Wow. Wish I had a keyboard- i'd bore you folx to death. Jesus at the end: Jonathan haidth. Conservatives have tradition +fuel of beliefs to restore to society those left out; progressives are used for grift.
I don't consider all "gay rights" to be a good thing. That's very odd, I know, but at least I have 99.9% of humanity over time agreeing with me on it. All people deserve to be treated fairly and decently, but that's not the same thing. One of my foundational examination principles now is that the things that "everyone knows" are the most likely to hide untruths. What "everyone knows" are precisely those things that people want to be true and not have to talk about. Intellectually, that a combo that's a disaster.
I hear where you are going with that, but where is there not the pathology? Families moved from war torn El Salvador to stable affluent America only to find LA’s gang lands. I guess I wonder where you think doesn’t have any of that culture…? Steve gave the example of skinheads having the same culture.
I really enjoyed this conversation. I am really intrigued by the application of this frame on understanding culture. I have always thought that the root of most of these issues is culture, which often is heard as racist or victim blaming or whatever, but it seems there are dozens of cultures just in the US. Perhaps some people lean modernist but are distinctively traditionalist on family or religion etc. for example, fundamentalist/evangelical Christians and mainline Protestant and catholic groups have very different culture (on average). The idea that post modernism was an answer to the failings of modernism rings true. I would have described myself as a progressive until maybe 10 years ago when they crossed into what seems like utter nonsense to me. The things that appealed to me were exactly what Steve articulated: fixing the excesses of capitalism, equality, the environment. I wonder if embracing that egotism/proto traditional/ warrior culture and its embrace of violence and tribe is also a reaction of traditionalists to the failures they perceive in battling modernity/postmodernism.
That last part really big time. Nader voters were bad enough +turned me off. Then came Jill stein + i'm all we did this already : please see tom hayden +sent links. No interest
That was a great episode. If I understand Steve correctly, humans need to adopt a form of consciousness that is derived from one of the moral traditions. Progressivism is a moral tradition that evolved because Modernism was imperfect. But Progressivism is doomed to fail as it isn't sufficiently inclusive. So, the first thing I got was that ultimately, the pluralistic nature of Modernism will defeat Progressivism. The other thing I understood him to say is that inter-generational poverty is a function of group formation that has not adopted one of the existing traditions of consciousness, and that the way to help people escape that situation is for governments to do some type of soul building. I think this approach will always fail. A more effective way of doing soul building is to disburse those people and help them relocate so they are among groups that have adopted one of the traditional forms of consciousness. If you take someone from MS13 and help them to relocate to a place where the gang doesn't exist, they will be motivated to adopt the moral tradition of the place they have relocated to because of their need for absolution (which is a fancy term for fitting in.) This explains why prison reform doesn't work. When you send people who commit crimes to prison, they end up in the same culture and that perpetuates their ego-centric culture. The way to reform them is to break their connection to that culture.
I often post a link to this wonderful article by Malcolm Gladwell but the model to fix this problem is encapsulated in here.
I think you might have MS 13 example a little mixed up. As I understand it, the gang was formed when boys already damaged emotionally by the civil war in El Salvador moved to the poorest areas of LA where they got embroiled in the street gang culture there. As an out-group, ethic identity took over. When they were deported back to El Salvador a terrible hybrid of the two got exported en masses to El Salvador along with the creation of what is now MS13. People escaped that violence, only to bring it with them to American cities once they reached a critical mass. There is a phenomenon that when any small group reaches a critical population is self segregates.
I went to school where there was a high enough Salvadoran population that they were their own ethic-based group. Many of my young male neighbors were in MS 13 or affiliated with the gang as much for culture and to be part of an in group as anything else. We also had Latin kings, some black gangs, and later Korean gangs. There were other groups (of mostly young men) that probably engaged in much of the same behavior, but they weren’t called gangs.
I am not sure how that responds to my point which is if you want to prevent kids from perpetuating the culture, you need to prevent them from self-segregating by disbursing them to locations where that culture doesn't exist.
My point was that you take your culture with you. And a lot of people of different races and backgrounds still have similar cultures, as defined by this conversation, you just may not recognize it on the surface.
You can take people out of their environment and they can change, or you can take people from their environment and they can recreate the same dynamics there. I don’t know why sometimes one happens and other times the other. I’d guess that the people who intentionally move to escape their environment already don’t share the culture of their neighbors well. Once you are talking about older teenagers (especially boys) that ego-based violent warrior culture is a pretty easy sell.
Well, that was the point I was trying to make at least.
understand. But if your culture depends on some level of mass formation, and people are disbursed to places where their pathological behavior does not exist, they need to adopt a new culture to gain absolution.
I believe Steve McIntosh is saying that for post modernism to keep us developmentally moving forward and uniting people, not regressing us into a simpler state of relating through a shared ideology, which I would label a less authentic form of human connecting, genuine relationship matters. Igniting the light in one another's eyes and growing a shared understanding from that deeply felt human meeting, is my idea of real progress. The strain of differing points of view can be tolerated within an emotionally, co-regulated, meeting between people.
I listened to the whole 67 minutes... It felt very much like Steve McIntosh was dealing with the symptoms of the disease and not the causes.
For example...
The concept of "morality" in the absence of a concept of "God" ultimately devolves into a narcissistic endeavor of maximizing "good feelings" across a group - however you define the group (self, family, community, gender, race, nation etc). This is the core conflict between traditional (God-centric) societies and the post-modernist worldview.
The concepts of "respect", "tolerance" and "acceptance" have different meanings in the post-modernist world and that makes it difficult to discuss issues and resolve differences. For example, if we have different concepts of "respect" how can we talk about one of the most mundane, everyday acts such as that of commerce and capitalism?
Here's my take: In a post-modern society, the Individual is all-important, and the community needs to bend over backwards to please the individual, whose feelings may not be hurt, while in a traditional society, it is the community which is all-important. with individuals working towards enhancing the good of the community so that all may benefit. Some sacrifice on the part of the individual is par for the course in a traditional society, while even the expectation of it is taboo in a post-modern world!
The social media world has allowed people to accumulate an "entourage" of like minded individuals to an extent that people who previously would have been considered themselves "fringe thinkers" find themselves surrounded by a group of "like-minds" and start seeing themselves as "normal"....or even "mainstream".
The so-called "post-modern" community is simply not a "community" at all... they have no framework, no lattice, no fundamentals to which to base any of their ideology on - and hence it is like dancing with the wind to try to debate them. Clearly, there are enoug h of them that they can talk their gibberish to each other and they think they understand each other...but they really don't.
If the "individual" is all important, then everyone becomes a fascist with various degrees of power to bend others to their way.
I heard something different. I heard him say in modern society the individual is all important, in post modern it is identity that reigns supreme. In a traditional culture, the group, and it is always the in-group, is the priority. Modernity de-emphasizes group membership in favor of the individual benefit (see our current capitalistic structure) In post-modern culture the group again becomes more important than the individual, which has appeal to the modernists who want a group without the traditional hierarchy (see the revitalized interest marxism). The similar pull of traditionalism would be older forms of government and economics (see authoritarian/monarchy and oligarchy/feudalism). We are seeing worldwide a moment away from democracy towards those older power structures. I think we can all see the hollowness of being in it alone, without a greater community, that right there might be the biggest strain on modernity.
Paused at time 5:00(will resume). Thanks for exploring culture of politics. I comment on high level single parent households among blacks. We whites are “competing” as our numbers are going upward in same category. My military relatives make jokes about the “single parent serving cereal for dinner because the military spouse is in Afghanistan or Iraq, etc” Does military spouse have a “magic solution” to share with non-military households that have one parent?
I found the concepts to be too vague, let alone Steve's attempt to derive meaning through their comparison(s), to be able to garner anything substantive from this conversation.
I would say that he is wrong about the beginning of postmodernism which is an attack on the enlightenment ideals and it well predates the 60s. It could even be said that the Utopianism we see in its adherents began with Marx.
I wouldn’t say vague, I would say confused and very inarticulate in describing what his think tank hopes to accomplish.
I'm glad you haven't recorded the interview with John McWhorter yet, because now you'll be able to talk about Ibram X Kendi starting shit with John on Twitter. :)
Modernism transformed the world, post modernism compels “us” how to speak about the world. Post modernism wall papers over every fact that runs against its narrative. By elevating style over substance, post modernism will remind you of every failure from a failed business venture to a failed marriage to a failed attempt at sobriety. It embodies failure on a deep structural level and in doing so it perpetuates calls for its own necessity.
Wow. Wish I had a keyboard- i'd bore you folx to death. Jesus at the end: Jonathan haidth. Conservatives have tradition +fuel of beliefs to restore to society those left out; progressives are used for grift.
That's a mouthful.
Thnx guys, i'm behind on podcasts, twitter, 7th grade science exam tomorrow.
I don't consider all "gay rights" to be a good thing. That's very odd, I know, but at least I have 99.9% of humanity over time agreeing with me on it. All people deserve to be treated fairly and decently, but that's not the same thing. One of my foundational examination principles now is that the things that "everyone knows" are the most likely to hide untruths. What "everyone knows" are precisely those things that people want to be true and not have to talk about. Intellectually, that a combo that's a disaster.
I hear where you are going with that, but where is there not the pathology? Families moved from war torn El Salvador to stable affluent America only to find LA’s gang lands. I guess I wonder where you think doesn’t have any of that culture…? Steve gave the example of skinheads having the same culture.
I really enjoyed this conversation. I am really intrigued by the application of this frame on understanding culture. I have always thought that the root of most of these issues is culture, which often is heard as racist or victim blaming or whatever, but it seems there are dozens of cultures just in the US. Perhaps some people lean modernist but are distinctively traditionalist on family or religion etc. for example, fundamentalist/evangelical Christians and mainline Protestant and catholic groups have very different culture (on average). The idea that post modernism was an answer to the failings of modernism rings true. I would have described myself as a progressive until maybe 10 years ago when they crossed into what seems like utter nonsense to me. The things that appealed to me were exactly what Steve articulated: fixing the excesses of capitalism, equality, the environment. I wonder if embracing that egotism/proto traditional/ warrior culture and its embrace of violence and tribe is also a reaction of traditionalists to the failures they perceive in battling modernity/postmodernism.
That last part really big time. Nader voters were bad enough +turned me off. Then came Jill stein + i'm all we did this already : please see tom hayden +sent links. No interest
That was a great episode. If I understand Steve correctly, humans need to adopt a form of consciousness that is derived from one of the moral traditions. Progressivism is a moral tradition that evolved because Modernism was imperfect. But Progressivism is doomed to fail as it isn't sufficiently inclusive. So, the first thing I got was that ultimately, the pluralistic nature of Modernism will defeat Progressivism. The other thing I understood him to say is that inter-generational poverty is a function of group formation that has not adopted one of the existing traditions of consciousness, and that the way to help people escape that situation is for governments to do some type of soul building. I think this approach will always fail. A more effective way of doing soul building is to disburse those people and help them relocate so they are among groups that have adopted one of the traditional forms of consciousness. If you take someone from MS13 and help them to relocate to a place where the gang doesn't exist, they will be motivated to adopt the moral tradition of the place they have relocated to because of their need for absolution (which is a fancy term for fitting in.) This explains why prison reform doesn't work. When you send people who commit crimes to prison, they end up in the same culture and that perpetuates their ego-centric culture. The way to reform them is to break their connection to that culture.
I often post a link to this wonderful article by Malcolm Gladwell but the model to fix this problem is encapsulated in here.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/24/starting-over-dept-of-social-studies-malcolm-gladwell
I think you might have MS 13 example a little mixed up. As I understand it, the gang was formed when boys already damaged emotionally by the civil war in El Salvador moved to the poorest areas of LA where they got embroiled in the street gang culture there. As an out-group, ethic identity took over. When they were deported back to El Salvador a terrible hybrid of the two got exported en masses to El Salvador along with the creation of what is now MS13. People escaped that violence, only to bring it with them to American cities once they reached a critical mass. There is a phenomenon that when any small group reaches a critical population is self segregates.
I went to school where there was a high enough Salvadoran population that they were their own ethic-based group. Many of my young male neighbors were in MS 13 or affiliated with the gang as much for culture and to be part of an in group as anything else. We also had Latin kings, some black gangs, and later Korean gangs. There were other groups (of mostly young men) that probably engaged in much of the same behavior, but they weren’t called gangs.
I am not sure how that responds to my point which is if you want to prevent kids from perpetuating the culture, you need to prevent them from self-segregating by disbursing them to locations where that culture doesn't exist.
My point was that you take your culture with you. And a lot of people of different races and backgrounds still have similar cultures, as defined by this conversation, you just may not recognize it on the surface.
You can take people out of their environment and they can change, or you can take people from their environment and they can recreate the same dynamics there. I don’t know why sometimes one happens and other times the other. I’d guess that the people who intentionally move to escape their environment already don’t share the culture of their neighbors well. Once you are talking about older teenagers (especially boys) that ego-based violent warrior culture is a pretty easy sell.
Well, that was the point I was trying to make at least.
understand. But if your culture depends on some level of mass formation, and people are disbursed to places where their pathological behavior does not exist, they need to adopt a new culture to gain absolution.
Steve, your way out on a rotten limb, I wish you were right. Postmodern progressivism is a flight of fantasy.
I believe Steve McIntosh is saying that for post modernism to keep us developmentally moving forward and uniting people, not regressing us into a simpler state of relating through a shared ideology, which I would label a less authentic form of human connecting, genuine relationship matters. Igniting the light in one another's eyes and growing a shared understanding from that deeply felt human meeting, is my idea of real progress. The strain of differing points of view can be tolerated within an emotionally, co-regulated, meeting between people.
I listened to the whole 67 minutes... It felt very much like Steve McIntosh was dealing with the symptoms of the disease and not the causes.
For example...
The concept of "morality" in the absence of a concept of "God" ultimately devolves into a narcissistic endeavor of maximizing "good feelings" across a group - however you define the group (self, family, community, gender, race, nation etc). This is the core conflict between traditional (God-centric) societies and the post-modernist worldview.
The concepts of "respect", "tolerance" and "acceptance" have different meanings in the post-modernist world and that makes it difficult to discuss issues and resolve differences. For example, if we have different concepts of "respect" how can we talk about one of the most mundane, everyday acts such as that of commerce and capitalism?
Here's my take: In a post-modern society, the Individual is all-important, and the community needs to bend over backwards to please the individual, whose feelings may not be hurt, while in a traditional society, it is the community which is all-important. with individuals working towards enhancing the good of the community so that all may benefit. Some sacrifice on the part of the individual is par for the course in a traditional society, while even the expectation of it is taboo in a post-modern world!
The social media world has allowed people to accumulate an "entourage" of like minded individuals to an extent that people who previously would have been considered themselves "fringe thinkers" find themselves surrounded by a group of "like-minds" and start seeing themselves as "normal"....or even "mainstream".
The so-called "post-modern" community is simply not a "community" at all... they have no framework, no lattice, no fundamentals to which to base any of their ideology on - and hence it is like dancing with the wind to try to debate them. Clearly, there are enoug h of them that they can talk their gibberish to each other and they think they understand each other...but they really don't.
If the "individual" is all important, then everyone becomes a fascist with various degrees of power to bend others to their way.
Not a world that I would choose for my children.
I heard something different. I heard him say in modern society the individual is all important, in post modern it is identity that reigns supreme. In a traditional culture, the group, and it is always the in-group, is the priority. Modernity de-emphasizes group membership in favor of the individual benefit (see our current capitalistic structure) In post-modern culture the group again becomes more important than the individual, which has appeal to the modernists who want a group without the traditional hierarchy (see the revitalized interest marxism). The similar pull of traditionalism would be older forms of government and economics (see authoritarian/monarchy and oligarchy/feudalism). We are seeing worldwide a moment away from democracy towards those older power structures. I think we can all see the hollowness of being in it alone, without a greater community, that right there might be the biggest strain on modernity.
Another person with tremendous [religious] faith in progress.
Paused at time 5:00(will resume). Thanks for exploring culture of politics. I comment on high level single parent households among blacks. We whites are “competing” as our numbers are going upward in same category. My military relatives make jokes about the “single parent serving cereal for dinner because the military spouse is in Afghanistan or Iraq, etc” Does military spouse have a “magic solution” to share with non-military households that have one parent?
I found the concepts to be too vague, let alone Steve's attempt to derive meaning through their comparison(s), to be able to garner anything substantive from this conversation.
I would say that he is wrong about the beginning of postmodernism which is an attack on the enlightenment ideals and it well predates the 60s. It could even be said that the Utopianism we see in its adherents began with Marx.
I wouldn’t say vague, I would say confused and very inarticulate in describing what his think tank hopes to accomplish.
Superlative episode! Standing ovation.
Others disagree w us- I was rewinding back up replay type fascinated
I'm glad you haven't recorded the interview with John McWhorter yet, because now you'll be able to talk about Ibram X Kendi starting shit with John on Twitter. :)
Maybe book sales are down and Kendi needs to stir up some whirlwind.
Interesting. Thanks for the heads-up.
Modernism transformed the world, post modernism compels “us” how to speak about the world. Post modernism wall papers over every fact that runs against its narrative. By elevating style over substance, post modernism will remind you of every failure from a failed business venture to a failed marriage to a failed attempt at sobriety. It embodies failure on a deep structural level and in doing so it perpetuates calls for its own necessity.