DocWatts

@Nahm I suppose that brings up some interesting questions about if humans have a 'default' state of being, and if so what that nature is. My own intuition is that if such a thing exists, our 'natural' circle of concern remains quite small unless cultivated through socialization. Just considering the sorts of social structures that we're adapted to (small hunter gatherer tribes) are based on kin selection, and for the vast majority of human history opportunities to interact with people outside of one's small social circle was very limited. That said, the tricky thing with these sorts of questions is that the consequences for having an overly optimistic or pessimistic view of human nature can have rather drastic negative consequences.

Fair, and upon reflection perhaps I was responding to a connotation of implied passivity that wasn't necessary there, and was an assumption on my part. I suppose my larger point would be that compassion requires discernment, as acting in the world is a necessary component of compassion and every decision one makes brings with it opportunity costs.

Sure, but this deeper Truth is something that has to be compartmentalized to some degree because we have to live in a world where we have obligations towards other people. Compassion without good judgement and the ability to act in the world is mere sentiment. Being compassionate towards individuals while being critical towards institutions and ideologies seems like a good principle to live one's life by. Which includes being cultivating the ability to respond to the world in situationally appropriate ways

The structure of the Electoral College and Senate are arranged in a way to allow a minority of the country, namely rural white voters, to have an outsized influence on the political landscape. No doubt that whatever crypto-fascist clown the GOP runs in '24 will lose the popular Vote, but the system is rigged in a way where a candidate can lose by several million votes and still get sworn in to office. It's telling that Republicans have only managed to win the popular Vote one time in the past six presidential elections, yet were handed victory a total of three times. It's even worse for the Senate. Someone living in Wyoming has something like fifteen times the amount of Senatorial representation of someone living in California, because each state has two Senators representing them, regardless of population. The reason that Dems tend to lose isn't purely due to their own incompetence (though I won't deny this is a factor), but because they have a number of structural obstacles in their path. Obstacles that are hard to remove because they're baked in to the Institutions, and are fiercely defended by a minority who wouldn't be able to win elections without these undemocratic anachronisms. That's not to let the Democratic Party off the hook, as four decades of stagnating living standards from neoliberal austerity politics have created social conditions ripe for demagogues to benefit from widespread feelings of anger and disillusionment. And of course all of this is in addition to widespread and targeted efforts of Voting Suppression, and a large and well oiled propaganda machine with the express purpose of distracting and misinforming the public.

Also worth keeping in mind that a country like the United States is, at least federally, really only a partial democracy due to a number of undemocratic features baked into the structure of its Institutions (the highly undemocratic way that the Senate seats are distributed and the Electoral College being the most obvious examples). So any paradigm shifts among the broader population will naturally take longer to take root in State Institutions (at least on a Federal level), because the system is weighted in favor of the rural regions of the country.

While I'm far from being in any way supportive of the Military Industrial Complex, I see no inherent problem in the careful and deliberate use of historical anologies to contextualize the scale of the effort required to address Climate Change. Contextualizing something like the Green New Deal with analogies to the scale of The Marshal Plan or the United State's rapid change of Industrial priorities due to World War 2 seems like an appropriate way of framing discussions around the issue. Especially since here in the States it feels like nothing policy wise that's ambitious in scope has been attempted in the living memory of many people alive today, so there's not really a good contemporary analogue that can be looked to for illustrative purposes.

Whenever I hear Truth with a Capital 'T' brought up my first reaction is "yeah but Truth for whom?" The notion of a-perspectival Truth that's not situated within a context seems as contridactory as trying to describe something like color perception absent of its embodiment within consciousness. Note that I'm not saying that specific knowledge with wide ranging applicability within Reality isn't possible, merely that the belief that a coherent ontology which explains all aspects of Reality is even a possibility, is itself a tacit assumption.

I'll second what been said so far that your time and energy would be better spent on your own development, rather than trying to break others out of thier own paradigms. You'd be better off finding ways to make peace with the other paradigms, rather than trying to 'pull' others up to your own level and getting vexed when it doesn't work out.

The delicious irony being that Leo's own metaphysics and ontology are themselves filled with a number of tacit assumptions, albeit more subtle than the assumptions behind Materialism. But then again show me a metaphysics without unverifiable underlying assumptions and I'll eat my hat. It feels like most people's understanding of metaphysics is completely backwards. That's because it's far more productive to work backwards by looking at what a particular metaphysics is trying to accomplish, than to try and evaluate a particular metaphysics in a vacuum. Materialist science has a particular set of needs so its metaphysics is arranged in a certain way. Something like buddhism is trying to accomplish something quite different, so no surprise that it's metaphysics are arranged quite differently. Hell, if you want to step it back to a more meta perspective the idea that there's one 'correct' ontology that's applicable to every aspect of reality, is itself an assumption... If we look at what metaphysics actually is, it's a coherent and systemic attempt to make sense of reality. It's something we create to help us make sense of the world, rather than something 'out there' that we discover. That being the case, Reality is under no obligation to be comprehensible to us in a way that fits neatly in to any single abstract system that we invent.

What I've started doing recently is to spend a bit of time journaling after I've finished a work. This has been hugely helpful as far as integrating whatever it is I've been reading in to my larger conceptual system and worldview. Ive also found it helpful to oscillate between reading different types of books. After finishing something long and technical I might grab a work of fantasy literature or someone's memoirs as my next read. Or move to a non fiction book in an unrelated subject to my previous read. I've found that this is a good practice for giving one's mind a bit of rest and for avoiding burnout.

The validity of the idea that science is imaginary is going to be context dependent upon how we define 'imaginary', and also upon the metaphysics one is using as a frame of reference. If 'imaginary' is taken to mean not having a separate ontological existence apart from us, then sure science is imaginary (as is every other conceptual category we project out on to the world). If 'imaginary' is taken to mean 'lacks validity because it's not ontologically separate from us', then it's here I would end up disagreeing. Sure science is born out of human conceptual categories and it's truths are contextual, but that's totally fine. Contextual truth is still truth after all

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn is a good resource in this regard, as it deconstructs the simplified notions of what science is presented as in the culture. Most prominently, it corrects the naive misperception that science is an accumulation of Facts and Theories building towards 'The Truth' like a someone building a house lays down bricks. As the author describes it, how science actually works is as a dialectical process of shifting paradigms that are incommensurable with one another. No disrespect to Leo, but an actual scientist and historian with a lifetime of professional experience has insights that someone outside of the scientific profession wouldn't have access to.

@Tanz Sounds like you may be unintentionally conflating LGBTQ rights with neoliberalism. Owing to a number of structurally undemocratic elements within the American system, working within the establishment (or at least not making it see your movement as its enemy) is necessary to some degree to have any chance of actually getting policy passed. Progressives aren't the ones pushing for US military imperialism, even if they may not have the political power to prevent that from happening. As you allude to, it's true that many (hell, probably the vast majority of) people aren't entirely consistent with their worldview, which consists of a patchwork of unquestioned assumptions and contradictory beliefs. And it's also true that 'woke' culture has been appropriated to some degree by corporations who use it for marketing purposes because they need to adapt to changing social norms to survive. None of that invalidates the fact that changing social norms towards inclusivity for marginalized people is a good and necessary societal development (albeit one with some growing pains).

As to the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, I've yet to come across anything like a full book about that model, but I recall a chapter or so in The Listening Society which did a great job explaining the model in non-technical language (and with examples).

Sex, Ecology, Spirituality is generally considered his Magnum opus, but I wouldn't recommend most people pick that up as their first Wilber book as it's a pretty lengthy and involved read (something like 800 or 900 pages). A Theory of Everything or Integral Vision are good introductions to his work, and are both relatively brief reads. Then if you're intrigued and want a far more in depth examination of Integral Theory move on to Integral Pyschology or Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.

If you're interested in both science and epistemology I'd highly recommend it for the way it explains how science actually works, as opposed to the image of science that's projected throughout our culture. And for the way it details how what is essentially a problem solving venture that's normally practiced within set limits is nonetheless able to produce gestalt shifts that are significant for the entire world. The book covers some of the same points as Leo's science video series, but is written by a professional scientist who has a lifetime of experience with his subject matter (and who of course has a different set of biases and metaphysical assumptions than Leo).

Funny your mentioning the difference between Normal and extraordinary science as I'm currently reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions right now... As for the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, my own view is that it would be to the benefit of Integral and Metamodern communities/groups to emphasize this Model more, as it's incredibly powerful especially when used alongside more sociologically oriented models like Spiral Dynamics. The two compliment each other quite nicely, as something like Spiral Dynamics when stretched to try and fill the role of a holistic model for individual development has some serious defects.

I'd say what I'm most appreciative of is that I even have an inner life that's available for me to explore. How strange is it that I have this innate ability to contemplate and self reflect on my experiences, and to be able to find satisfaction in doing so. This is something that's seemingly simple only because it's usually taken for granted. Being able to engage with my intellect and my emotions enriches every other aspect of my life. The fact that this innate capacity is something that can be cultivated over the course of one's life is something that never ceases to amaze me.

In the US, we're in the midst of a paradigm shift towards Green, one that will played out over Generations rather than election cycles. One of the Truths of development is that social progress becomes possible when previous Generations finally die off and give the rest of society room to grow. When Millennials and Gen Z are in the position that the Boomers currently occupy *maybe* we'll see something resembling a solidification of Green as the new center of gravity. But considering that the upcoming century is going to be one filled instability and strife as the world copes with the effects of climate change this upward trend towards Green is by no means certain. Red and Blue tend to thrive in periods of chaos and uncertainty...

Dave Chappelle is quite insightful when it comes to issues of race and really out of touch when it comes to LGBTQ issues. One doesn't invalidate the other. It's okay to still like his standup comedy, as long as your realize that when it comes to gender he's an out of touch Gen-Xer who brings with him biases from earlier generations.

If we take 'woke' as a rough proxy for SD-Green, almost no giant multi-billion dollar business would qualify. Whatever socially progressive values these companies profess to have will always come second to thier bottom line. More often than not the 'woke' image that these companies like to cultivate is for PR purposes in order to adapt their business to changing social norms (ie broader acceptance of things like LGBTQ rights). While this might come off as overly cynical, in actuality this is how adoption of a new paradigm (SD Green) actually happens; businesses being forced to adapt (however reluctantly) to changing social norms if they hope to survive. A more substantive adoption of SD Green that takes in to account the needs of workers and the ecology of the planet is still a long way off, and will probably require structural changes in the global economy before it becomes business as usual.

The reason this is so is that we can never get completely 'beyond' the embodied nature of our direct experience. Our direct perceptions are always going to be mediated by the types of creatures we are and how our brains are structured, regardless of whether or not we have moved beyond illusions created by our conceptual system such as subject-object dualism. To illustrate this, imagine how different direct experience would be for a bat or an insect or an octopus. The Truth being that we can't really imagine it because the nature of our direct experience are inseparable from the types of creatures we are. Just saying that we're the universe dreaming that it has a physical body strikes me as more of a hand wave than a serious attempt to grapple with this epistemological issue of embodiment. Is being mindful of the way our conceptual system creates illusions (that help us to navigate the world but nonetheless don't exist in reality) a less deluded way of living in the world? I'm convinced that it is so, but extrapolating that to the idea that non-conceptual awareness doesn't also have limitations seems like a different (though more subtle) way of deluding ourselves.

Sounds like you may be struggling to integrate your Survival Needs (namely the emotional and social needs that are being filled by the things you mentioned), with the sense of Social Responsibility that you feel. It's a common problem faced by socially conscious people who happen to occupy a privileged position in society. While it's undoubtedly a good thing to try and engage with the Material Conditions that exist in a more concsious and self aware manner, disengaging and living a life of asceticism isn't going to actually fix any of the system problems that exist in the world today. You'd be far better off by supporting collective efforts to address systemic problems by standing in solidarity with groups working for economic and ecological justice, than by engaging in the system that exists and feeling guilty about it. Your feeling guilty about buying a shirt or a gaming computer isn't actually going to help anyone. Supporting labor and climate activism is something tangible you can do to help instead of feeling guilty.

Then extrapolate this principal as the rich being able to isolate themselves in this way from virtually every systemic problem faced by the larger society, and it's no surprise that institutions within the US are as dysfunctional as they are. While I think that fears of an imminent social collapse to be vastly overblown, I do find it unsettling to see several longstanding systemic problems within the US reflected in case studies of societies which have collapsed (thinking in particular of the work of Jared Diamond who's written extensively in this topic).

@BenG I think it's important to be able to make a distinction between people who cynically use this issue to exploit cultural divisions for the purposes of amassing wealth and political power, and the vast bulk of SD-Blue level people who are prone to being manipulated through emotionally charged issues. It's not that the latter aren't sincere in their beliefs, it's more that thier political positions aren't clearly thought out. Internal consistency simply isn't a priority for many of these people. Indeed, it seems like a truism that people at later developmental stages can have difficulty even grasping that inconsistent and contradictory beliefs can be sincerely held. It's important to realize that generally speaking SD-Blue simply isn't at a developmental stage where deconstruction of one's worldviews and beliefs is something that's palatable; indeed thinking through the implications of one's beliefs is deeply threatening to the ego for people at this Stage. Political and ethical decisions are more about identification with one's Tribe than it is about having any sort of consistent or coherent worldview. There's a reason why 'my country right or wrong' is most prevalent at this stage.