Profound point here from David Brooks in his 8/23 column in the New York Times:
… the No. 1 political fantasy in America today has inebriated both parties. It is the fantasy that the other party will not exist. It is the fantasy that you are about to win a 1932-style victory that will render your opponents powerless.
Every single speech in this election campaign is based on this fantasy. There hasn’t been a speech this year that grapples with the real world — that we live in a highly polarized, evenly divided nation and the next president is going to have to try to pass laws in that context
What he’s pointing to is a fantasy of every first-tier world view: that there is one proper way of seeing things, and once everybody is persuaded to that point of view peace will reign over the land. But it never happens because people have different antennae — they literally receive different inputs — and different ways of making sense of the world. (These variations extend beyond world views; see my previous post about the genetic differences between liberals and conservatives.)
At second-tier (integral) stages of consciousness we get to see that the way forward is not for any side to win — and thank God for that. We see that the contention itself is the engine of the development of a bigger system that includes the intelligence of all contenders.
I like who you “are” (under your photo)! You help keep me heartened!!
Thank you Maria!
Hi Jeff,
I agree that was a useful article by Brooks. 9/28 was very good too.
You say “At second-tier (integral) stages of consciousness we get to see that the way forward is not for any side to win — and thank God for that. We see that the contention itself is the engine of the development of a bigger system that includes the intelligence of all contenders.
To me that sounds like another version of the fantasy towards which Brooks is pointing. It’s all very well for “we” to see that but what about “them”? Sadly, there will be no integrally informed polity for many years to come (KW: there’s a gangster born every second).
For me, that perspective that ALL levels will actually be present and contributing to the social system, indeed *being* the social system, is largely missing from integral thinking. It often sounds like the old cry from us boomers in the sixties that, in effect, claimed that things will be better when *we’re* in charge.
What do you see me missing in that view?
Warm Regards,
Simon
Hey Simon, thanks for the thoughtful response. My intention is certainly not to promote the idea that one side is going to win. Quite the contrary. Each side will continue to fight and spin and fence with the other for a long time to come. The good news is that an ever more integrally informed polity is a result of that contention. The progress lies in the means: words instead of swords. For most of human history the spoils went to the victor. Now we have to contend with each other; no side is ever going to win in that absolute way again. This is evolutionarily potent in that the system itself now has to contain multiple perspectives. This is how, as you say “every level is present and contributing to a more integral system,” and it doesn’t require that each member of the system be integral, though more and more people are indeed waking up to the ability to hold multiple perspectives in their own individual psyches. Thanks again for reading and responding!
Jeff,
The dysfunction of polarized positions seems so obvious…I want to send both of them to their rooms! The independents are always the swing factor in a national election so it appears to me that both parties are fully captured by their radical minority base.
This “all of one and none of the other” messaging comes across as a total disregard for the intelligence of that swing vote. And here I thought we/they were evolving into green only to find an orange core beneath.
Please show me where this is but the one step back prior to the two steps forward. I know you can do it.
Ralph