• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DocWatts

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender
  1. And to add to that, the ability to empathize with forms of mistreatment that one hasn't experienced themselves is directly tied to one's ability to adopt other perspectives. So it's not at all surprising that someone who's at a level of development that's quite limited in its ability to take in other perspectives would find it inconceivable that the nice police officers in thier town are somehow part of a system that treats people who are of different race and socio-economic class very differently than how they themselves are treated. Since they've never had any sort of negative interactions with the Police or the Criminal Justice system, it's quite natural that someone with a limited ability to take on other perspectives would assume that anyone who is mistreated by the police must have done something to deserve it. Either that or the bad behavior is caused by one or two "bad apples", rather than as symptom of a systemic problem (since systems thinking only emerges at later stages of development). Add to that, in the minds of people at this level of development the Police and Criminal Justice system are thought of as a shield to protect one's group from the Other (ie thr scary parts of society that exist outside of one's in-group).
  2. What I was referring to wasn't his depiction of Dominator vs Growth Hierarchies (which is completely on point). Rather, I was referring more broadly to some of his perceptions of contemporary Green outside of an Academic context, which are somewhat biased by his experiences in Academia. He basically admits as much (that he's developed a bit of a Shadow from his experiences in Academia), during an Interview when the subject of Jordan Peterson was brought up, and how they have some of the same criticisms of Green.
  3. While I have great respect for Ken Wilber and largely agree with much of his philosophy and ethics, I do think that his negative experiences within Academia (who were resistant to many of his ideas) created a Shadow that has prevented him from fully Integrating SD-Green, which is why he demonizes it to some degree. In particular, one gets a sense that he conflates a specific form of somewhat extreme Academic Postmodernism as broadly representative of contemporary Green. Not that this is unique to Wilber, it's a common prejudice among Intellectuals who project an exaggerated importance to Academia on the broader Culture. While Ken Wilber's analysis of Hierarchies is on point, using confusion about Hierarchies as the primary focal point to view the Culture Wars is a highly Reductionist way of looking at such a broad issue. It also overlooks the fact that much of the Culture Wars is something that is intentionally being stoked by Bad Actors who have an interest in exasperating social and cultural divisions to further their own Political or Economic aims.
  4. I think it's more about realizing that human beings aren't infinitely malleable, which is a mistake that's common in many of the visionary attempts to remold society, from the French Revolution to Marx's vision for a stateless society run by workers. Accepting that some people are just kind of dumb only conflicts with Progressive values of equality and egalitarianism if you subscribe to outdated notions of someone's worth being determined by thier level of Intelligence. Or to put it another way, if you happen to believe that someone only has worth by the Utility they bring to the rest of the Society. (This was more or less the view of the very early Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and led to all sorts of ugliness such as eugenics. Something that to its credit modern Progressivism has shed itself of).
  5. On the whole, while many of the points that the video essay brings up are fair and valid critiques of Steven Pinker and The New Optimism paradigm, it also shares many of the same limitations that nearly all postmodern deconstruction of Grand Narratives fall in to at some point. Namely that by failing to think Dialectically and Developmentally, and by overlooking the interior aspects of development that gave rise to its own worldview, deconstructive postmodernism is ultimately self undermining. It's only because of the qualitative changes in development that the Enlightenment and Modernity brought about (including Industrialization and Globalization), that the Pluralistic worldview that the video essayist is espousing is even possible in the first place. (To be fair, he does briefly address some of these points in the conclusion of the video). That's not to say said criticism isn't Valid; only that it's partial and perspectival evaluation of the legacy of the Enlightenment and Modernity.
  6. @Milos Uzelac I think you're missing the point of what it means to participate in politics. There is never going to be an ideal candidate or Political Party that gets your stamp of approval on every issue, at least not in a Pluralistic Democracy which by its very nature entails some degree of compromising with other ideologies and with the system as it already exists. And the system that already exists is the largest Military Empire in the world. Not only are the Institutions which prop this up incredibly resistant to change, this sort of thing is so baked in to the system that dismantling it will require a monumental Overton window shift towards SD-Green that will be measured in Generations, not terms in Office. What you have to understand is that the American security apparatus is in many ways a State within a State, and that it's almost impossible to reach a position of power within the US System without engaging with this aspect of the US Political System. If you want to actually change things, what one should be shooting for is Game Change, rather than Game Denial. (or Game Acceptance for that matter). Which entails at least some amount of gradualism and choosing the best available options at any given time.
  7. Despite being someone whose values are more closely aligned with the Green Party than with the Democrats, my advice would be to avoid wasting your time with Third Parties, because structural roadblocks within the US system are such that it's almost impossible for them to win elections. If you want to have an actual impact, changing the Democratic Party from within seems to be the way to push the Overton window in a more Progressive direction, as evidenced by people like Bernie and AOC.
  8. Problem is, that's a straw man characterization of SD-Green. What the vast majority of SD-Green actually wants is actual (rather than empty lip service towards) Equality of Opportunity. Which involves creating Support Structures so that people who are born in to highly inequitable circumstances both have a chance to participate in society and live a life of dignity. Just creating a Meritocracy without mechanisms to give those born in to an unfortunate circumstances a chance to catch up so that they can compete is not true Equality of Opportunity. A good analogy is a game of Monopoly where one player starts the game with ten thousand dollars and a bunch of properties in thier name, and another player starts twenty turns in after most of the properties on the Board have already been bought up by the other players. In no way can the remainder of the game be said to be an actual Competition in any reasonable sense of the word, since who is going to win and who is going to lose is a foregone conclusion based on the differing conditions that each player started the game with. While some degree in Inequity in starting conditions is inevitable because people vary in thier intelligence, wisdom, abilities, and work ethic, much of the inequity is Socially Constructed and self perpetuating because of the way our social institutions are arranged. And that aspect of it we can and should change.
  9. Yeah America has the more sensible system you described exactly backwards. It's far cheaper and easier to eat processed garbage (which includes factory farmed meat/animal products). The result of which is that SD-Green communities where being a Vegetarian or Vegan is much easier also tend to be more affluent than much of the rest of the country. Trying to be a Vegan in inner city Detroit or rural Kentucky, while not impossible, is far more difficult when there's not infrastructure in place to accommodate a more conscious lifestyle.
  10. Here in the States, food deserts refer to low income areas where there's not a Grocery Store nearby, and thus residents living in these areas don't have access to healthy and affordable food. Imagine having to buy your all of your Groceries from an overpriced Gas Station around the corner, because you don't have access to a car and the public transportation that's available is highly limited.
  11. Not arguing against Veganism, but the assumption that most people can switch to a Vegan diet is built on a number of implicit assumptions, as simple as being affluent enough for a Vegan diet to be something that's actually achievable in the first place. Good luck trying maintain a Vegan diet if you're living in a Food Dessert, or don't have enough time and energy to prepare meals because you're working multiple jobs to keep a roof over your head. Which sadly is exactly the situation for large number of people here in the 'States.
  12. That's actually not too far off. In The Embodied Mind, which is an excellent introduction to the Enactive paradigm of Mind, the authors refer frequently to the perception of Color as a demonstration of Embodied Cognition. Something like the color Blue isn't something that exists "out there" in an external pre-given world, but is rather a codependent origination of a mind that's embedded and embodied in an environment. If we were somehow able to rip your brain out of your body and stuff it in to a Robot, much of the embedded interaction with your Body that makes up important aspects of your Mind would be irrevocably lost. For.a practical example of this, consider how things created in your body such as Hormones and Testosterone effect your mood. Likewise, the authors emphasize throughout the work that organisms are not parachuted in to a pre-given environment, but that organisms shape thier environment in a similar way to how an environment shapes individual organisms.
  13. That depends on whether your approach to an Vegetarianism/Veganism, or just environmentalism more broadly, is about Moral Purity or whether it's about Harm Reduction. Assuming you want to actually get something accomplished (rather than just congratulating yourself on your ethical decisions), Harm Reduction seems like the obvious choice. A time may come where switching to Veganism either becomes unavoidable (because of a Climate Apocalypse that results in Animal products being unavailable to most people) or becomes much less of a substantial lifestyle change (due to universal availability of alternatives to animal products), or both. Until that time, you have to be able to meet people where they're at...
  14. Reasonable Conservatives do of course exist, but have long since been driven from the Republican Party. A reasonable Conservative might find a home within the Democratic Party or run as a Third Party, but there's no future for them in a Republican Party that's devolved in to an Authoritarian Cult.
  15. Doesn't even have to go that far. A larger number of people adopting a Flexitarian type of diet which dramatically cuts down on the amount of animal products they consume would arguably do more for ecological sustainability than a much smaller subset of strict vegans.