I'm going to listen later to the Jim Garrison dialog that has been brought up from the archives; I just wanted to say that I loved listening to him when the dialogs were originally posted, and his book AMERICA AS EMPIRE meant a lot to me - it moved and inspired me, and helped put things in perspective in a wonderful way.  (If the links to the old forum were working, I'd post a link to the "America As Empire" thread I started there.)  I remember him talking about two paths America could take now that it has made a decisive shift from republic to empire - either to become (again) a shining beacon to the world and lead us in a very positive direction, or to go down a path of pursuing power for its own sake in which case America would precipitate a catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen.

In the lead up to the 2004 election, in lectures posted on the WIE-Unbound website, Garrison was quite clear, as I recall, in saying that if Kerry was elected, America would have a chance to choose the kind of positive transformational path that he was talking about in America As Empire; conversely, if George W. Bush was "re"-"elected" then the catastrophic path following from America's pursuit of power for its own sake was essentially inevitable. 

Since the 2004 election, I have felt extremely curious as to what Jim Garrison is thinking now about all these things - about the state of the world, and America, where we may be headed, and what - if anything - can be done now to help move things in a positive direction.  Occasionally I have done web searches and haven't found anything new from him.

I humbly beseech the Powers That Be to consider doing another dialog or series of dialogs with Jim Garrison, so that we can hear his latest thinking on all these things; or at least, post an essay or statement by him on the website.  I would also highly recommend his book America As Empire - it's fascinating.

arthur

---

I am seeking meaningful work.

bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

"You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn

I just listened to the dialogue between Wilber and Garrison, "The State of the World in the Wake of Iraq," and believe that it is a very useful conversation with many interesting insights about the problems facing the world order relative to America's reply to 9/11.  They make the broad points that 1) most of the world's current population is at a blue meme/ethnocentric self-definition, 2) this stage of development was allowed to be transcended on a social order basis largely thanks to America's post-WWII leadership, which moved the predominant political order past colonialism, 3) Bush's response to 9/11 threatens to drive a regression to imperialism by undermining a worldcentric power-sharing structure, and 4) this regressive tendency threatens other worldcentric-oriented countries and makes them antagonistic towards American policy, not sympathetic.  They close by wondering when a liberal-minded postmodern will be able to ascend to power in order to restore the enlightened track of progress.

While I agree with many of the points they make about the basic developmental process the world finds itself in, they have failed to convince me that their larger conclusion is accurate, namely that Bush's reply to the challenge is solely ethnocentric and that the only peaceful way forward is by embracing the higher orders of liberal postmodernity in a worldcentric embrace.  Here's why: I do not believe for one moment that Garrison is correct in asserting that other countries are worldcentric in their general stage of development, and statistics would verify that in fact they are not.  Their perceived threat of America comes not from a worldcentric view but an entirely ethnocentric view of their own, that being primarily that they hope they do not get caught up in the backsplash of a challenging American foreign policy.  The problem gets worse: the current catastrophe was produced in large part by postmodern indecision - Wilber alludes to this tendency, but perhaps not this conclusion, in the conversation - through the very same institutions that postmoderns want to embrace and leave to power.  When Iran gets the bomb - and they will - it will be because a multi-country censure is impossible to generate when all of those ethnocentric political agendas are at cross purposes at the world body of the UN.  China, Russia, France and others like those with whom they do business, a self-interested, unenlightened approach if there ever was one.  In short, we are at the very crossroads we are today because of the failures of Garrison's heroes.

By contrast, what we don't know for sure - and perhaps only history will be able to fairly judge - is whether Bush is transcending the blue meme in a push to "democratize the planet" (to put it flippantly), and thereby extend the very structural freedoms to the world 's population that should be the overriding instinct of the postmodernists (but hope is not a strategy, and postmodernists are constricted by their own sense of liberation from actually acting to liberate anyone else). In other words, it may be Bush's simple, traditional conviction that people should be free that compels the next stage of global evolutionary development for which Garrison hopes.

Hey arthur,

Thanks for re-posting regarding this important work by Garrison........I would also like to hear more about his thoughts today as the crises we face have predictably grown worse, primarily due to the outdated value lenses worn by the Bush administration and too many Americans.........which color and determine U.S. policies and actions in the world..........

R.K.

 

---

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness that created it in the first place!"

887 Posts on Forum #1; 222 Posts on Forum #2......Member Since 8/8/2003

Hey evansridge,

I do not believe for one moment that Garrison is correct in asserting that other countries are worldcentric in their general stage of development, and statistics would verify that in fact they are not.  Their perceived threat of America comes not from a worldcentric view but an entirely ethnocentric view of their own, that being primarily that they hope they do not get caught up in the backsplash of a challenging American foreign policy.

You make a good point that the other countries (primarily western European) are not entirely (or completely stabilized at) worldcentric.........they are however, much more worldcentric (green) in their v-meme composition........Don Beck has confirmed this through numerous values surveys he has conducted around the world........

I agree with you they also retain strong blue/orange colonialist and imperialist values that are also shared by the U.S., Russia and China.........but the liberal green world-centrism of Europe is obvious, dominant in their populations and much more developed than here in the U.S.........

The problem gets worse: the current catastrophe was produced in large part by postmodern indecision - Wilber alludes to this tendency, but perhaps not this conclusion, in the conversation - through the very same institutions that postmoderns want to embrace and leave to power.  When Iran gets the bomb - and they will - it will be because a multi-country censure is impossible to generate when all of those ethnocentric political agendas are at cross purposes at the world body of the UN.  China, Russia, France and others like those with whom they do business, a self-interested, unenlightened approach if there ever was one.  In short, we are at the very crossroads we are today because of the failures of Garrison's heroes.

Of course when there is a complex mixture of nations and cultures with diverse v-meme compostions and histories, arriving at consensus will be more difficult than it was in long by-gone eras.........but the reality is that this is the post-modern world we live in.........there is no sense denying or retreating from it........or trying to unilaterally control it..........it is going to be here for a long, long time.........

The primarily challenge before mankind is to envision, build and empower the requisite post-modern, world-centric institutions.........not try to maintain the status quo orange v-meme domination and/or also regress to lower levels of consciousness and values that have been outdated and inadequate for centuries........

The U.S. and the other members of the Security Council (and other powerful countries) have not been leaders in creating the necessary world-centric government........quite the contrary, most often they have been operating as coporate colonialists and imperialists........underfunding and hamstringing the U.N.........which has resulted in a majority of citizens in the world not having a voice at all in a healthy, functioning world government.........Hence the rage that is growing and manifesting in long-predicted social instability (including terrorism) in the middle-east and virtually all developing nations.........and under-represented peoples............

By contrast, what we don't know for sure - and perhaps only history will be able to fairly judge - is whether Bush is transcending the blue meme in a push to "democratize the planet" (to put it flippantly), and thereby extend the very structural freedoms to the world 's population that should be the overriding instinct of the postmodernists (but hope is not a strategy, and postmodernists are constricted by their own sense of liberation from actually acting to liberate anyone else). In other words, it may be Bush's simple, traditional conviction that people should be free that compels the next stage of global evolutionary development for which Garrison hopes.

Well, my take is that Bush is guided primarily by a mixture of blue and orange values that includes religious Christian-based fundamentalism and orange global corporatism.........so to that extent he is transcending blue, but not orange........in fact, he only embraces a very narrow and unhealthy version of scientific orange........which is not adequate for today's very complex world.........

The "democracy" he is promoting, for example, is a very corrupt and flawed version that leaves real power in the hands of a realative few who are not accountable to the public........and have almost total control of our government.........via the influence of their great wealth in both elections and controlling public officials and the bureaucrats within government.........not to mention their almost complete freedom from social responsibility via the structure of the private sector..........Bush is really promoting the developments of similar easily-controllable governments around the world........for the benefit of corporate and wealthy-elite hegemony......

What we need are more healthy forms of both democracy and corporatism.........(both of which, even in primative forms were/are positive developments by mankind)..........and this can only be attained through a greater development and infusion of healthy world-centric (green and higher v-meme) values and institutions.........along with the necessary reformed blue and orange elements, which will also be retained.........

Garrison rightly calls for U.S. moral leadership in this massive effort based on our far greater wealth and power........but for the past 6 years we have sadly regressed in almost all areas and failed to understand and do what is necessary to address the world's greatest challenges......... 

R.K.

---

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness that created it in the first place!"

887 Posts on Forum #1; 222 Posts on Forum #2......Member Since 8/8/2003

R.K. -

Thanks for the reply.  Let me state upfront that while I have strong observations about these matters, I have yet to be convinced that the right, comprehensive set of solutions has been proposed by any party, anywhere - and I certainly do not have all the answers I seek.  So here's to a healthy dialogue and my further edification.

This is a complicated matter for the reasons you point out: differing psychological levels and differing cultures will bring differing social, religious and moral inclinations to the table.  This is precisely why, in the past at least, the victor of a war also represented the party that simplified matters - by winning a war the victor can override other parties' social and moral ordering priorities.  In a postmodern era, it is true prima facie that we have not yet figured out how to do so without war.  Again, I point to the UN.  As the product of a noble instinct, it is in any case due to the very conglomeration of perspectives there that we cannot rely on its meta-ordering capabilities to protect the interests of any one party effectively.  Whether ethnic cleansing in Darfur or terrorism in America, we are still faced with the practical reality that different agendas result in inaction that have real costs in human blood.  So there is no panacea here.

On the other hand, the matter is simple to this extent: principled leadership will, as it always has been, be the guiding light through the darkness.  The major point of contention among serious thinkers on  this issue is whether the policy advocated by the Bush administration is the right form of principled leadership.  Proponents would say that it is, as it does a number of things that, arguably, his postmodern opponents are not inclined to do: 1) it is simplifying in that it makes clear, absolute distinctions of right and wrong (good and evil, in their parlance), 2) it forces upon the world the concept of a "war" against terrorism, which corroborates and simplifies the execution of point one, 3) it acts, forcefully and directly, in pursuit of its goals, 4) it counts dissenting views - both domestically and internationally - as less important than its duty to the safety of the American public.

Opponents, particularly the academically-inclined postmodernists, refute this as unenlightened leadership that is nearly as scary as the terrorism it fights.  Point by point, they might reply: 1) Brute force simplifications don't effectively capture the concern for grey-areas of a pluralistic world, 2) a war against terrorism is a faulty concept when there are no political actors and state against which to wage a war, 3) action is inherently suspect, as action can always be found to insult and harm some party in a pluralistic world, and 4) the opinions of the world are directly relevant to the safety of the American people, and by giving them voice you diminish their instinct for angry action, ultimately making America safer.

Of course, there is truth in both.  A simplifying framework that does hold within it real and measurable distinctions also gives rise to the ability to act within that framework in definitive ways.  And, not necessarily contrarily, the more concern and care afforded to a pluralistic world, especially as dialogue, understanding , and intersubjective meaning is exchanged, the far less likely will be violent outcomes that call on the action framework for defense.  The question, of course, is what is the real nature of this “enemy” and is “understanding” a feasible goal in the framework of both parties’ worldviews?

On both counts the record is bleak: the action-oriented neoconservatives believe that they do understand the combatant and that he is maniacal, unreasoning and ethnocentrically-psychotic (in this case the ethnocentric definition is synonymous with religious identification).  In short, there is no actor with whom they might reason even if they were inclined. 

On the other hand, the Muslim extremists seem to believe that the world is evil for moving past the very ethnocentric self-definition that they employ, and therefore must be punished for its liberalizing insolence and arrogance.  No attempts to understand this party or its grievances have worked historically (America has been under attack for 3 decades) or are likely to work: according to their own self-profession they find the very existence of liberalized societies anathema.

What to do?

Let’s recognize that the Bush administration has probably erred by setting up an enemy that never existed:  Muslim fascists are indeed an enemy of the modern era, a psycho-definitional truism.  However, a war cannot be waged against a relatively powerless group of criminal actors that are bonded in ideology and geographically disperse.  By defining the “enemy” in these general, simplistic terms and then waging “war” upon it, the administration has succeeded in eliminated its ability to “win” in any measurable way.  How do you beat an enemy that doesn’t exist in a unitary fashion?  We will not be eliciting a surrender from Islamic Fascist central command.  Further to the problem, the semantic setup distracts from a more direct debate of the required action: how to bring these criminals to justice?  What is required is police action, investigation, enforcement and eventually, prevention, both in acute and systemic ways.

The existing extremist criminals are, likely, a lost cause, gone over the edge of a moral chasm from which return is unlikely; they are mass murderers without any sense of broader concern.  Their self-definition is concerned primarily with power and absolutism of their belief system, so negotiation and rehabilitation is not likely to be effective.  Unfortunately, these are people that are probably best locked up.  But the longer-term issue is how to stop the inflow of new indoctrinates, which then becomes a question of cultural conditioning, or systemic prevention.  Here again the debate is nuanced: is the greater good served by forcing a liberalizing democracy in their midst, or by leaving them alone to their existing societal structures that are known to breed this behavior?

Hey evansridge,

The existing extremist criminals are, likely, a lost cause, gone over the edge of a moral chasm from which return is unlikely; they are mass murderers without any sense of broader concern.  Their self-definition is concerned primarily with power and absolutism of their belief system, so negotiation and rehabilitation is not likely to be effective.  Unfortunately, these are people that are probably best locked up.  But the longer-term issue is how to stop the inflow of new indoctrinates, which then becomes a question of cultural conditioning, or systemic prevention.

Depending on one's persepctive, this paragraph could equally be applied to the red/blue Islamic Fundamentalists or the blue/orange Christian/Corporate Fundamentalists that are engaged in this non-winnable war.  I go into more detail about my reasoning in my latest post today in the Islamic Facists thread, but the gist is that blue/orange Christian/Corporatists have inflicted (and continue to inflict) great violence against the third world peoples (some of it real, some of it perceived.........but regardless, both perceptions and objective reality are important contributing factors).

Blue/orange is dismissive or in complete denial of ANY culpability.......and still seeks control and dominance of the world and its paradigm........while red/blue continues to become more and more enraged......(and it matters little whethe this rage is "justified" according to blue/orange values).  A new order is needed that can see the truths on both sides and mediate a solution........and I believe this path is through a green (and higher) v-meme value system (regardless of how ineffective or impotent the current incarnations of the United Nations, IMF, World Bank and other global institutions are).

Here again the debate is nuanced: is the greater good served by forcing a liberalizing democracy in their midst, or by leaving them alone to their existing societal structures that are known to breed this behavior?

Again, "criminal behavior" is also being bred and committed by blue/orange Christian/Corporate Fundamentalists and their existing (and much more wealthy and powerful) structures (which are a primary cause of the many crises we are facing today)............ so, the need is for a new liberalizing paradigm, which is not necessarily "democratic" as the first world currently operationalizes it.  IMO this new system needs to be based at green or higher values, that can identify/mediate/implement a healthy solution for the greatest good of ALL lower levels.........despite the intranscience of the foes...........

This value system must also stand and be empowered to say that a winner-take-all war game is not going to be allowed to play out for either side...........that both sides have been guilty of some crimes against humanity and all are going to be held accountable........... (this means not allowing red/blue terrorism and warfare in retaliation for blue/orange transgressions, but also requiring equitable regulation and distribution of the world's total wealth and power to all people).........to insure the greatest good for the most people...........

IMO individuals and cultures at orange have the greatest ability, resources and responsibility to see and make the necessary spiritual, psychological and material leaps into the scary voids of the next unknown, still-developing dominant paradigms (green and higher).........it is time we got on with that real work that needs to be done in the world!

Good working with you on this!

R.K.

---

"No problem can be solved at the level of consciousness that created it in the first place!"

887 Posts on Forum #1; 222 Posts on Forum #2......Member Since 8/8/2003