A Non-Conventional Society - Can Meditative Technology Help?
14 years 4 months ago #2518
by Chris Marti
Jake replied:
Hi Ona! If by "everyone should be re-educated" you're referring to what I said about k-12 education, then I must have miscommunicated. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.
I'm 34, and when I was going through childhood and adolescence, it was (relatively) "normal" or conventional to be homophobic. During the nineties there was a movement called political correctness that tried to address homophobia, racism, sexism and so on by creating and enforcing an alternative norm or convention about. I think it had little effect, and was actually counter-productive. That's because you can't beat conventional with conventional. And social movements emerge organically on a systems level, not from the top down. Meanwhile, I talk to young people in the same geographic region I grew up in, who are high school age, and find that homophobia, racism and sexism have really become much less popular. You know what did it? Grass roots efforts of young people to communicate and organize. And it didn't take that long! Ditto for the feminist goals of my mother's generation: the whole discourse has shifted a lot, not enough, but a lot-- also because of such grass-roots efforts at communication and interpersonal learning, coupled with some institutional reform.
Anyway, my point isn't to start some (re-) education camps to enforce the perfect set of beliefs
I mention k-12 because at least here in the states, these institutions are generally run like a cross between a factory, a prison, and a psychiatric hospital! As long as these structural factors remain in place, no change in the content of education will have much if any effect on developmental outcomes.
When I refer to "post-conventional" pedagogy, what I'm talking about precludes by definition the attempt to get young people to internalize a rigid set of mental-emotional-social-behavioral contents, as this is by definition "conventional" pedagogy, and is done via coercive socialization. What I am talking about involves mostly structural change in the way schools are run, the way authority structures work, in the direction of more emotional autonomy and rational (critical-thinking) communicative habits. These can't (only) be taught as "topics", they have to be part of the actual social structure of the schools, in developmentally appropriate ways. A lot of interesting work has been done in, for example, the Free School movement and similar alt education movements.
I referenced ideas in sociology and developmental psychology which were not spelled out, as Chris correctly mentioned. Sorry for the confusion.
So then, given this clarification, perhaps more sense can be made of my proposition that historically, we seem to be entering an epoch in which the utility of our industrialized pedagogy will naturally be questioned more and more and we will naturally trend towards more egalitarian forms of pedagogy and thus of society. I think my point about two basic responses being possible to these historical changes-- reactionary fundementalism and post-conventional-- are important, and born out by trends over the past several decades.
Also by definition, the ways this post-conventional mindset is expressed by the adults who go through such a system will be just as diverse if not more so than typical adults today, as authentically post-conventional adults don't make as many assumptions or judgments about the ways each other dress, shopping habits, aesthetics, sexuality, etc. All the studies I've seen indicate no correlation between political views or marital arrangements, for example, and developmental level. In other words there are plenty of monogamous nike wearing George Bush voting Lutheran housewives at post-conventional levels of development. They are just less likely to be reactionary in the way they hold their beliefs, and more likely to be able to dialogue gracefully with those who differ. Sorry for the confusion!
P.S. And since when do we refer to other posters in the third person? You could have simply asked me directly for clarification rather than turning to the group
Replied by Chris Marti on topic A Non-Conventional Society - Can Meditative Technology Help?
There's nothing wrong with either way of living. It's just a bit evangelical, I think, to think that because you (or I) have enjoyed the benefits of one way of experiencing life, everyone should be re-educated to learn to like the same things. Would my conservative college roommate be a better, happier person if only she would abandon her life of a housewife, mall-shopper, church-goer, and instead put on some Birkenstocks and learn to meditate? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it would be arrogant of me to insist.Thoughts?
-ona
Jake replied:
Hi Ona! If by "everyone should be re-educated" you're referring to what I said about k-12 education, then I must have miscommunicated. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.
I'm 34, and when I was going through childhood and adolescence, it was (relatively) "normal" or conventional to be homophobic. During the nineties there was a movement called political correctness that tried to address homophobia, racism, sexism and so on by creating and enforcing an alternative norm or convention about. I think it had little effect, and was actually counter-productive. That's because you can't beat conventional with conventional. And social movements emerge organically on a systems level, not from the top down. Meanwhile, I talk to young people in the same geographic region I grew up in, who are high school age, and find that homophobia, racism and sexism have really become much less popular. You know what did it? Grass roots efforts of young people to communicate and organize. And it didn't take that long! Ditto for the feminist goals of my mother's generation: the whole discourse has shifted a lot, not enough, but a lot-- also because of such grass-roots efforts at communication and interpersonal learning, coupled with some institutional reform.
Anyway, my point isn't to start some (re-) education camps to enforce the perfect set of beliefs
I mention k-12 because at least here in the states, these institutions are generally run like a cross between a factory, a prison, and a psychiatric hospital! As long as these structural factors remain in place, no change in the content of education will have much if any effect on developmental outcomes.
When I refer to "post-conventional" pedagogy, what I'm talking about precludes by definition the attempt to get young people to internalize a rigid set of mental-emotional-social-behavioral contents, as this is by definition "conventional" pedagogy, and is done via coercive socialization. What I am talking about involves mostly structural change in the way schools are run, the way authority structures work, in the direction of more emotional autonomy and rational (critical-thinking) communicative habits. These can't (only) be taught as "topics", they have to be part of the actual social structure of the schools, in developmentally appropriate ways. A lot of interesting work has been done in, for example, the Free School movement and similar alt education movements.
I referenced ideas in sociology and developmental psychology which were not spelled out, as Chris correctly mentioned. Sorry for the confusion.
So then, given this clarification, perhaps more sense can be made of my proposition that historically, we seem to be entering an epoch in which the utility of our industrialized pedagogy will naturally be questioned more and more and we will naturally trend towards more egalitarian forms of pedagogy and thus of society. I think my point about two basic responses being possible to these historical changes-- reactionary fundementalism and post-conventional-- are important, and born out by trends over the past several decades.
Also by definition, the ways this post-conventional mindset is expressed by the adults who go through such a system will be just as diverse if not more so than typical adults today, as authentically post-conventional adults don't make as many assumptions or judgments about the ways each other dress, shopping habits, aesthetics, sexuality, etc. All the studies I've seen indicate no correlation between political views or marital arrangements, for example, and developmental level. In other words there are plenty of monogamous nike wearing George Bush voting Lutheran housewives at post-conventional levels of development. They are just less likely to be reactionary in the way they hold their beliefs, and more likely to be able to dialogue gracefully with those who differ. Sorry for the confusion!
P.S. And since when do we refer to other posters in the third person? You could have simply asked me directly for clarification rather than turning to the group
14 years 4 months ago #2520
by Jake St. Onge
Replied by Jake St. Onge on topic A Non-Conventional Society - Can Meditative Technology Help?
Good call on a fresh thread for this
Yes, I do see what you mean. I hear that a lot from baby boomers actually. But can you see how the trends you mention in current politics could be seen to fit in to the reactionary/fundamentalist category? Look at the demographics of the folks who vote for that stuff. Generally I'd say it's pretty reactionary, hearkening back to an imaginary past. The neo-conservative movement is very straightforward about this, as they are well aware of these broad trends, and intentionally take advantage of them by supporting in every way possible this reactionary fundamentalist backlash--- which, and this is key, can only function in a populace lacking critical thinking skills. Their viewpoint is fundamentalism for the masses, technocratic social management for the elite. Please note that I'm not saying critical thinking and conservatism are mutually exclusive-- just that neo-conservatism, like the liberal political correctness of the ninety's, has no place for critical thinking on behalf of "the masses". In some ways I am a pretty conservative thinker.
Which goes to your second point, about technological society. Indeed, there are elements in these changes, and in disciplines like sociology and psychology, which make movements like the neo-cons possible. They are completely based on empirical data and practical scientific knowledge about how to control behavior of individuals and collectives. As I understand it, there are similar splits between Iranian power-elites, who are basicaly secular corporate technocrats, and the ground-level fundamentalists, as well as between Al Qaeda leaders like OBL and the man-on-the-street true believer. Pretty scary stuff! No doubt the decades we are living through right now involve a sort of showdown between technocratic power-elites in China, the Middle East, Russia, the West, at least, all attempting to keep their own populations more or less in the dark about the resource wars and focused on ideology and nationalism.
But I think when we zoom out to a bigger picture is when we see the longer term trends, and where my optimism kicks in. Of course it's possible we'll annihilate ourselves before these trends become dominant, or blow ourselves back to an earlier techno-economic epoch. But what can we do about that as individuals? Nothing! We can only try to optimize and facilitate, in our own little gardens, the flowers we want to see in the broader world.
Since you brought the baby boomer thing up I'll ask you my stock question in response to that sentiment: do you really see no difference between how the States were when you were a kid and now? OK-- the pendulum's been swinging left and right for decades, and there are some disturbing trends with wealth disparity and so on since Reagen (since the dawn of neo-conservatism). But the social stuff has come a long way: I see a lot more egalitarianism between the sexes, amongst different ethnicities, in gender and sexuality areas, and so on than even when I was growing up. And it's a lot more difficult-- if it's even possible-- to roll those kinds of changes back than it is to shift fiscal policy in a way that separates the haves from the have nots, which is pretty straightforward technocratic stuff. Who have you met who actually got over being racist or homophobic, or who grew up being tolerant, who switched to being intolerant? I can think of a few, and in each case there's a diagnosed mental illness. On the other hand, I know a lot of folks who have become more tolerant and open minded on these kinds of issues, due to light-hearted (non-moralizing) dialogue and changed life experience.
I know there were high hopes back then in the 60's-- downright Utopian, right? But holding those ideals and working towards them, I think you guys made this world a better place. Sure there were blind spots. There always will be! But I think all us newer models owe you guys some gratitude. This is definitely a different world in many ways, thanks to the risks taken and experiments tried in the 60's and 70's (and before and since). Don't be so hard on yourselves baby boomers! Haven't you seen Mad Men? Remember what it was like back then?
Yes, I do see what you mean. I hear that a lot from baby boomers actually. But can you see how the trends you mention in current politics could be seen to fit in to the reactionary/fundamentalist category? Look at the demographics of the folks who vote for that stuff. Generally I'd say it's pretty reactionary, hearkening back to an imaginary past. The neo-conservative movement is very straightforward about this, as they are well aware of these broad trends, and intentionally take advantage of them by supporting in every way possible this reactionary fundamentalist backlash--- which, and this is key, can only function in a populace lacking critical thinking skills. Their viewpoint is fundamentalism for the masses, technocratic social management for the elite. Please note that I'm not saying critical thinking and conservatism are mutually exclusive-- just that neo-conservatism, like the liberal political correctness of the ninety's, has no place for critical thinking on behalf of "the masses". In some ways I am a pretty conservative thinker.
Which goes to your second point, about technological society. Indeed, there are elements in these changes, and in disciplines like sociology and psychology, which make movements like the neo-cons possible. They are completely based on empirical data and practical scientific knowledge about how to control behavior of individuals and collectives. As I understand it, there are similar splits between Iranian power-elites, who are basicaly secular corporate technocrats, and the ground-level fundamentalists, as well as between Al Qaeda leaders like OBL and the man-on-the-street true believer. Pretty scary stuff! No doubt the decades we are living through right now involve a sort of showdown between technocratic power-elites in China, the Middle East, Russia, the West, at least, all attempting to keep their own populations more or less in the dark about the resource wars and focused on ideology and nationalism.
But I think when we zoom out to a bigger picture is when we see the longer term trends, and where my optimism kicks in. Of course it's possible we'll annihilate ourselves before these trends become dominant, or blow ourselves back to an earlier techno-economic epoch. But what can we do about that as individuals? Nothing! We can only try to optimize and facilitate, in our own little gardens, the flowers we want to see in the broader world.
Since you brought the baby boomer thing up
I'll ask you my stock question in response to that sentiment: do you really see no difference between how the States were when you were a kid and now? OK-- the pendulum's been swinging left and right for decades, and there are some disturbing trends with wealth disparity and so on since Reagen (since the dawn of neo-conservatism). But the social stuff has come a long way: I see a lot more egalitarianism between the sexes, amongst different ethnicities, in gender and sexuality areas, and so on than even when I was growing up. And it's a lot more difficult-- if it's even possible-- to roll those kinds of changes back than it is to shift fiscal policy in a way that separates the haves from the have nots, which is pretty straightforward technocratic stuff. Who have you met who actually got over being racist or homophobic, or who grew up being tolerant, who switched to being intolerant? I can think of a few, and in each case there's a diagnosed mental illness. On the other hand, I know a lot of folks who have become more tolerant and open minded on these kinds of issues, due to light-hearted (non-moralizing) dialogue and changed life experience.I know there were high hopes back then in the 60's-- downright Utopian, right? But holding those ideals and working towards them, I think you guys made this world a better place. Sure there were blind spots. There always will be! But I think all us newer models owe you guys some gratitude. This is definitely a different world in many ways, thanks to the risks taken and experiments tried in the 60's and 70's (and before and since). Don't be so hard on yourselves baby boomers! Haven't you seen Mad Men? Remember what it was like back then?
14 years 4 months ago #2521
by Ona Kiser
Replied by Ona Kiser on topic A Non-Conventional Society - Can Meditative Technology Help?
Jake, Chris speaks a bit to my cynicism. I grew up in the 60s and 70s. We had energy saving cars, green energy, non-competitive games, Black Power groups at school, multi-cultural holiday performances, and I even went to one of those schools with no classrooms and lots of creative time. Everyone was all "we can change the world." Have there been changes? Sure, but I think they are lot more like arisings and passings away than permanent shifts. I think there will always be people at one end of the spectrum who are trying to change things, people at the other end gripping at tradition with ferocity, and a lot of people in the middle who mostly just want basic stuff like food, shelter, and a social group.
So that's where I was coming from to some extent.
Sorry about referring to you 3rd person (as I just did to Chris in this post!).
No offense intended.
(eta: posted simultaneous to your reply above, but I'll leave it for now)
So that's where I was coming from to some extent.
Sorry about referring to you 3rd person (as I just did to Chris in this post!).
No offense intended.(eta: posted simultaneous to your reply above, but I'll leave it for now)
14 years 4 months ago #2522
by Jake St. Onge
Replied by Jake St. Onge on topic A Non-Conventional Society - Can Meditative Technology Help?
Hahaha, sorry if I was prickly about the third person thing
No, I hear you guys, and I'm open to your perspectives on this. We're talking about a pretty "big picture" view of things that are really above our pay grade to some extent, right? I see what you're saying about the middle and the ends, too. That's why I'm trying to point out that higher levels of development can exist at all points of the political spectrum, and the two shouldn't be conflated. Yes the middle just want a peaceful work-a-day life; no doubt about it.
On another note, the relation between meditation technologies and psychological development. As I understand it, the longitudinal studies have shown a correlation, to the effect that folks who meditate over time trend towards higher degrees of psychological development. I think it works in reverse too, so that folks who come to meditation from a higher level of psychological development will have an easier time making quicker progress in meditation, although I'm not aware of sany studies to that effect.
It makes sense though;-- after all, even if you want to draw a sharp line between spiritual and psychological development, they are both processes which involve this total body-mind organism, right?
And in that regard, the separability of the two that is, there is some controversy in Integral/Transpersonal psych circles. Some, following the latest version of Wilberianism, see the two as separate. In this model, it is possible to be "state-realized", stabilized in a realization of nonduality for example, yet still be psychologically immature. The other model, as in Cook-Greuter's work, sees spiritual development as post-egoic, that is, as following on ego-development in a stage-specific way. A middle ground might see both as possible. That's the way I lean, and I see the social, psychological, and meditative aspects as related in a non-linear way. And ideal situation would be one in which the social factors supported high degrees of maturity as well as meditative development. The latter two seem to reinforce each other, and together I think they would be potent in terms of effecting realistic and meaningful social change.
A question for you two, and anyone else, but especially folks who came of age in the sixties and seventies: there was a lot of meditation and yoga and spirituality back then, in addition to the idealism and unconventionality (unconventionality includes both pre- and post-conventional; something like polyamory is definitely unconventional, but it could be either pre-conventional or post-conventional-- does that distinction make sense to you guys?).
But I think this pre- and post-conventional distinction was little understood, and the meditation scene was dominated by Gurus from new age and traditional backgrounds, and the idealism was while good-hearted somewhat naively utopian, too, right? So my question is, on the meditation front, do you think folks were getting it done back then at the same rates as now? Just curious. It seems to me that idealists can glean more than inspiration from the sixties cultural upheavals: we can and have gained some important insights into the pragmatic dynamics of social change, meditation, and psychological development, which makes al those things more realistic nowadays. Whattaya think?
No, I hear you guys, and I'm open to your perspectives on this. We're talking about a pretty "big picture" view of things that are really above our pay grade to some extent, right? I see what you're saying about the middle and the ends, too. That's why I'm trying to point out that higher levels of development can exist at all points of the political spectrum, and the two shouldn't be conflated. Yes the middle just want a peaceful work-a-day life; no doubt about it.
On another note, the relation between meditation technologies and psychological development. As I understand it, the longitudinal studies have shown a correlation, to the effect that folks who meditate over time trend towards higher degrees of psychological development. I think it works in reverse too, so that folks who come to meditation from a higher level of psychological development will have an easier time making quicker progress in meditation, although I'm not aware of sany studies to that effect.
It makes sense though;-- after all, even if you want to draw a sharp line between spiritual and psychological development, they are both processes which involve this total body-mind organism, right?
And in that regard, the separability of the two that is, there is some controversy in Integral/Transpersonal psych circles. Some, following the latest version of Wilberianism, see the two as separate. In this model, it is possible to be "state-realized", stabilized in a realization of nonduality for example, yet still be psychologically immature. The other model, as in Cook-Greuter's work, sees spiritual development as post-egoic, that is, as following on ego-development in a stage-specific way. A middle ground might see both as possible. That's the way I lean, and I see the social, psychological, and meditative aspects as related in a non-linear way. And ideal situation would be one in which the social factors supported high degrees of maturity as well as meditative development. The latter two seem to reinforce each other, and together I think they would be potent in terms of effecting realistic and meaningful social change.
A question for you two, and anyone else, but especially folks who came of age in the sixties and seventies: there was a lot of meditation and yoga and spirituality back then, in addition to the idealism and unconventionality (unconventionality includes both pre- and post-conventional; something like polyamory is definitely unconventional, but it could be either pre-conventional or post-conventional-- does that distinction make sense to you guys?).
But I think this pre- and post-conventional distinction was little understood, and the meditation scene was dominated by Gurus from new age and traditional backgrounds, and the idealism was while good-hearted somewhat naively utopian, too, right? So my question is, on the meditation front, do you think folks were getting it done back then at the same rates as now? Just curious. It seems to me that idealists can glean more than inspiration from the sixties cultural upheavals: we can and have gained some important insights into the pragmatic dynamics of social change, meditation, and psychological development, which makes al those things more realistic nowadays. Whattaya think?