Last night my father and I drove to Manhattan’s Upper West Side to meet Ken Wilber. My dad was invited because he’s made some posts to the Integral Education online forum, and the email he received said something like, “Ken’s making an unprecedented visit to meet the NY integral community.” The address given was for a private apartment. That was all we knew.
We did, of course, know that no one in their right mind drives to Manhattan. For a variety of reasons, we decided to ignore this bit of common sense. I should probably say right here and now that I had never been to New York City. However, I ended up doing all of the city driving. Had we not allowed a full two and a half extra hours in our itinerary, it would have been a very stressful experience. As it was, we were both able to remain calm even when we realized, immediately after emerging from the Lincoln Tunnel, that we were as lost as one can be in Manhattan. The highlight for me was when, while most of my mind was occupied with not running over pedestrians, I realized that we were driving through Times Square. To me, Times Square looks like a wall of people conspiring to keep me from making it through the intersection before the light changes. But.
It could have been a lot worse. It was, admittedly, overwhelming at the time, but now that I am a safe distance from trying to figure out how the hell to get onto Broadway without having to make a left turn, it seems more exhilarating than scary. But.
I don’t plan to drive into Manhattan again any time soon.
Once we found our destination and parked in the garage I’d found online, we found the building where we were to be at five (half a block from the garage), and crossed the street to spend the next two hours in Central Park. It was not really warm enough to spend two hours in Central Park, but it was lovely in the sun, and tolerable even without. We watched a young woman dancing on rollerskates, an elderly woman exercising, and hundreds of people just walking through; we listened to a saxophonist, and, not far away, a trio of cellists. I used a surprisingly clean but still absolutely disgusting bathroom. Mostly, we sat on park benches and absorbed the New Yorkness until it was time to find the specified apartment.
When we arrived, a few minutes after five, the living room of the apartment was full — FULL — of people. Maybe 40-50. Ken Wilber was seated facing the group. My dad and I found our nametags and took two of the last remaining seats. Because we missed maybe the first minute of Ken talking, I still really don’t know what he was doing in New York. Oh well.
The evening turned out to be kind of a group conversation. After the hour-plus spent on everyone introducing themselves to the group (“Hi, I’m Julia. I’m from Harrisburg, PA, and a student at McDaniel College in Maryland. A few years ago, my dad said to me, “You should really read this book A Theory of Everything. We’re involved with a self-proclaimed Integral school in Harrisburg.”), Ken talked about what he’s been doing, about some ideas from his upcoming book, and some thoughts apparently sparked by things people had said during the introductions. A lot of it was really abstract, and I have to admit I got a little lost for parts of it. We left at 9:30, after four and a half hours of that; it looked like it could be continuing for hours more. Part of me wanted to stay longer, but by the time we pulled into the driveway of my parents’ house at 1 AM, I was glad we’d left when we did. Also, my brain was full.
Hm. I keep starting a thought and then deleting it. I think I’m not done processing some of the mini-epiphanies I had last night and have had in the meantime enough to commit them to writing. Also, part of me is probably afraid you’ll all think I’ve lost it. On the other hand, I want to say something that will inspire you, my dear reader, to start thinking about Integral theory.
I’m at a loss. Wikipedia has an article, though, that might make for a good jumping off point. It’s here. Also, if you’re really motivated, A Theory of Everything, also mentioned above, is a good introduction. I’m told A Brief History of Everything is an even better introduction, but I haven’t read it, so I can’t, in good conscience, recommend it.
it’s okay
i assumed you were at least part crazy
that’s why i like you
but zen: ‘the craziness of crazy is..that we’re not crazy at all’
very nice blog julia.
I started reading “A Theory of Everything” last week, and, although I’m still processing a lot of the material (and haven’t finished it), what I’ve read has helped clarify some of my own thoughts.
I’ve believed for some time in rule by “elites” (but not elites in the traditional sense), but I could never clearly define these elites, other than that they would value knowledge and excellence over wealth, social status, etc. I think Wilber, through his Theory of Everything (which seems based in significant part on Spiral Dynamics), might have developed an appropriate model for my elites — individuals who have reached the level of “second-tier thinking.” Wilber writes that those who move past the green meme (stage of development) in the spiral reach the second-tier memes and that such individuals have the ability to recognize the role of all of the other memes, a critical element for integration. However, according to Wilber, second-tier memes currently comprise only about 1.1% of the population and hold only about 6% of the power. Meanwhile, the orange and blue memes hold 80% of the power.
Wilber writes that the Prime Directive is the health of the entire spiral, rather the preferential treatment of one meme or the movement of individuals from the green meme to the second-tier memes. I don’t disagree, but, according to Wilber, none of the first-tier memes can “fully appreciate the existence of the other memes”; only the second-tier memes can. Based on this, I have to conclude that we will never fulfill the Prime Directive unless more second-tier memes are in a position to affect the necessary changes. And there’s the problem. The current political system largely selects for the orange and blue memes and ensures the balance of power will not change in the near term. This convinces me more than ever that the structure of the system, or at least the process used to select those in power, must change, so that more power shifts (or least has the potential to shift) to second-tier memes.
The other thing that the book helped clarify is why Libertarianism is not the end point for societal development, something I only understood intuitively before. Libertarianism begins with orange-meme thinking, but I believe it can extend into green-meme thinking, as Wilber writes, with the idea that “sanctions for truth and goodness are established largely by individual preferences (as long as the individual is not harming others).” This “pluralistic relativism,” although an improvement over what preceded it, ultimately prevents integration.
I’m hopeful that Wilber will address reform of the political system later in the book. Either way, I think it’s going to be well worth the read. There’s a quote on the cover from Warren Bennis: “This is the book I’ve been longing for.” Exactly.
I don’t think Wilber does significantly address political reform — I remember, when I read it years ago, hoping for the same thing and being somewhat disappointed.
I also think Wilber would probably disagree with some of your ideas about ruling by “elites” — or at least I do — and the means to get there.
While the Prime Directive is the health of the spiral, it’s not really an objective to be achieved, but a guiding principle. While second-tier memes are uniquely able to recognize and live out this principle, they also recognize the necessity of the first-tier memes.
I don’t think our existing governmental structure necessarily selects or even reinforces blue-orange-green — it’s just that those memes are where the population is, and are likely to vote for others with similar worldviews. I believe the shift to second-tier will happen as the populations shifts up — and I believe that we are likely to see significant changes in our lifetime. Notably, during his NY appearance, KW mentioned that the Yellow stat you refer to has increased to something like 4% since the publication of TOE, and if current trends continue, will likely double by 2010. That’s encouraging.
There was also some discussion, kind of in passing, about representative democracy, in which KW affirmed what I have come to believe — that it has its flaws, but representative democracy is still the best we’ve got.
The news about the increased number of yellow memes is encouraging, and I agree that at some point second-tier memes might reach critical mass, prompting significant societal changes (I’m not expecting this to occur in my lifetime). Still, by no means is this guaranteed, and I have concerns that this evolution might not occur rapidly enough to prevent our own self-destruction.
I don’t advocate the removal of representative democracy (at the very least, the potential repercussions of such a move are far too risky), and I agree that the blue-orange-green (with green as a small minority) power structure results in part because of the composition of the population. However, the process used to select candidates — prior to anyone ever casting a vote — also contributes to the problem. For example, the two-party system currently ensures that only candidates who support the agenda of the party and its financial supporters are elected because anyone outside of these narrow bands cannot raise the ever-increasing amount of capital required to mount effective campaigns.
Representative democracy is fine; I just wish that I had a viable candidate who actually represents me (or better still, one of my elites) on the ballot.
I’ll have to read some of Wilber’s stuff but hierarchy does not seem very “integral” to me.
The concept of elites reminds me of Plato’s “Philosophy King.” In the ideal society that he laid out there was a strict hierarchy with, of course, his “own kind” at the top.
I have had success following the tutilege of people more advanced than me into “higher” realms..However, I have never had any success with this other than in one-on-one groups.
In a one-on-one situation the hierarchies we impose initially (for example, teacher to student) are allowed to dissolve to their most basic levels (or even cease to exist entirely, leading to a more hand-in-hand learning) so that learning might function without dominance or power. My bass teacher teaches me techniques but ultimately it is up to me to choose how I actually use them in the playing environment. Thus, the power is self-disintegrating: when the time comes for me to act on my own, he stands back. One day we will dissolve the relationship entirely.
I see no reason to institute some kind of “Philosophy King” hierarchy. Authoritative and hierarchical thinking, in my experience, only leads to the reinforcement and replication of power structures that limit the development Wilber seems to be talking about. Maybe some sort of initial voluntary agreement to enter a basic power relation (like me signing up for bass lessons) can lead to the disintegration of that power when the time comes but I have never seen large-scale power agree to disintegrate itself once it has become substantiated.
But yeah, take what I say with several grains of salt because I only have second-hand experience with Wilber’s stuff 🙂
Also, I am curious as to where he comes up with these percentages of different stages?
There’s a weird thing in Spiral Dynamics/Integral Theory about hierarchy vs “holarchy”. It’s a subtle but *very* important difference. I think what DC is talking about is closer to the hierarchy end of things, whereas the second-tier stages are more interested in integrating than subjugating. (Does that make sense?)
I’m not sure where the current statistics come from, but I think the original stats came largely from the research of Dr. Clare Graves, who wasn’t so into the spiritual side of things as the psychological side of things, and conducted “experiements” accordingly. As far as specific methodology — I have no idea, and, admittedly, I haven’t been motivated to find out because it feels intuitively right to me.
The difference between hierarchies and holarchies, or “growth hierarchies,” is, as you said, subtle but important in Integral Theory, and Wilber spends a lot of time on this in the book. I tried to find a passage that explains this difference simply and clearly but I didn’t see one. Anyway, by my understanding, in hierarchies each successive level is separate from the others, and in holarchies each successive level includes the previous levels. In other words, all of us, regardless of where we are on the spiral, have within us all of the lower memes. Wilber cites the distinction hierarchies and holarchies as one the biggest obstacles to the advancement of greens, who oppose hierarchies of any kind, to the second tier. This is one of main reasons why I respect the book; his Integral Theory recognizes the importance of all parts of society but still allows for ranking based on excellence — something largely absent from green-meme thinking.
But my desire to have second-tier memes holding more of the power has little to do with hierarchies and more to do with creating a system in which everyone can benefit. Wilber writes that the first-tier memes all basically fight each other, defending their own ideas as the right ones, unable to realize the importance of the other memes. And that’s sort of how our government currently functions. We’ve got all of these lawmakers with competing interests fighting for their individual causes, rather than seeking something that’s going to benefit society as a whole. Until we have leaders who think in these terms, we’re not going to have integration.
I agree completely the world will benefit when second-tier memes hold more power, but mostly because the world will benefit when more people have reached those memes. I don’t think there’s benefit to having power centered in memes more than half a step or a step away from where the population is centered.
Thank you for clarifications.