Posts Tagged ‘Ken Wilber’

Ken Wilber and Integral Politics. Part 2:

In the previous post we got as far as where green jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.

So, what happened to green postmodernism to cause it to jump into the fire as suggested by Wilber in the previous post?

The problem is that postmodern liberalism was so happy with its newfound freedom and ‘enlightenment’ that it forgot to ‘transcend-and-include’ the lower levels of development’s values to arrive at, and consolidate a higher value system from where it could influence, encourage and inspire people at lower levels (Amber and Orange) to move up to the postmodern green level.

They could see so clearly now that all people were the same. All people were equal and in their enthusiasm they made the fatal pre/trans fallacy mistake, believing that everybody from the lowest levels of development knew this and could see this new world of freedom and joy for all mankind.

Ken Wilber explains the problem thus:

“The problem is that liberalism—championing equality—will not face the fact that it is an elitism. It is a value structure held by a minority in most cultures, including ours—but it is an elitism, the only elitism that wishes to treat EVERYBODY fairly and equally, even if they disagree with you. Even if they disagree with you and your values, you as a liberal will accord them equal status before the law. But the number of people who can do that—the number of people at world centric orange or higher—is less than 50% in this country and less than 30% in the world at large (and even less than 30% in South Africa?). And the point in any event is that orange itself is a developmental achievement (and only one of the stages in a hierarchy of stages) reached only at higher stages, and if you don’t get to those higher stages, you simply don’t produce liberalism. (Recap this with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Piaget’s cognitive development, Graves’ development of values as well as Kegan’s orders of consciousness for a better understanding of Wilber’s statement above).

“So, if liberalism stated its own stance more accurately, it would say that liberalism is an elite developmental stance, often reached by a relative minority of people, but whose values insist on treating not just that elite but everybody equally—an unheard-of fairness and generosity (my italics). It is an egalitarianism held by an elite. But the typical liberal, not understanding both of those clauses, often arrives at the disaster of a conclusion that it is an egalitarianism held by everybody, or easily could be. Whereas, at this time in history, very few people share that value, and it’s losing ground. (my italics) Liberalism is an elitism that is open to everybody, but to actually get there and share liberal world centric values require interior hierarchical development from egocentric to ethnocentric to world centric.

But if you deny, and actually despise any form of hierarchy, you enter egalitarian flatland where no social or spiritual progress or evolution is possible. You basically commit suicide and take everyone with you.

“The separation of church and state—some form of which is absolutely necessary, to be sure—degenerates into an extreme and rancid version that amounts to the oppression of all interiors, via a sin not of commission but of a sin of omission, an oppression by silence and consequent ineptitude. Instead of pioneering a new wave of interior talk—higher values talk, higher spiritual talk, higher character talk, higher meaning talk—it talks only of tepid egalitarianism, a supposed plurality of equal values, tractionless multiculturalism, (my italics) … Whereupon every interior, no matter how vulgar and narcissistic and self-serving, is accorded not just equal respect but equal value, period — and the regressive nightmare is about to begin.

“And so classical liberalism, and virtually every variety of the Left, saddled with a flatland psychology, does indeed work very hard to undercut its own existence. (or to self-destruct by a toxic process of deconstruction, led by liberal, intersubjectivist philosophers like Foucault and Derrida.)

“As important as conservative is, there are, of course times in history where embracing tomorrow and Eros—or our upward-moving and forward-looking impulse toward higher wholes—is called for, and not just embracing yesterday and Agape—or our downward- moving and backward-looking impulse (like we find in conservatives in America and indeed all over the world today). The progressives are always the revolutionaries. Of course, not everybody who calls themselves ‘revolutionary’ is necessarily a true progressive: many ‘revolutionaries’ are just lower levels parading as a newly emergent higher levels: which is exactly what happened with the Terror, as every egocentric- power trip was mistaken for world centric compassion—thoroughly confusing pre-conventional and postconventional—and to this day, ‘Off with their heads!’ unfortunately has been the calling card of most revolutionaries pretending to be progressive but who actually embody the worst sort of regression imaginable. (my italics.)

“Around the time right before the Enlightenment, the establishment level was amber. Because the establishment level was amber, then to be conservative meant, of course, to conserve amber, to conserve traditional amber values. That was the Agape side of the street. But evolution was about to bring forth a new and higher level of consciousness: orange. And thus, the Eros or progressive side of the street would soon bring forth a new political orientation, one that conscientiously referred to itself as siding with progress: namely, the progressive movement.

“Thus, the birth of the new and higher level of consciousness (orange), and the birth of the Enlightenment, was the birth of a new political orientation—Liberalism—that was originally both externalist (as all Left parties are) and progressive (for reasons we just discussed). At the new and modern level of orange, this political orientation therefore believed in world-centric, postconventional morality (“all men are created equal”); the external cause of human suffering (e.g., John Stuart Mill); was strongly individualistic (on the individual/collective scale); and decidedly progressive and even revolutionary on the progressive/conservative or Eros/Agape scale. So, there are the three axes and the level of original liberalism or the original Leftist parties.

But evolution marches on: (meer…)


Read Full Post »

Integral Politics (and the road to disaster) as described by Ken Wilber.

In a previous post I undertook to expound on Ken Wilber’s effort to elucidate the utterly unbelievable and unexpected (and overwhelming) win of Donald Trump in the recent election in America, that bastion (so we all believed) of freedom, progressiveness and postmodernism.

What happened is history. Why it happened is still a mystery for most commentators and analysts.

But, because Wilber’s diagnoses and prognosis of the phenomenon (using his Integral Perspective or Integral Meta Theory by way of his EQAL Matrix)  is quite involved and difficult to understand, I thought it best to introduce the Integral Perspective by way of his own Integral explanation of what the difference between Conservative and Liberal is, and how evolution played a role in bringing that divide into existence.

 Yes, I know most people today do not, or can not read more than a short sentence on twitter or Instagram and find even that difficult to comprehend most of the time. For those I suggest you go back to your small and/or big screens and see what new scandals of world-shattering importance by celebs tops the charts at the moment. You do not want to miss out on that, do you?

For the rest, I think you will find this insight into modern politics one of the most important discussions for the future of humanity. We are living in an unstable, dangerous time of transition for the human race and the planet we live on. It is time we take a hard look at where we come from and where we are heading.

So, let’s start with Ken Wilber:

“What is the basic difference between Democrat and Republican, or between the Left and the Right? Here’s an easy way to tell. If you ask the simple question—

Why do human beings suffer? —you will get two major answers. The Right will say, you suffer because of yourself; the Left will say, you suffer because of someone else.

“Likewise, when it comes to social change, the Republican recommends interior development (character education, family values, God values, industriousness, self-responsibility, work ethic); the Democrat recommends exterior development (material improvement, economic redistribution, universal health care, welfare statism). Of course, there are all sorts of exceptions and mixtures. But more often than not, that is a genuinely basic difference in socio-political orientation between the Democrat and the Republican.”

Yes, I also had the interior/exterior thing turned around. I thought that the Democrats were for interior change, while the Republicans were for exterior change. The problem turns out to be one of how they differ in bringing about the desired change. When you look at levels and lines of evolutionary development, especially when it comes to moral and spiritual development, the internal/external axis is turned around 360 degrees. You find that Republicans (or everyone on the amber level of development and lower) employs external means of power like the police and the army, the church and social sanctions to enforce change, or in most cases to prevent change, (think Spanish inquisition and the burning of dissidents on the stake back in the Dark Ages, and harsh riot control in our times). In other words, we will force you to change you to our way of thinking, using external forces, even if it kills you.

The Democrats on the other hand believe that change must come from within the individual (Upper Left Quadrant) by a process of transcend and include (a system of development introduced by Abraham Maslow). The current (orange) values must be transcended to reach higher evolutionary states of being, but it will still include the lower value systems as foundation for the new, higher order that will eventually change the whole system or society (or Holon which includes all 4 Quadrants) from the inside. Or like Thich Nhat Hanh said, “The only way out, is the way in”. Interior change brought about by evolution and the effort  of the individual him- or herself.

The confusion will be cleared up as Wilber expands on the difference in world view between Democrat (or Liberal) and Republican (or Conservative).


“Mainstream Republicans or conservatives have very strong amber/traditional values. Hence, when they say that ‘character counts,’ or that they want to ‘instil values in people,’ or that they are ‘the party of values,’ they almost always mean amber values only, traditional values, ethnocentric values: nationalism, family values, militarism, patriotism, patriarchalism, good ole Biblical injunctions and command morality.

They do not mean green values, red values, teal values, turquoise values, etc.”

The amber, orange, red and other colour designations will become clear as we go on. It is important to get a clear understanding of this hierarchical differentiation in the evolutionary development of people in order to fully understand Wilber’s theory.


“But that sort of (amber) traditional, conservative political movement — grounded in mythic- membership and the amber value system—was the dominant form of governance for most of humanity’s civilized history, East and West, from the great Axial Period (around the 6th century BCE) up to the Enlightenment in the West. This amber value structure, and the governance systems that it supported, were those of the great Republican empires and ancient nations, East and West, North and South, Rome being one of the mightiest. These were agrarian societies (in the Lower Right), and therefore typically they had a corresponding mythic-membership culture of amber or traditional values (in the Lower Left). At their best and healthiest, and for their time, these cultures were a thing of beauty and wonder. (But creation is a dynamic, ongoing process. To stagnate is to die, to evolve is to reach for higher states of being. We cannot stay Romans for ever, we must move on to higher states of civilization, higher states of technological development, higher states of consciousness.)

(“Lower Left” and “Lower Right” of the EQAL matrix, of which more later-on)

“But the important point to note is that, precisely because the spectrum of consciousness and the spiral of values are constantly regenerated — everybody is born at square one and begins their growth through the spiral as it exists in their culture at that time—then, even in today’s modern/orange world, magic/magenta values are still around, and egocentric/red values are still around, and traditional/amber values are still around— and hence there will always be human beings who, stopping (permanently) at those value stations in their own lives, will be attracted to political leaders, philosophies, and systems that give voice to these values—their values. And thus, as we will see, there are red blocks of voters, and amber blocks of voters, and orange blocks and green blocks and so on….

“Up to around 1200 BCE in the West, the highest major mode of average consciousness was traditional amber. In its sophisticated forms, the great Republics organized at that stage produced the roots of what we today would call Republican or conservative political philosophy — aristocratic, hierarchical, disciplined, agrarian-patriarchal, traditional, amber-value oriented, with emphasis on military defence, national identity, and ethnocentric religion.

“But beginning around the Renaissance and culminating with the Enlightenment, an entirely new level of values began to emerge — namely, the orange, modern, world centric value system—and with it, a radically new type of political philosophy was born: liberalism.

It might be more accurate to say that this was the first time that the term ‘liberal’ was used as a label to describe a ‘deviant’ individual or group of individuals who dared to openly defy the existing norms and values of a society. In the past when magic/magenta was the dominant worldview, the emergence of egocentric/red values were more liberal than those of the previous worldview, but when traditional/amber values emerged and replaced the egocentric/red worldview and values, red became the conservative mode of thinking while amber represented the new, more liberal value system though it was not called liberal, it was just called dangerous and to be eradicated by killing the ‘enemy’ of the people. The same happened when (the more liberal) modern/orange worldview and value system replaced the traditional/amber (now the more conservative) worldview and value system. The only difference was that orange represented a rather drastic move away from red and amber values, and thus the term Liberal was somewhat maliciously applied to the new threat to the status quo. We see the same thing today where the term liberal is used even more vehemently and demeaning as Lib-dem, Lib-con and even Neo-libcon.

Back to Wilber: (meer…)

Read Full Post »

Trump and a post-truth world

(Just another Glass Bead Game?)

Just a short introduction to and, discussion of Ken Wilber’s book on the phenomenon of the election of Donald Trump as the forty-fifth president of the US of A that came for some as a complete surprise and even as a staggering shock, while others could hardly contain their jubilation.

I urge you to go and read the book yourself to get a completely different perspective on the issue from the normal I hate him/I love him emotional outpourings in newspapers and on the digital social media forums.

The million-dollar question is; Is Trump the demon that is going to destroy America (like the foaming at mouth Democrats make him out to be), or is he the saviour that will make America great again as the Republicans, and Trump himself, so loudly proclaim?

Wilber, with his Integral Theory (or Metatheory), does not focus on the new occupant of the White house as prime factor (or culprit) in the shocking result of the election that put an “orange” (more about this later), leader in the driving seat of the country that was once regarded as the indisputable economic, technological and social leader of the world.

Wilber rather focusses on the evolutionary process that integrates premodern, modern and postmodern structures, stages and lines of development and everything that went right to bring America (and most of the free, democratic world) from level 1 (Infrared/Archaic) development to a level 7 development and leadership country (Green/Postmodern/World-centric) and then to the brink of level 7 (Turquoise/Integral), and what went horribly wrong to get the US back to a level 4 (Amber/Ethnocentric) government, fanning the flames of new internal culture wars where 50% of Americans positively hates the other 50% of Americans who hates them loudly and vehemently right back.

At a time when leading (Green) intellectuals became toxic and started deconstructing and virtually destroying the very systems that were holding the Postmodern society together, and moving it forward, the Republicans (with a little help from the Kremlin?), capitalised on the ensuing bewilderment of the people and grabbed control of the government.

Wilber’s Integral Theory, combining different developmental theories (from Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, to the theories of Graves, Kohlberg, Maslow, Kegan, Loevinger, Gerber, Fowler, Gilligan – stages of female development – and many more, into one Integral Operating System (IOS), using the AQAL matrix to map individual or group evolution on Cognitive, Emotional, Interpersonal, Psychosexual, Moral, Spiritual and other developmental factors that influences and determines  human behaviour, tries to make sense of, and postulates a way to salvage a world gone slightly mad. (meer…)

Read Full Post »

The (in)Sane Society.

When things are falling apart:

“During times of radical change, how do we hold both the magnificence and tragedy of the world?” asks Geneen Marie Haugen, voicing the concern of some of us about the drastic and dangerous changes we see around us, changes indicating a regression in human social development all over the world, regression into intolerance, division and even hatred.

“In these days that feel similar to running an unexplored river through a canyon with continual rapids and spectacular betrayals, staying mindful of the thoughts and images that I am contributing to the noososphere is a bumpy, wild task. No doubt it is essential to feel and respond to the full catastrophe of our time, yet how do we navigate if we endlessly repeat the unfolding disasters in our minds, and only see the potential disasters ahead?” she continues her exploration of our world gone slightly mad.

We are in trouble, and not only because of global warming, but also as a result of unsustainable population growth resulting in war and massive waves of migration. Add to the mix the new breed of demagogue exploiting the situation of uncertainty and change, preaching hatred and separation, and calling their followers back into the “lager” to hide behind high walls to defend the tribe or clan or nation against “the enemy” (which is anyone thinking different from you, looking different and praying to a god different from yours), and you have a catastrophe of global proportions.

Different people advocate different solutions to the problem of social fragmentation caused by the aggressive drive towards identity politics, facing us. To counter the division, there is an urgent call to, and desire for belongingness, for community, but away from ethnocentric/class/language/religious exclusivity towards a world-centric inclusivity.

This approach is indeed commendable, but as Duane Elgin warns: “A natural tendency is for people to separate and seek islands of safety to ride out the disruptive storms of transition … However, if we pull apart and seek our security by retreating from the world and isolating ourselves, then systemic problems are certain to escalate and produce the very future of ruinous collapse we most fear.”

It must also be remembered that the desire to belong is still, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of development, regarded as a deficiency need and not a growth need. Erich Fromm warns us that; “Identification with a group is a substitute for true identity, and represents a regression to an earlier state of cultural development.”

He says: “The necessity to unite with other living beings, to be related to them, is an imperative need on the fulfilment of which man’s sanity depends.”

And sanity is indeed what is needed in our fractured world. Fromm elaborates on two ways in which we seek union, one is “to become one with the world by submission to a person, to a group to an institution, to God.” and the other is by: “transcending his individual existence by domination.” But he warns that; “Both persons involved have lost their integrity and freedom; they live on each other and from each other; satisfying their craving for closeness,”

At its worst, identification with a group can lead to excessive sentiments of nationalism and patriotism, sentiments that can quickly regress into exclusivity, separatism, racism and feelings of ethnic superiority or what Fromm calls a fixation to blood and soil, with the worst manifestation of this blend of state and/or clan worship being Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism. (meer…)

Read Full Post »

Aan Pa, met sy verjaarsdag, al 770 bladsye, geskenk deur sy dogters Hannelie en Marli.

Wat n groot heerlikheid is dit nie. Kan nie wag om te begin lees nie. Dit gaan lank en stadig lees vat om deur hom te kom, en om die ou koppie om al die groot woorde te kry om te kan verstaan.

Wilber is n groot gees, sommige beskou hom as die grootste filosoof van ons tyd. Ek hou van wat hy sê en hoe hy dink. Sy “Integral Spirituality” was n indrukwekkende boek, n rigtingwyser vir my pad deur die lewe, inderdaad `n openbaring oor die hoekom en waarom van die lewe. Baie dinge in die ontwikkeling van die mens het begin sin maak na ek die boek gelees het.

Abraham Maslow het vir my die fondament gelê, en Ken Wilber het voort gebou op daardie fundament. Ek was lanklaas so opgewonde oor boek soos ek oor die een is.

As julle my soek … ek sit iewers in n hoekie en lees en maak verwoed aantekeninge met n “Do NOT disturb” bordjie om my nek!

Ek sal dalk so stuk-stuk vertel van die storie soos ek vorder. Hou dop.

Read Full Post »

Persoonlikheids Toetse

Baie mense glo die enneagram is die beste persoonlikheidstoets wat daar is. Ek weet Richard Rohr glo daarin en is self n gekwalifiseerde enneagram toetsafnemer of wat mens dit ook al wil noem. Persoonlik glo ek dit is hoofsaaklik gebasseer op die ou industriële sielkunde model wat gebruik word as keurings instrument vir die aanstelling of plasing van personeel in groot maatskappye. Vir die rede beskou ek dit as eensydig en oppervlakkig en erg beperk met slegs 9 persoonlikheids tipes wat geïdentifiseer en erken word. Dit toets basies net die eienskappe wat van jou n aanvaarbare of onaanvaarbare werker gaan maak. Jou volle menswees word dus bepaal deur hoe n goeie of slegte kollega jy gaan wees, en of jy n aanwins vir die maatskappy in n suiwer kapitalistiese bestel gaan wees.

Toe toets hy as Tipe 1 persoonlikheid!

AT THEIR BEST, they have a constant need for self-improvement, and they encourage others to grow, but they do so tolerantly and compassionately. Since they are accepting of themselves as whole human beings, including their less positive aspects, they can be accepting of others. They are visionaries who have a strong sense of purpose and strive for the ideal, but they also know what’s humanly possible, and thus they are realistic. They are wise, discerning, fair, objective, honest, and have an open mind, ready to review even their own standards. They have integrity and hold high moral and ethical standards, but don’t moralize to others: they teach by example. They are organized, methodical, productive, committed, and dedicated people who will put their best efforts to the work at hand. Although they are detail-oriented and extremely thorough in everything they do, they can maintain a big-picture sense and wisely make good decisions.

So ver so goed. Mens wil mos altyd op sy beste wees.

Maar o wee, as hy nie op sy beste funksioneer nie dan ….

IN AUTOPILOT, an internal critical voice starts running inside them, and they become critical of themselves and others. They become perfectionistic and intolerant of mistakes, trying too hard to get everything the “right” way and to be right all the time. They compare reality to what it “should” or “must” be, and look for what doesn’t fit. Their attention tends to go automatically to errors and mistakes, to what has been done incorrectly by them and others and consequently to what should be corrected. Sometimes the smallest flaw can ruin the whole for them, and they become “comma-counters.” They act as if they knew the right way of doing almost everything. Black-and-white dominates their thinking: things are either good or bad, with no gray areas in the middle. This makes them rigid and inflexible. They cannot delegate, since nobody can do the work as perfectly as the.

Ek gaan nie vir my vrou vra watter een van die twee ek normaalweg is nie. Man probeer hard om nie op Autopilot te gaan nie, dit klink baie erg! (Maar hy vermoed sterk dat hy wel op autopilot gaan as dit by sy werk kom. Dan MOET alles mos reg gedoen word!)

Die Myers Briggs toets dink ek is by ver die beter persoonlikheidstoets wat wasdom op verskeie vlakke toets. Dit sluit aan by Abraham Maslow se hiërargie van menslike behoeftes en Ken Wilber se teorie oor die mens se geestelike en spirituele groei. Dit neem die volledige mens in al sy aktiwiteite in ag en is proses gedrewe. Anders as die anneagram wat die mens as stagnante agent in n boksie plaas, stel dit die moontlikheid van onbeperkte groei (en regressie) daar.

Hier toets die uwe telkens INFJ.

Gaan soek self en kyk wat dit beteken!

Read Full Post »

Ek het hierdie pos so `n jaar of drie gelde hier geplaas. Ek dink dit is vandag nog meer geldig as wat dit toe was.

Lees en huil.

“The most sinister thing about the fall of the Roman Empire was that the people who conquered it never understood that they had done so. They paralyzed the patterns of Roman social structure to a point where everybody just forgot what that structure was. Taxes became uncollectable. Armies composed of hired barbarians stopped receiving pay. Everything just lapsed. The patterns of civilization were forgotten, and a Dark Age settled in.”

Daar buite op straat moor en plunder myners onder aanmoediging van Malema en lede van die ANCYL (wat voorgee om die YMCA te wees) en word doodgeskiet. Vragmotor bestuurders storm die strate in en saai verwoesting. Die staatkas word sistematies geplunder. Rioolwerke stort in duie. Dienslewering is in chaos. Infrastruktuur is besig om ten gronde te gaan. Moord en doodslag vier hoogty … “and a Dark Age settled in”.

“What the evolutionary structure of the Metaphysics of Quality shows is that there is not just one moral system. There are many. In the Metaphysics of Quality there’s the morality called ‘the laws of nature,’ by which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos; there is a morality called the ‘law of the jungle’ where biology triumphs over the inorganic forces of starvation and death; there’s a morality where social patterns triumph over biology, ‘the law;’ and there is an intellectual morality, which is still struggling in its attempts to control society.” Aldus Robert M Persig in sy boek “Lila”.

Volgens Robert M Persig (soos uiteengesit in sy boek ‘Lila’) bestaan daar meer as een soort moraliteit. Moraliteit volg ´n evolusionêre, hiërargiese struktuur wat vorder van anorganiese, na biologiese na sosiale en laastens intellektuele morele patrone. Elke nuwe morele struktuur volg op, en dommineer die vorige struktuur omdat dit ´n hoër vlak van ontwikkeling verteenwoordig.

Persig sê: “It’s more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than to allow the germ to kill his patient. The germ wants to live. The patient wants to live. But the patient has moral precedence because he’s at a higher level of evolution.”

Alhoewel Persig konsentreer op sosio-politieke vlakke van ontwikkeling, stem sy sisteem baie ooreen met Ken Wilber se sisteem van psigo-spirituele ontwikkeling, sowel as Maslow se hiërargie van behoeftes.

As Persig praat van biologiese moraliteit (of morele patrone) dan praat hy van die evolusie van amoeba tot die moderne mens, waar die geveg om domminansie afspeel tussen hoër en laer vorme van lewe tot waar die mens die oorhand kry as “kroon van die skepping”, soos sommige misleide siele dit het. Maar die kroon van die skepping loop steeds half kaal en veg om oorlewing as jagters, en later as bestaansboere op die platteland. Dit is eers met die ontstaan van dorpe en stede dat “society” en die sosiale morele orde tot stand kom en waar die samelewing sy wurggreep op die individu se vryheid plaas met die moto; wat goed is vir die samelewing is goed vir die individu. Die behoeftes van die individu is altyd ondergeskik aan die eise van die samelewing. Die sosiale morele orde oorwin die biologiese morele orde en ´n totaal nuwe bestel van naasbestaan word (soms brutaal) afgedwing op almal wat deel vorm van daardie samelewing, hetsy dorp, stad of nasie.

In ‘Lila’ konsentreer Persig hoofsaaklik op die konflik tussen mense (en kulture) waar een lot nog op die vlak van biologiese moraliteit funksioneer, terwyl die ander klomp reeds gevorder het tot die vlak van sosiale moraliteit. Dit stem ooreen met Maslow se biologiese of gebreksbehoeftes teenoor groeibehoeftes, of Wilber se vlakke van ‘Oranje’, modern, rasioneel, progressief, wetenskaplik teenoor ‘Amber’, premodern, pre-rasioneel, reaksionêr, mities. (of rofweg: premodern, modern en postmodern).

Daar buite is reeds meer as 2000 boere vermoor. Daar buite is gesondheidsdienste aan die disintegreer. Duikbote lê nutteloos in die droogdokke en vegvliegtuie sit op die grond sonder brandstof. Ons paaie val uitmekaar en verkragting is ´n nasionale sport.

“What was so sinister about New York was that the patterns that built it no longer seemd understood – those who understand the patterns are no longer in control of those who don’t” (Persig)

Daar buite in hierdie droewe land, woed die geveg tussen samelewing en biologie op sy felste ooit. Soos Persig sê is dit nie ´n oorlog tussen swart en wit nie, maar ´n geveg tussen biologiese swart en biologiese wit, teen sosiale wit en sosiale swart, met biologie wat (met die hulp van ´n misleide intellektuele moraliteit) die afgelope 18 jaar stelselmatig die oorhand gekry het.

Voor hierdie tyd was die samelewing in ´n kwesbare fase van oorbeweeg van ´n samelewing gedomineerde moraliteit na ´n intellektuele moraliteit gebaseer op die Westerse wetenskaplike model. Maar soos Persig oor Amerika sê: “The paralysis of America is a paralysis of moral patterns. Morals can’t function normally because morals have been declared intellectually illegal by the subject-object metaphysics that dominates present social thought. These subject-object patterns were never designed for the job of governing society. They’re not doing it. When they’re put in the position of controlling society, of setting moral standards and declaring values, and when they then declare that there are no values and no morals, the result isn’t progress. The result is social catastrophe.”

Die intellektuele, postmoderne moraliteit met sy liberale humanistiese aanslag en sy geloof in die mens se basiese goedheid as spontaan en natuurlik is, soos Persig sê; “… disastrously naïve. The ideal of a harmonious society in which everyone without coercion cooperates happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devastating fiction.”

Dit geld veral vir samelewings waar biologie in die meerdeheid is, of ´n baie groot persentasie van die bevolking uitmaak. In Skandinawiese lande waar biologie ´n baie klein faktor is en samelewing (´n bevolking op die vlak van groei-behoeftes) in beheer is, is/was die oorgang na beheer/bestuur deur intellek, ´n normale, rustige evolusionêre proses na ´n hoër vlak van bestaan.

Soos ons aan ons eie basse voel, gaan dit vir biologie oor die onmiddelike bevrediging van eie basiese (biologiese) behoeftes ten koste van die samelewing en dié se morele waardes. En as biologie in beheer kom van daardie stelsels wat die samelewing daargestel het (gewoonlik in die vorm van ´n gewapende polisieman of soldaat),om biologie in toom te hou, dan is anargie die duisternis waarop alles uiteindelik afstuur, want biologie word nou gebruik om biologie se morele waardes op samelewing af te dwing deur ´n proses van devolusie na ´n laer vlak van bestaan.

Persig sê: “ … when society undermines intellectual freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it represses biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally good.” Maar as biologie die morele waardes en vryheid van die samelewing (en intellek) onderdruk vir sy eie, biologiese doeleindes, is die gevolge katastrofies.

“The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect allone, that you can talk crime to death, does’nt work. Intellectual patterns cannot directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society and biology is not words. The instrument of conversation between society and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun.”

Bid kan ook help, maar dit is altyd beter om ´n geweer byderhand te hou!!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: