Gaia: Integral Politics

NY Times Article about Warrior cultures (Purple/Red Memes)

http://jubu531.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:02:37 GMT

August 6, 2007

CONNECTIONS

Reconsidering the Role of the Warrior in Our Post-Enlightenment World

By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN

In one of the final events of the recent Lincoln Center Festival, a lone Mongolian bard named Burenbayar came onstage and chanted "The Secret History of the Mongols." He had memorized the 13th-century text during long hours grazing animals on the steppes of Central Asia. And as is true of many ancient sagas, he sang of arms and the man - that is, of warfare and heroism.

His subject was Genghis Khan, a conqueror of many peoples who was both barbarically ruthless and soulfully sentimental, reveling in revenge by tearing out an enemy's heart and liver with his bare hands while also forgiving, again and again, the bloody treachery of an envious childhood friend. He was at all times a warrior whose goal was conquest and whose demands could not be assuaged, except by victory.

Almost every culture has such figures in their past, men like Odysseus, King David, Muhammad and Aeneas, whose triumphs were often attained through extreme, horrific battle. Such founding figures often also display powerful streaks of sensitivity and elevated vision along with prophetic abilities; on their broad chests and battle-readiness rest the later triumphs of their civilizations. But warriors don't have to display such qualifying attributes; throughout history they are revered.

Except for now, it seems, and particularly in the West. Today we are so wary of the warrior that we would find it unthinkable to celebrate him with elaborate descriptions of the beheading or disemboweling of his enemies. Instead we think of the warrior as a fanatic, an extremist with a streak of the berserk.

In "The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West" (Basic Books), a new book in which the idea of the fanatic warrior plays a central role, Lee Harris points out that the word berserk comes from Icelandic accounts of Norse warriors of the 12th century who were so fierce in battle they fought without armor and raged like wolves. They were called "berserksgangr." These days we tend to think of all warriors as berserk.

It isn't that we don't recognize, at some level, a need for warriors. At least in our cinematic fantasies warrior heroes abound. But they are kept on a short leash; they need a license to kill. Though they keep testing constraints on acceptable behavior, when they violate them, people around them tend, as the films put it, to "die hard"; freelance warriors like those played by Bruce Willis pay a steep personal price.

It is a measure of how distant we are from the ancient Greeks, Mongols and Romans that the most complete contemporary incarnations of the warrior are supervillains. Such evildoers display, as their ancient models do, a fierce tribal loyalty; a scorn for any life that stands in their way; a blood lust that megalomaniacally affirms human expendability. "Do you expect me to talk?" James Bond asks Auric Goldfinger, who has strapped Bond to a table where a knifelike laser beam gradually approaches his crotch. The villain laughs in amazement and says: "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die."

We watch these figures or read about their exploits with a certain sense of superiority. We like to think we have transcended this kind of ruthlessness; we are no longer tribally bound, but universally concerned; we don't imagine eliminating our enemies in battle, we imagine driving them to the bargaining table. The West, riven by tribal and religious wars for centuries, imagines that humanity is capable of overcoming that past. Genghis Khan has been superseded by Jimmy Carter. The world's remaining barbarians, even those in our midst, will eventually come to learn the virtues of the Enlightenment, the powers of reason and the prospects of a democratic future.

On the other hand Mr. Harris's arguments should give us pause. And his book demands close attention even by those who would mistakenly consider him another form of berserk. By taking a long view of history Mr. Harris argues that the modern view of how to vanquish enemies is based on false ideas: first, that history progresses; second, that it progresses toward greater influence of reason; and finally, that reason, through its powers, can overcome all opposition. Our smug disdain for the warrior, he suggests, is based on a mistaken view of the powers of modernity and the Enlightenment.

In Mr. Harris's view these errors are affecting the crucial confrontations now taking place between jihadists and Western liberal culture. We keep straining, he says, to see terrorists as if they were just slightly more extreme versions of ourselves, reflecting our own convictions, as if the jihadist were advocating destruction in the name of a version of liberalism.

A Palestinian blows himself up in a pizza parlor, a Shiite drives a car bomb into a crowded plaza of Sunnis (or vice versa), videotapes display beheadings and Internet sites herald massacres. Such horrific deeds are taken almost as proof of suffering, poverty, frustration. The surest cure for terrorism, the argument goes, would be to ameliorate injustice; in the meantime violence can be curbed with well-considered policing.

But Mr. Harris suggests that the jihadist is more accurately thought of as a fanatic, a warrior of the old school, whose technique has been remarkably successful over the centuries. Such warfare accepts no rules other than fealty to the tribe and accepts no compromise other than victory. Islam, he points out, has made "permanent conquests in every part of the world into which it has expanded with only three exceptions: Spain, Sicily, and certain parts of the Balkans": three areas where Islamic fanaticism was confronted with opposing fanaticism.

Mr. Harris argues that by failing to characterize Islamist warfare accurately, the West deludes itself, even employing another Enlightenment idea - tolerance - to grant harbor to those who seek to destroy it. And the West implicitly affirms that, in the end, reason will triumph.

But why? The Enlightenment had inordinate faith in itself and the evolutionary progress of history. But look closely at the few places in the world where these ideas have triumphed, Mr. Harris writes: their success is more fluke than destiny. Democracy and reason displaced warfare and fanaticism not because of their superior powers, but because of rare historical circumstances difficult to replicate (including, he argues, in Iraq). Their survival, far from being inevitable, is always tenuous; liberal societies will always need to live with war.

So Mr. Harris mounts a challenge, and even if we harbor less apocalyptic visions, that challenge is considerable. If we believe, as Mr. Harris affirms, that the societies that have arisen out of Enlightenment ideas, whatever their flaws, really are morally superior to others, if we are convinced that the values of the West are rare and crucial and fragile, then to what extent are we willing to make a stand on their behalf?

In the most extreme case, how does a liberal society embrace the practices of the warrior, which are inimical to its most fervent beliefs? Wouldn't this destroy precisely what's being defended? Mr. Harris can't fully imagine the ways in which liberal society will evolve under such circumstances, but he believes we will soon need to find out. And one way or another somebody like Genghis Khan will be involved.

Connections, a critic's perspective on arts and ideas, appears every other Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/arts/06conn.html?pagewanted=print 8/6/2007

Orange, Green or Yellow

http://jubu531.gaia.com — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:49:18 GMT

have three questions about SDi and Integral Politics that I have been thinking about for some time, and am still confused about.

The first question is this: Which of the following people or organizations are Orange, Green or Yellow, or neither?

Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore, the Democratic Party, Air America Radio, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, the Green Party, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bernie Sanders, Network of Spiritual Progressives, Zen Peacemaker Order, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, The Nation, Utne Reader, Mother Jones Magazine, Atlantic Magazine, The Progressive Magazine, World Economic Forum/World Social Forum, Radical Left parties

My second question is tied somewhat to the first, in that one individual mentioned, Bill Clinton, has mentioned Ken Wilber at the World Economic Forum and has even given Gore one of Wilber's books, and both Clintons have been characterized by progressives as being "Republican Lite", "Bush-Cheney Lite", etc. Is it a sell-out to the Trilateralists and Multinational Corporations and their political allies to consider those who embrace the Integral Approach as individuals who understand 2nd Tier thinking, even though they serve 1st Tier, Corporate (Orange) institutions? And if so, how do we get beyond this if everything we are taught by SDi and Wilber is being co-opted by the corporatists?

Lastly, is anyone teaching these ideas to the social activist groups who mobilize large rallies and shout at the tops of their lungs at protest marches for Iraq and other issues? It seems to me, they are the "Mean Green Meme" personified and could use a heavy dose of Integral Politics, SDi, etc.

Jubu

Re: Practitioners

http://pantergnosis.gaia.com — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:42:06 GMT

UN's x-leader Kofi Annan might have been a second tier leader. I have some doubt that the same is the case with the present Korean UN-leader.

Re: Practitioners

http://jls.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:08:07 GMT

Practices might be a stretch for my answer - but I believe I know of who's aware of integral theory.

Apparently Bill Clinton understands Integral theory and all things AQAL. He wrote a 4 page note after reading Ken Wilber and gave it to Al Gore and on to Tony Blair. Clinton once remarked that the problem with the world is that only 2% of it is integral! Even the inner works of the Bush Administration has recieved some sort of integral theory. It's been pointed out that a lot of world leaders are post-conventional yellow thinking but work in a lower state conventional blue and orange etc.

Re: What is Integral Politics

http://jls.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:56:04 GMT

That's a good point. Not too much interest in politics on Zaadz since most zaadzsters are more than likely pretty 'green' post-conventional thinkers.

But if you think about... integral politics isn't about the in-fighting of politics we say on 24 hour news channels.

What we are really talking about is integral public policy - policies than are comprehensive, complex, and yet efficient. A considerable challenge in today's political battlefields for power.

An Integral Road Map for the political future?

http://jls.gaia.com — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:33:56 GMT

What would the political world look like using integral ideas?

It's a given that integral politics would combine the left quadrants with the right; but in what way and how? For instance, how would a social program address the needs of society (external quadrants) yet also address the inner needs of the individual?

Perhaps levels, or stages, should be applied to society's spectrum. The needs of those on the low economic ladder are addressed much differently than those further up. Integral policy would address those needs across all of society. Really, what an integral policy would look like would not be a simple solution - a massive red-tape bureaurocracy - or tax breaks for someone somewhere -- but rather a complex initiative to address an individual's needs no matter at what stage of society that person is a member of. Such an initiative would go further to emphasize in particular the upper left quadrant -- enabling individuals the ability to make change for themselves. Idealistic to a point -- until you realize just how complicated an integral social initiative might be to get started.

What is the best way to introduce integral practice into today's political arena? Can it be done?

Perhaps the best way to get started is one small program, one small piece of legislation at a time.

More questions than answers!!!

Re: What is Integral Politics

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:37:14 GMT

I think Michael gave up.

That's a pretty common thing in the political pods. There just isn't a lot of political interest here - I think it's a side effect of being a "spiritual".

I wasn't interested in politics for many years when i was younger. Well, that's not quite true, I was heavily into environmental and peakoil activism, but that wasn't quite 'political'. Related to politics, but I wasn't studying the political machinery at the time, just into doing events and trying to get people to think about the environment, climate change, and the end of the oil age.

Re: What is Integral Politics

http://CalmEagle.gaia.com — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:47:40 GMT

Bill
zzzzzzzzz....hmm? Wake me up when the discussion starts...
CalmEagle

Re: Practitioners

http://CalmEagle.gaia.com — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:58:53 GMT

Sometimes courage and integrity touch me deeply. It is a rudiment of Integral Politics, showing that wililngness to walk the walk. Chuck Hagel is the real deal, a Mr. Smith gone to Washington, and his deep down basic goodness shines through his red-state exterior.

Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel says the war in Iraq has become a replay of America's mistakes in Vietnam.

Hagel, a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam conflict, says anarchy has gripped Iraq and that President Bush erred in recently announcing that more troops would be sent there.

read more...

CalmEagle

Re: What is Integral Politics

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:28:25 GMT

Politics is a slow seller in zaadz.

What's your idea of integral politics?

Practitioners

http://akarocco.gaia.com — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:36:09 GMT

Who practices Integral Politics?

What is Integral Politics

http://akarocco.gaia.com — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:35:30 GMT

Tell us what you think Integral Politics looks like...