"holisitic-integratives" vs "green memes" / Re: OT "Habits of the Heart"

dude,

if you didn't find out already: Robert Bellah.

review: http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/books/87.html -
publisher: http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/5572.html

---excerpt from book decscription---

... Meanwhile, the authors' antidote to the American

    sickness--a quest for democratic community that     draws on our diverse civic and religious     traditions--has contributed to a vigorous scholarly     and popular debate. Attention has been focused on     forms of social organization, be it civil society,     democratic communitarianism, or associative     democracy, that can humanize the market and the     administrative state. In their new Introduction the     authors relate the argument of their book both to the     current realities of American society and to the     growing debate about the country's future. With this     new edition one of the most influential books of     recent times takes on a new immediacy.

...

---end---

I heard Bellah at a conference about 15 years ago, it was cool.

I think that Michael Lerner does a better job of getting at the nitty gritty of why the ethos of
overconsumption/greed/selfishness has become so pervasive and institutionalized (to the detriment of freedom, liberty and participatory democracy and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, good/truth/beauty in the "lifeworld"), but Bellah is still very good, and his style may appeal to people that shy away from Lerner's nose-to-the-gridstone community activism and battle to reform and redeem "progressive" (leftist) politics.

Seymour Lipsett (Hoover Institute) probably does a better (at least more comprehensive) job of explaining the religious and political sociology of american individualism and libertarianism (in a more "classical" 1050s scholarly style). See "Why Socialismn Failed in the USA" and "American Exceptionalism", etc.

Bellah is great (same with Lerner) in the sense that he talks about the various gut level day-to-day ("people's") realities as experienced in the context of the corporate technocapitalist economy in the San Francisco Bay Area.

And of course if you really want to see how the esoteric of the esoteric abstract thinkers/mystics are trying to resolve all this, see Ken Wilber, who has severly trashed all the fashionable non-sense in the "relativist", "progressive" and "new age" camps of the intelectual elite:

 http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/interviews/interview1220.cfm/xid,2676/yid,5800264

---excerpt---

...

   The Jump to Second-Tier Consciousness

   As Beck and Cowan point out, second-tier thinking has to    emerge in the face of much resistance from first-tier    thinking. In fact, a version of the postmodern green    meme, with its pluralism and relativism, has actively    fought the emergence of more integrative and holistic    thinking. And yet without second-tier thinking, as Graves,    Beck, and Cowan point out, humanity is destined to remain    victims of a global "auto-immune disease," where various    memes turn on each other in an attempt to establish supremacy.

   This is why many arguments are not really a matter of the    better objective evidence, but of the subjective level of    those arguing. No amount of orange scientific evidence    will convince blue mythic believers; no amount of green    bonding will impress orange aggressiveness; no amount of    turquoise holism will dislodge green pluralism--unless    the individual is ready to develop forward through the    dynamic spiral of consciousness unfolding. This is why
"cross-level" debates are rarely resolved, and all
   parties usually feel unheard and unappreciated.

   Likewise, nothing that can be said in this book will    convince you that a T.O.E. is possible, unless you    already have a touch of turquoise coloring your cognitive    palette (and then you will think, on almost every page,
"I already knew that! I just didn't know how to
   articulate it").

   As we were saying, first-tier memes generally resist the    emergence of second-tier memes. Scientific materialism    (orange) is aggressively reductionistic toward second-tier    constructs, attempting to reduce all interior stages to    objective neuronal fireworks. Mythic fundamentalism (blue)    is often outraged at what it sees as attempts to unseat    its given Order. Egocentrism (red) ignores second tier    altogether. Magic (purple) puts a hex on it. Green accuses    second-tier consciousness of being authoritarian, rigidly    hierarchical, patriarchal, marginalizing, oppressive,    racist, and sexist.

   Green has been in charge of cultural studies for the past    three decades. You will probably already have recognized    many of the standard catch words of the green meme:    pluralism, relativism, diversity, multiculturalism,    deconstruction, anti-hierarchy, and so on.

   On the one hand, the pluralistic relativism of green has    nobly enlarged the canon of cultural studies to include    many previously marginalized peoples, ideas, and    narratives. It has acted with sensitivity and care in    attempting to redress social imbalances and avoid    exclusionary practices. It has been responsible for basic    initiatives in civil rights and environmental protection.    It has developed strong and often convincing critiques of    the philosophies, metaphysics, and social practices of    the conventional religious (blue) and scientific (orange)    memes, with their often exclusionary, patriarchal, sexist,    and colonialistic agendas.

   On the other hand, as effective as these critiques of    pre-green stages have been, green has attempted to turn    its guns on all post-green stages as well , with the most    unfortunate results. This has made it very difficult, and    often impossible, for green to move forward into more    holistic, integral constructions.

   Because pluralistic relativism (green) moves beyond    mythic absolutisms (blue) and formal rationality (orange)    into richly textured and individualistic contexts, one of    its defining characteristics is its strong subjectivism.    This means that its sanctions for truth and goodness are    established largely by individual preferences (as long as    the individual is not harming others). What is true for    you is not necessarily true for me; what is right is    simply what individuals or cultures happen to agree on at    any given moment; there are no universal claims for    knowledge or truth; each person is free to find his or    her own values, which are not binding on anybody else.
"You do your thing, I do mine" is a popular summary of
   this stance.

   This is why the self at this stage is indeed the
"sensitive self." Precisely because it is aware of the
   many different contexts and numerous different types of    truth (pluralism), it bends over backwards in an attempt    to let each truth have its own say, without marginalizing    or belittling any. As with the catch words "anti-hierarchy,"
"pluralism," "relativism," and "egalitarianism," whenever
   you hear the word "marginalization" and a criticism of it,    you are almost always in the presence of a green meme.

   This noble intent, of course, has its downside. Meetings    that are run on green principles tend to follow a similar    course: everybody is allowed to express his or her    feelings, which often takes hours; there is an almost    interminable processing of opinions, often reaching no    decision or course of action, since a specific course of    action would likely exclude somebody. Thus there are    often calls for an inclusionary, nonmarginalizing,    compassionate embrace of all views, but exactly how to do    this is rarely spelled out, since in reality not all    views are of equal merit. The meeting is considered a    success, not if a conclusion is reached, but if everybody    has a chance to share their feelings. Since no view is    supposed to be inherently better than another, no real    course of action can be recommended, other than sharing    all views. If any statements are made with certainty, it    is how oppressive and nasty all the alternative    conceptions are. There was a saying common in the sixties:
"Freedom is an endless meeting." Well, the endless part
   was certainly right.

   In academia, this pluralistic relativism is the dominant    stance. As Colin McGuinn summarizes it: "According to this    conception, human reason is inherently local, culture-relative,    rooted in the variable facts of human nature and history,    a matter of divergent 'practices' and 'forms of life' and    'frames of reference' and 'conceptual schemes.' There are    no norms of reasoning that transcend what is accepted by    a society or an epoch, no objective justifications for    belief that everyone must respect on pain of cognitive    malfunction. To be valid is to be taken to be valid, and    different people can have legitimately different patterns    of taking. In the end, the only justifications for belief    have the form 'justified for me.'" As Clare Graves put    it, "This system sees the world relativistically. Thinking    shows an almost radical, almost compulsive emphasis on    seeing everything from a relativistic, subjective frame    of reference."

   The point is perhaps obvious: because pluralistic relativism    has such an intensely subjectivistic stance, it is    especially prey to narcissism. And exactly that is the    crux of the problem: pluralism becomes a supermagnet for    narcissism . Pluralism becomes an unwitting home for the    Culture of Narcissism, and narcissism is a great denier    of any integral culture in general and any T.O.E. in    particular (because narcissism refuses to step outside of    its own subjective orbit and hence it cannot allow truths    other than its own). Thus, on our list of obstacles to a    genuine Theory of Everything, we might list the Culture    of Narcissism and the exclusive dominance of the green    meme....

---end---

regards,
ep

ps, thanks for the excellent comments on "freedoms" (I was out for a 4 day weekend to do home maintenance, thus the late response). I always assumed Rocky was female, but for no particular reason.

On 22 May 2001, at 8:21, Mohan, Ross wrote:

Date sent:              Tue, 22 May 2001 08:21:50 -0800
To:                     Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>

...

> interesting post. Who was the author?

...

> || -----Original Message-----
> || From: Boivin, Patrice J [mailto:BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
> || Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:41 AM
> || To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> || Subject: RE: RE: job offer from SAUDI ARABIA
> || 
> || 
> || I am reading a book now, called Habits of the Heart, that 
> || gives a historical
> || perspective on different philosophical streams within 
> || American society.

...

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Eric D. Pierce
  INET: PierceED_at_csus.edu

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).