has been wrought.

Also of interest is the footnote on that page that false rationality in the green movement is guilty as well. The well-intentioned Green Revolution sought to feed the third world with a program that selected a single vegetal genome which failed to account for how it would affect its local ecosystem to disastrous results. But note, this was not due to a "green" meme but how it still contained a false reason inherent to the orange meme. Recall Lakoff's complaint about how the liberals can't frame for shit because they still adhere to this false Enlightenment reasoning.


As I've made the case in the lengthy real/false thread, this same kind of reasoning is carried forward into the more complex levels above green via the kind of complexity based on it. I've used Morin's form of complexity to counter it, as well as many other sources. Recall from that thread when I asked Commons about Morin he relegated Morin to his heterarchical or lateral complexity, i.e., it's just the green meme stupid. That's all they can say when confronted with this stuff.

Same with Laske, who uses his interpretation of Bhaskarian dialectics as constituting postformal thinking instead of Commons hierarchical variety, seeing the later as still instituting the unconscious cultural norms of false reason. To put this in kennilingus, since I must speak the language of the restless natives in this land, perhaps so-called metasystematic thinking and above is more 'complex' in terms of hierarchical complexity. But as I've investigated in the real/false reason thread it is still tainted by this sort of false reasoning. This is missed by kennilingus which equates that sort of complexity with the integral. Whereas the likes of Bhaskar, Morin, Lakoff, Gebser ad infinitum point to an entirely different sort of complexity and meaning for the term 'integral,' having uncovered and superseded this false reasoning.