Sender: Lawrence Chickering
Subject: Re: Integral - or Die
Date: Thu, May 22, 2014
Msg: 101008

Bruce,

I don't want to try to respond to this entire statement. I only want to say more about what I meant by the statement you quoted below: 'We live in a connected world of subjects.' This can be read in different ways. Some of them, especially in talking about public life, are very abstract and esoteric. I mean it as something pretty simple, which everyone has experienced in private life. One challenge we face is to bring into the world (in public) things we know absolutely to be true (in private).

Interpersonal, spiritual connection is the starting place for the journey to larger spiritual connections. Coming from connection to self, it leads to connections to larger circles of people -- first, family and tribe, leading out to nation, nature, and cosmos (God). The power of connection is latent in everyone; the challenge is to nourish it and bring it out in the feelings of public spirit that I take it are essential to cultures that people want to live in.

When organizations try to impose connection on people, disciplined by punishment -- the most extreme examples tend, ironically and tragically, to be found in the governmental sector, devoted to 'public spirit' -- the result is often to drive people into obsessive concern for private interest. This is the nightmare of unconnected public schools, which drives so many teachers out of teaching. Forcing people to do things mechanically creates the image of certainty and the reality of disconnection, distrust, and things out of control. The mechanistic dream of forcing connection on people is, in reality, the dream of hoping that fiddling with income distribution can produce a connected world. It is a dream based on hoping you can achieve connection on the cheap. It is the hope that you can realize Kingdom Come by winning a national election and throwing a big, centralized light switch.

Well, the challenge of being human is more challenging than that. It is also more significant, less trivial. Building a connected, transpartisan society is hard in that it will require effort. But it is also easy because it taps into the most primal aspiration of all human beings: connection. This explains why my organization, Educate Girls Globally, can be in something like 7,000 schools in the most difficult (tribal) parts of rural India at a cost of less than $5.00 per child per year for the two-year program (free after that). It explains why governments are joining us and starting to pay for the program -- because it offers connection to government bureaucrats who previously lived in nightmare, unconnected worlds of bureaucratic rules. Moreover, for these reasons the program works in every single school. All major political constituencies, left to right, support the program. There is no conflict in it because there is nothing to fight about.

We live in a connected world. Our transpartisan challenge is to make the connection manifest.

Lawry Chickering Educate Girls Globally Beyond Left and Right (1993) and (with James S. Turner) Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life (2008)

On May 20, 2014, at 09:32, Bruce Schuman wrote:

> (been writing this for an hour or so -- now there are a couple more messages, one mentioning "break-though". Well -- I am pushing for a big revolution in the entire subject -- a revolution to which I think we are compelled. Thanks.) > > > > > Catching my breath, and feeling this conversation -- and sensing the pulse of hope somewhere deep in the heart of collective evolution -- this theme is hammering on me this morning, and I seem compelled to say this. > > We are called to a break-through here. Either we screw up the courage and the imagination and the intellectual integrity and the sheer creative energy it takes to even suppose such things are possible -- based on at least a dim peripheral-vision awareness of all these related factors swimming around us -- or we fall back, cling to what seems comfortable in a narrower perspective, and continue investing hope and passion and words into a vast sea of irresolvable bickering.... > > > A CONNECTED WORLD > > There have been some very helpful and illuminating messages posted here recently. > > Tom Atlee gave us a very good basic introduction to "dichotomous logic", and the innate tendency to "either/or" thinking ( and concluded by saying "I find myself wondering if we are approaching a political reality where civilization will either terminate itself or radically shift to a new order quite beyond polarization"). John Miller in this message brings up the issue of connecting religion, spirituality and science -- and in a previous message, mentioned the need for "whole systems" and simultaneity -- all of which are pointing towards broadly-inclusive integral models Michael Strong presented some critical ideas for a holistic ethics. Lawry Chickering's points about spirituality and religion are of the essence -- and his statement about a "connected world" and the lack of a language or framework to discuss it is critical: > > The central deficiency in our current idiom is its mechanistic, objectified > core. Empowerment depends on understanding that we live in a Connected > World of subjects. Unfortunately, we have no language that bridges the gap > between the formal practices of traditional religion and informal spiritual > practices. The absence of such a language makes it impossible to have a > coherent conversation about this subject. [I would suggest that the search > for such a language might begin by examining carefully the concepts of God > that range from preconscious subjective (in The Garden) to increasingly > conscious and objective (especially in institutionalized Christianity) to > increasingly conscious and secular (Enlightenment and beyond) to > increasingly conscious and (now) increasingly subjective and 'spiritual'.] > > Please forgive this diversion from the subject at hand, which I could not > avoid because I think engaging these issues is essential to get us away from > the desiccated notion of people as objects that now strangles our debate. > I believe that a major priority for the transpartisan movement should be > to bridge this gap between 'religious' and 'spiritual', opening up a much > wider subjective vision of human possibility that animates people and > programs everywhere. > > "We live in a connected world of subjects" > > Which means what? > > I take it to mean -- that all subjects are connected (in some way not entirely clear, but intuitively knowable) to one another. > > This is a theme perhaps once known as "the unity of the sciences" -- or "interdisciplinary studies" -- and which might be seen today in "global studies" -- as per, for example, this current essay from The Great Transition Initiative: http://www.greattransition.org/images/GTI_publications/Paehlke_Global_Citizenship_Plausible_Fears_Necessary_Dreams.pdf > > And the spirituality and religion issues -- well, all of that comes together today in the emerging field of "Interspirituality" -- where even atheists and humanists are intersecting with Buddhists and Christians and monks and scholars -- and indeed, cognitive psychologists and epistemologists -- in the universal quest for a universal ethics for a global society... > > > A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT > > This issue -- this connected world -- knowable today only through intuition, because our intellect and science cannot adequately grasp it -- is and has always been a primary issue and concern throughout the entire history of human evolution and civilization. Our inability to master and articulate this interconnectivity -- leaving its vision and guardianship to the priests and metaphysicians and far-seers and wise-women -- has led to us to endless stonings and witch-burnings and the bitter and blind animosity between science and religion. This same philosophical inadequacy has stripped us our ethical foundations on the grounds of parochialism, and made it almost impossible for us to agree. > > And this compelling call to a new "transpartisan" politics and mode of self-governance, to which many of us are responding -- does utterly involve this interdependence. So, those of us who care are stuck with a choice. We can choose a fragmented world, and spit at each other across the chasms -- or we can take a huge beautiful leap of faith together -- into a new world based on primal ancient wisdom in the new garb of system science and holistic psychology -- and the vast everywhereness of the Googolplex that could hold this world together -- > > We need a new social contract -- and the core definition of that contract ought to be forged here, at the cutting-edge of the new democracy. > > There are fifty popular prophets out there today telling us these things, and innumerable social critics and political commentators pointing out the consequences of our failing assumptions, and more cautious intellectuals and academics are doing everything in their power to forge the intellectual authenticity these visions of wholeness and oneness really demand. > > So -- is it really an issue of moral courage? Is there an ethical failure here? > > It is tempting to say yes -- because there does sometimes seem to be a chronic failure to fully embrace this compelling necessity among the brilliant beautiful liberal intellectuals who do see much of the holistic vision -- but somehow continue failing to fully convene the elements of wholeness into a workable framework. It sometimes seems they too often settle for continuing talk and the personal comfort zone. But it's not fair to say this -- because they, too, must operate by what they perceive to be the laws of responsible thought, and stick to what they know can be trusted, since for them there appears to be no bridge across the chasm. And yes, this is a "cocreative and evolutionary process" that is fueled and driven by continuing conversation -- and everything I myself am doing is also controlled by those principles. And yes, this emerging new integral structure is complex, and overwhelming, and its sheer "bandwidth" seems to violate something like the social protocols of a world that works. It is almost impossible to communicate the full dimensionality of this new framework. Perhaps, like the Tao, it simply "cannot be spoken" -- and only "known" -- and we would hope, acted upon... > > So yes, it is true, there is a tsunami of relevancies in our social context today that is tending to drown and perhaps extinguish the vision. It's everywhere around us, and we have to survive it. And we do have to be patient and endure while this new solution is forged. > > But it seems clear -- that what we need -- in the most compelling way -- is a path of activism -- that summarizes this entire vast array of simultaneous interdependencies -- and brings the entire revolution into focus in an immediate and practical and feasible way. > > Find a way to act -- in the context of this vast and unknowable/indescribable holistic awareness. That is the call.... > > > COMMON SENSE > > For my money -- a simple phrase posted here a month or so ago by Joan Blades is the modern-day Thomas Paine "Common Sense" call to transformative social revolution in a nutshell. This is the entire spiritual/political integral revolution in one sentence. This is the flag to wave -- this is the key to the integral action at the immediate local point, that contains by implication the full breadth of the integral vision -- > > "Holding the tension of our differences while working together with respect and an open heart, we can create solutions that are better than any group alone could devise..." > > Well, the quote actually is "I believe we can create solutions...." > > Hold that tension, and act through that faith -- and something tremendous can be released. > > It IS an act of faith. We have to step into the fire of that faith -- trusting that this vast sea of intellectual details that fan out from this small intellectual/spiritual/political encounter process will indeed eventually contain the ten-thousand intellectual details we need to reassure our doubting minds. It IS a task that can be completed -- once the leap is taken.... > > And "holding that tension" -- that tension is the rocket-fuel of renaissance--it is the collective fire of pure creativity that drives society forward. This is the power that can revitalize a nation and build a vibrant global civilization. > > (See Willis Harman and Howard Rheingold -- "Higher Creativity: Liberating the Unconscious for Breakthrough Insights") > > Give us time, give us bandwidth, give us space and breathing room -- and we'll get all those details ("what IS the relationship between science and religion?" "What is the proper role of spirituality and religion in the public square?") nailed down tight and responsible. There is fervent work going on out there on a thousand issues like this today, and they are all converging towards simplicity. But it's a huge step -- a mind-blowing simplicity and a huge intellectual/spiritual revolution -- as "the many" merge into "the one" in an unprecedented intellectual/spiritual fusion. > > There is no turning back. We are compelled by historical and evolutionary forces to fuse a new integral vision and a new social contract based upon it. So, the call simply is: step up to the plate, get with the program. Stop screwing around and wandering in vague repeating circles of complex ungrounded verbiage that can never converge into agreement... > > Step into the new circle of fire. That's the only option out there today. Choose life -- or choose confusion and fragmentation and vanity and the shattered splinters of a dying cultural meme. > > The only real question is -- how long is it going to take us to figure this out, and start acting on it together -- and how much human agony will have to be endured because we couldn't find the courage and the imagination to act... > > > Bruce Schuman > NETWORK NATION: http://networknation.net > SHARED PURPOSE: http://sharedpurpose.net > INTERSPIRIT: http://interspirit.net > (805) 966-9515, PO Box 23346, Santa Barbara CA 93101 > > From: List for transpartisan leaders and innovators [mailto:TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG] On Behalf Of millershed@EARTHLINK.NET > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 4:17 PM > To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] An Ideological Turing Test featuring arguments against Raddatz's "Cap and Prioritize" proposal > > I want to emphasize the importance of what Lawry brings up. I would also like to consider expanding it a bit to bridging the perspectives of religion, spirituality, AND science. In saying this, I understand that science is a root cause of the mechanistic worldview that Lawry refers to, and so might seem an unhelpful addition to the conversation. But I would like to propose that the science of complexity is non-linear, non-mechanistic, non-reductionistic, and non-deterministic. Some years ago I was at a talk of the Dalai Lama's where he said we need a secular ethics, rooted in science. I think complexity theory can contribute to both ethics and spirituality. > > I would just add, to Michael S's question, that a complex systems approach makes me think in terms of self-organization, which makes me sympathetic to the idea that government is not the answer to all or even most of our problems. That said, ideally, government SHOULD be self-organizing, and so should have a constructive role to play. I think that (as now in the US) weak or missing feedback loops (as manifested by gerrymandering, the influence of vast amounts of money, two-party polarization, etc.) result in a situation where the great majority of citizens have lost faith in the responsiveness of government to their needs--so why would they want it to get bigger or trust it to wisely spend their tax dollars? And, just saying, I'm a progressive. . . . > > John Miller > (952) 797-2302 > Green Tea Party Movement > -----Original Message----- > From: Lawrence Chickering > Sent: May 18, 2014 9:52 AM > To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] An Ideological Turing Test featuring arguments against Raddatz's "Cap and Prioritize" proposal > > Michael (S), > > I regard myself as a 'bleeding heart libertarian', and I have thoughts about > supporting Raddatz's proposal. Here goes: > > The vision of helping the disadvantaged that is currently dominant in our debate > sees the problem as entirely an objective problem, which is 'solved' by resource > transfers. This vision (unfortunately) sees the disadvantaged only as objects, > which is a pitifully limited view of human beings. Worrying only about resource > transfers to objects reduces human relationships to the level of the care > and feeding of farm animals. > > Objective inequality exists in many dimensions, most of them unsolvable > by resource transfers (it exists in all dimensions in terms of which people > differentiate themselves -- besides wealth, intelligence, beauty, appreciation > of art, etc, etc). > > Fifteen seconds' reflection will make it clear that 'progressives' preoccupation > with objective equality is impossible as a policy objective. The real challenge > is the impulse to differentiate because the more equal one term of differentiation > becomes, the more important others become (assuming constant need to > differentiate). > > The really unfortunate thing about our current philosophical idiom is that > objective equality is the gold standard principle of moral discourse. I believe > this is utterly bankrupt as a defining principle of our moral life. The idea, > ultimately, that everyone can be above average in everything is not only > laughably (because logically) impossible; it is also brutally cruel because it > steers masses of people to believe their lives are failures. > > I am here, of course, critiquing the order-left. But many on the right are > also guilty of a brutal (though different) focus on equality. Many on the > right argue that equal opportunity is the touchstone of justice: equal > opportunity to 'get ahead' and achieve 'The American Dream'. Why is this > also brutal? Because if you can only achieve The American Dream by > being a 'winner', it follows that masses of people are cut out of The > Dream; they are 'losers'. > > I believe both visions are unacceptable -- much worse than that, both > visions are vile. > > People as Subjects > > Let me try starting in a different place (in terms of what is important). > Assume for the moment that people are more than farm animals. Assume > that we need to worry about more than people as objects; we also have to > worry about them as subjects. > > A very wise man once told me that the key to joy is creation. I would argue > that the key to opportunities for creation is empowerment, and this -- I > would argue -- should be the great principle underlying our political morality. > Empowerment, I believe, is what connects your references to Mohammed > Yunus, Hernando de Soto, etc., as well as my own program, Educate Girls > Globally. I believe that empowerment is the central value underlying > everything that is working. > > Empowerment is a complicated concept, which includes both individualistic > and collective elements (empowerment needs to liberate people to 'be > themselves', but it also needs to do it understanding that connection -- > to self, others, nature and cosmos -- are also important). > > The central deficiency in our current idiom is its mechanistic, objectified > core. Empowerment depends on understanding that we live in a Connected > World of subjects. Unfortunately, we have no language that bridges the gap > between the formal practices of traditional religion and informal spiritual > practices. The absence of such a language makes it impossible to have a > coherent conversation about this subject. [I would suggest that the search > for such a language might begin by examining carefully the concepts of God > that range from preconscious subjective (in The Garden) to increasingly > conscious and objective (especially in institutionalized Christianity) to > increasingly conscious and secular (Enlightenment and beyond) to > increasingly conscious and (now) increasingly subjective and 'spiritual'.] > > Please forgive this diversion from the subject at hand, which I could not > avoid because I think engaging these issues is essential to get us away from > the desiccated notion of people as objects that now strangles our debate. > I believe that a major priority for the transpartisan movement should be > to bridge this gap between 'religious' and 'spiritual', opening up a much > wider subjective vision of human possibility that animates people and > programs everywhere. > > People from other cultures often critique American culture with thoughts > like: 'Is there anything Americans think they can't buy?' The critique has > important elements of truth in it, and one of them is in the vision of social > justice that is preoccupied with resource transfers. As long as our debate is > dominated by this as a moral principle, we will never address the real > challenge of justice, which has to do with people as subjects. An important > way to redirect our discourse is to cap the money we can spend. For this > reason I support Raddatz's proposal. > > Lawry Chickering > Educate Girls Globally > > On May 17, 2014, at 15:11, Michael Strong wrote: > > > Michael, > > First of all, I want to thank you for your sustained, respectful, and enthusiastic embrace of the transpartisan cause. > > Second, my perception is that your amendments to my attempts to pass the Ideological Turing Test were of the nature of adding nuance and refinements to the positions I outlined rather than fundamental disagreements. That is, based on your amendments, I'd be inclined to give myself a "passing grade," so to speak, on the "test," while respecting that you added considerable philosophical and practical detail to the relatively blunt and simplistic "progressive" statements that I had provided. > > Third, I would be interested in seeing you or other progressives on this list attempt to "pass" an Ideological Turing Test, especially for a "bleeding heart libertarian" perspective, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding-heart_libertarianism > > Why might a "bleeding heart libertarian" support Raddatz's "cap-and-prioritize" proposal? > > Michael Strong > CEO and Chief Visionary Officer > FLOW, Inc. > www.flowidealism.org > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Michael Briand wrote: > Thank you, Michael S., for this careful construction of a rationale. I can imagine someone subscribing to it, but (for myself, at least) I would amend it somewhat. > > 1. First, I don't believe "it is (a) self-evident to a moral human being that (b) once one's basic needs have been met, (c) most of the rest of one's wealth and income should be devoted to (d) helping those in need." > (a) No propositions of any sort are "self-evident," though we often (because of Godel's proof) have to treat them as such in order to get an argument off the ground. That's why ethical argument is so difficult to initiate and sustain--we can't agree on a starting point. > (b) People have many basic needs, so the question of the proper threshold beyond which anyone ought to consider the consequences of his or her self-regarding actions is a matter that must be settled through dialogue and deliberation. For example, whether or not Rawls was right about the principles of justice he argued that persons in the Original Position would select, the derivation of those principles was hypothetical, not actual. (See, e.g., Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge.) If you feel you need the gratification that owning a 200-foot yacht provides, I have a duty to engage you in discussion about that need and how you can best go about having it satisfied (and how I might help you do so). > (c) "Most" is arbitrary and (probably) excessive. The question of what one owes her society and compatriots should be taken up in the context of a joint consideration of (i) the benefits each of us receives from our way of life, its practices and institutions (including markets), etc.; (ii) the consequences for everyone of allowing them to fall into disrepair; and (iii) the responsibility each of us bears for contributing to their upkeep. > (d) Devoting "most" to "those in need" suggests simple redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality of wealth. I don't think it's that simple. Who needs assistance, of what type, for what purpose, when, and in what form are highly relevant considerations that have implications for the nature and extent of anyone's responsibility for contributing to the upkeep of institutions, practices, infrastructure, and the like that benefit everyone, even if only very indirectly. > > 2. Second, it can certainly be the case that "government is too large" or that "government spends too much." But in relation to what? The problem with the "cap" portion of "cap and prioritize" is not its artificiality but its suggestion either that there is some "absolute" limit that must be respected (in order to avoid what?) or that, contingently, we have reached the point at which it is no longer practical (in virtue of what?) to continue at the current level. Are we talking about spending in relation to GDP? If so, GDP measured how? (It matters.) In relation to total debt? To the annual deficit? In relation to comparable nations (Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Canada, Sweden)? In relation to our own future? What evidence should we consider as we try to establish a causal link between level of spending or "size" of government and consequences anyone reasonably might agree are undesirable? > > 3. Is "Cap and Prioritize" about "set[ting] ... limits on what Americans can or should do for their fellow citizens, for their country, and for the world"? As I've agreed before, "ought implies can." But what Americans "can" do is pretty far down the line toward literal impossibility. Fighting the Second World War was something we could do and did do. When William James said the modern world needs the "moral equivalent of war," he was talking about a cause that would inspire us to make the kind of sacrifices people made willingly when the world (not just the U.S.) was threatened in the late 30s and 40s, or earlier, in the 1770s. So the basic question is really the normative one of what we shoulddo. It seems to me a non-starter to agree to "cap" what government does or what it spends before we address the question of what we should do (and hence, perhaps, whatgovernment should do) if we are able. The question is not whether we are able, but ableat what sacrifice by whom? There is an implicit assumption in "capping" that calls for discussion of both what we should do and then, in light of that, what we "can" do. > As for prioritizing, done well this would be enormously helpful, at least periodically. Whether we could go to zero-based budgeting every year or every two years is another question. For me, prioritizing is imperative, even if we had (per impossibile) the fiscal means to do everything. There are always hard choices to be made, and the public currently is not bearing the responsibility for facing up to and making these. But asking the public how many billions it wants to pay for defense versus social assistance won't work. People must be able to relate their contribution to collective expenses to the scale of budgeting with which they're familiar in daily life. (How many Starbuck's grande lattesfor my share of an adequate supply of drones?) > Do we want to open this particular can of worms? I'm inclined to say yes. But others might have reservations. > > 4. I understand the desire to try asking a simple, straightforward question and receiving a simple, clear, straightforward answer. The only way to do that, though, is to unpack every element in a question or statement to the point where your interlocutor feels he or she can give such an answer. Although your hypothetical rationale is a good and welcome step in that direction, for me it doesn't unpack things nearly enough, as I hope my reply indicates. > > Thanks again, Michael. > > Michael Briand > > > > From: Michael Strong > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 1:27 PM > To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > Subject: [TRANSPARTISAN] An Ideological Turing Test featuring arguments against Raddatz's "Cap and Prioriitize" proposal > > In an earlier thread, I was surprised that after I came out supporting Rick Raddatz's "Cap and Prioritize" proposal, there were many follow-up posts that struck me as completely unrelated to my post. In going through to see how these well-intentioned people had thought they were responding to my post, I realized that if I put myself back into the progressive mindset, their seemingly unrelated comments might make sense. > > This sense of temporary disorientation led me to attempt to pass an "Ideological Turing Test" by presenting a progressive's argument against Raddatz's "Cap and Prioritize." I'd love to hear if progressives here have a significantly different set of rationales for not supporting Raddatz's "Cap and Prioritize" proposal, or if this is a roughly decent articulation for a progressive's rationale for not supporting his proposal: > > Conservatives and libertarians want to cap government spending and then work with transpartisan progressives to improve the manner in which government funds are spent. While we respect the transpartisan spirit of this proposal, in a world in which inequality is the over-riding issue of our time, in a world facing severe environmental challenges, and in a nation with inadequate public goods, the cap-and-prioritize proposal is unacceptable. > > There is abundant evidence that above a certain point, more wealth does not increase happiness. At the some time, there is abundant evidence that poverty and inequality result in severe harms to the health and well-being of the least disadvantaged in our society. There is also abundant evidence that our environment is at risk, including global warming, over-fishing, water scarcity, ecosystem vulnerability, loss of species and habitat, dead zones in our coastal waters due to excessive pesticide and fertilizer usage, etc. Finally our public goods are undersupplied: our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are broken, our universities are underfunded, we are at risk of falling behind globally due to cuts in research, etc. > > We believe that it is self-evident to a moral human being that once one's basic needs have been met, most of the rest of one's wealth and income should be devoted to helping those in need. Thus over some income threshold, most additional income should be taxed to support programs to help those in need. Additional funds should be devoted to preserving our ecosystem and financing public goods. > > Therefore because of: > > 1. The scale of need among the disadvantaged. > 2. The urgency of ecosy