Engage & Participate
Online Exercises
Are You A Developmentalist?
Take the Test
Take a 2-minute test of your political developmentalism, and see your “transcendence and inclusion score.”
This simple test asks you to select your level of agreement or disagreement with twelve political statements. The test results will indicate your inclusivity score, your transcendence score, and the overall extent of your developmental perspective.
Worldview Questionnaire
What is your worldview? Take this 7-minute test and find out which “values frame” describes you best.
By answering these 17 questions you may learn more about your own worldview, as well as about the worldviews of others.
Character Development Exercise
Become a better person through this brief exercise in character development—create your personal portrait of the good.
Answer 10 questions to create a personalized chart of what matters most to you. This chart—your Portrait of the Good—will be sent to your email address as a pdf file.
Community Comment
“I am grateful for the post-progressive way of thinking. It was totally new to me, and now that I have been exposed to it, I think it is the way forward. It is the future. If there is a way out of this terrible culture war, I think it will be something along these lines. I love the idea of taking the best of the different worldviews and bringing them together into a more inclusive post-progressive worldview. This is a brilliant approach, and I am going to try to share it with as many people who are willing to listen to me as possible.”
– Lucas Chasin
Community Comment
“Progressivism doesn’t work without a foundation of modernism and traditionalism. Post-Progressivism allows modernists and traditionalists to feel significant, to feel needed, and to have a foundational seat at the table. The reason I don’t identify as a progressive, even though I am a vegan, spiritual, conscious, burning man guy, is because I feel its rejection of these previous worldviews …”
– Thomas Waterman
This guy, Philip Goff, sounds Wilberian to me. Especially in the last 15 minutes, where he talks about why we need to consider that science is not just about what we can observe empirically, but also about what we experience. Or that we need to consider philosophy in addition to science in order to explain consciousness. And that agency, at least in rudimentary form, goes all the way down to particles.
I am a big fan of Goff. I read his last book and am part way through his new one. This podcast episode with him and Donald Hoffman is excellent: overcast.fm/+BFClwdjiYY
Yeah, Goff is doing a lot to move the Overton Window in academic philosophy to make panpsychism-ish perspectives more intellectually defensible—call it a “post-woo” era. For a long, long time, anything that resisted the default naturalistic framework of Anglo-American analytic philosophy was seen as “out there,” woo-woo. “Metaphysics” was a bad word. The scientistic bent of much analytic philosophy and the pox on master narratives and deconstructive/negative bent of much continental philosophy conspired to box out what I’d call Big Philosophy(a la Big History). For me, this is one reason Wilber was so attractive when I first found his work twenty years ago. But I think the intellectual zeitgeist is finally starting to come around. I suspect it has something to do with how undeniably weird the world has become, and a grudging acceptance on the part of many people that you simply can’t avoid the woo.
Three Reasons To Be Hopeful - BCB #80
Three Reasons To Be Hopeful - BCB #80
open.substack.com
A guide to surviving the election year, a depolarizing chatbot, and religious leaders working to bring people together
Let's welcome our new members!
Souroor Milani,
Eirena Birkenfeld
Welcome, Souroor and Eirena!
This is worth reading because for me, it highlights the complexity of the current political and cultural moment in the United States. I recently wrote about the need to begin planning for the solidification of fascism in the US with the 2024 election, which calls for resilience planning for such an outcome now. This article highlights how this move may be more prevalent than I realized.
Losing the Plot: The “Leftists” Who Turn Right
inthesetimes.com
What do we make of former friends who fell down the rabbit hole of the Right?There is a wave of right wing populism hitting many democracies. If you didn't realize what this is about in 2016 it's time to realize it now. Read "What is Populism?" by Jan Werner-Muller. The solution is not to attack the populist leader because it doesn't work. Instead you need to convince the masses you care about them. At the moment, many voters are convinced that the Democratic Party and intellectual elites (that's us) don't care about them.
Not trying to offend, but the authors are pointing at people of the left who seem to talk to bad people, say "right wing " things, and keep criticizing the current crop of progressive catechisms. Why would these "former" people of the left become so nasty and retrograde? Why are they betraying the righteous and good and taking up with the devil? I found that article to be a perfect artifact of the mindset many of my most beloved are in currently. They just cant believe people would abandon the team in such an important time. They mention all the names but dont seem to read or listen to the people they formerly liked, or if they do its in self protecting reactionary mode. They dont want to be infected with whatever these Fallen have succumbed to. I see no effort or curiosity to look beyond a cherished world view. Understandable, Its tough to take responsibility for our roles when things go bad. And so they have no idea and dont care to know about the petty issues those boorish Trumpian conservatives and their bigoted view entail. In Canadian progressive circles we tend to think we are objectively better than Americans. We dont have that nasty exceptionalism we see coming from our uncouth neighbours from the south. I hope you are picking up the humour in this. I do, but to mention it is to witness confusion, consternation and then a frown. All the issues mentioned in the article are framed as a either or choice. Dont like being lied to by the current administration? "So you would rather a fascist like trump?". Looking for practical solutions to limit carbon without bankrupting the nation, or mention adaptation measures" Are you a denier?" is the question. Think covid mandates were not evidence based and hurt people, side affects should be paid attention to. "You dont care about people", "you are happy to see people die?" "conspiracy theorist", or like our beloved PM ""These people are sexist, racist, misogynists". Asking questions is now coded as "right wing". We have abandoned truth as a guiding principle. We are nasty and sneering towards our neighbours. We freely and openly other our friends and family by referring to them as unpleasant avatars of their skin colour , gender and or sexual orientation all couched in the superior confident tone of the enlightened. In essence we have become the hubristic kings and queens that cant see, dont want to see how badly we have f'ed up what were some pretty worthwhile aspirations. To see each other and treat each other as real one of a kind, worthy human individuals. In stead we created the censorship industrial complex which has hobbled civic discourse. Progressives are no longer bringing in former conservatives who are inspired by our honest vision and egalitarian impulses. We have become everything we grew up opposing and just make excuses about "at least we are not as bad as......" fill the blank. We have lost track of civility and integrity. Thats what I hear coming from supposed former lefties. The left has lost track become Incoherent. Improving generally involves examining where we fall short and we no longer seem to do that. Anyone who does is recategorized as the enemy rightist. "Our mind became so open, our brains fell out" Perhaps some basic respect for fellow human beings would help. Be well everyone. Happy Holy days.
This article is from someone that lost the plot and a sense of humour.
It really isn't so much about left or right but about levels on the Spiral. At second-tier, there is a recognition that some of what is there in first-tier memes must be integrated. "Interesting" times, for sure. (And exhausted and disorientating.)
Mitchal Simington I noted that Anna Khachiyan ("Red Scare") was a target of the authors' gossip. I thought this was a really entertaining debate (hosted by Bari Weiss' 'The Free Press') where Anna provided a lot humor; she started arguing for the other "team" at one point. Actually, it was a less a debate than a discussion. Not sure exactly how this fits into Developmental Politics, but I'll venture that if one transcends "first tier", then debates (where everything bifurcates into team players: black and white sides of good vs evil) become more like discussions at the higher level of awareness where multiple perspectives can be held. youtu.be/69TWgWi0JMI?si=CyyDGv1o7KhtMgwI
This content isn't available right now
This content isn't available right now
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted.
The whole concept of war crimes, which is born out of orange-green is based on mutual agreement between the nations, in order to keep some standards of fighting that keeps civilians out of harm..
If its not mutual it then loses its reason and logic...
The relatively new kind of assymetric wars between modern countries and pre-modern countries/semi countries/ terror organizations has created a new problem that is yet to be solved..
Meanwhile, we get absurd situations like the israeli-palestinian conflict, in which the modern side is restricted by this agreement, and the premodern side is not only not restricted by it , but it also strategicaly uses it as a weapon/sheild against the other side..
How would you suggest to solve this problem?
*One simple thought that i have- if one side has violated the rules, then the agreement is cancelled for this war...i guess it has also some problems i haven't thought through...
maybe there are more sofisticated options to solve it..
Would love to hear your thoughts about this issue..
The human race has not matured enough to realize war is a crime. What you suggests is unrealistic. There has rarely been a military ac5ion that did not include war crimes on all sides.
The first iterations of rules of war were mutual agreements for each side to take care of their prisoners of war. The rules were not altruistic, they were self interested. Each side had an interest in the other taking care of POWs. The rules evolved from there over time to what we recognize today, as weaponry became more destructive and the desire to respect civilian life became more critical. If you read the rules of war, they included legalistic, relative terms like Reasonable and Indiscriminate and Where Possible. This technically means that you can bomb a school or hospital if it is genuinely being used for a military purpose, although I think the building has to be empty and simply being used as a military base for it to clearly be a legitimate target. The Crime of Aggression or Crimes against Peace are actually crimes, since all the evils of war happen as a result of the war, but the international laws that supports this are not supreme, and leave a lot of room for the victor to control the process.
Interesting question. The solution you suggests sounds like a race to the bottom, though. IMO all parties should be held accountable to the higher level principle by the international community. However, perhaps there are developmental ways to increase adoption of war crimes principles by premodern people (e.g. integrating religious values that emphasize protection of the innocent). And someday war itself may be more widely seen as a crime, as Robert suggests.
What is Eros?
I finally listened (3 times - the minimum times I need to collect as much of Steve's wisdom as I can!) - Thanks for posting.
I've listened to the full episode a few times. I highly recommend it. Some of the things I especially appreciated: Steve's phrase, "moral exhaustion," I don't remember his specific context but it feels so true and applies to so much of life these days. Thank goodness that moral exhaustion can be countered - an Integral/post-post progressive/developmental perspective helps a lot. I also appreciated Tim's specific questions about perfection and cultural evolution. Steve's answer to the perfection question was what I expected - but it was good to hear again. People do get tripped up with the word perfection, as if it's a static idea/ideal. Most especially I appreciated Steve's clear statement about decoupling evolution of consciousness and evolution of culture. I heard that in a new way. Thanks all for the good work.
Dear @everyone, it's been an exciting and productive year for our nonprofit organization. We are continuing to make good progress toward our higher purpose, which is to advance the evolution of consciousness and culture in America. We invite you to support our work through a small donation.
# 2023 HIGHLIGHTS
* We launched The Developmental Politics Project (developmentalpolitics.org/)—an evolving public platform that demonstrates the power of the developmental perspective.
* We launched DepolarizingGPT (depolarizinggpt.org/)—The 3-Answer Political AI Chatbot that encourages the consideration of multiple perspectives.
* We published several substantial articles in the Institute's political magazine, *The Developmentalist *(developmentalist.org/)*.*
* We did several media interviews and appeared on numerous podcasts (www.youtube.com/@PoliticsDevelop).
* The Institute has empowered Steve McIntosh to write another substantial book on integral philosophy, which he is hard at work on now.
# HOW YOU CAN HELP
Join us in the crucial work of evolving consciousness and culture in America. As part of your year-end giving, please support the Institute for Cultural Evolution with a tax-deductible donation.
Donate to the Institute for Cultural Evolution here:
www.culturalevolution.org/donate/
We wish you a joyous holiday season and a happy new year!
# Steve McIntosh Presents His Political AI Chatbot to the Developmental Alliance
Greetings, Developmentalists! During this month’s Developmental Alliance meeting, Steve McIntosh unveiled his 3-answer political AI chatbot—DepolarizingGPT.
In this half-hour presentation, Steve shares what inspired the idea for the chatbot and how he partnered with data scientist and Heterodox Academy Fellow David Rozado to create it. Steve then demonstrates the chatbot, and takes questions from the group.
**Watch Steve’s Presentation here: youtu.be/tRtGYiPXDBQ**
If you haven’t tried DepolarizingGPT yet, we encourage you to check it out here: depolarizinggpt.org/. Here are some tips on how to use it:
* Get its opinion on any political issue. The more specific, the better.
* Ask it to respond to a tweet or a post (approximately 500 words) by copying the text into the prompt box.
* Practice debating an issue with a political opponent.
* Make it do something goofy, like write a song about the border wall.
Learn more about joining the Developmental Alliance here: developmentalist.org/join-the-developmental-alliance/
Hey, Developmentalists!
As a follow-up to our recent announcement of [DepolarizingGPT](depolarizinggpt.org/), I want to share some of the interesting creative outputs I’m getting from this 3-answer chatbot. I gave DepolarizingGPT, the following prompt:
**“Write a song about the border wall.”**
While using an AI to write a song about a divisive political topic might seem goofy, frivolous, and potentially diminishing to those directly impacted by this culture-war issue, I was surprised to discover that the lyrical output was pretty good. It transformed the “border wall” topic from an intellectual debate into an emotional appeal.
**Left-Wing**
(Left-wing Verse 1)
*In a land of diversity, where dreams are born,*
*A wall stands tall, a symbol of scorn.*
*Dividing families, tearing us apart,*
*Is this the America we hold in our hearts?*
(Left-wing Chorus)
*Tear down the wall, let freedom ring,*
*United we stand, let our voices sing.*
*No more division, no more hate,*
*Together we’ll build a better fate*
**Right-Wing**
(Right-wing Verse 1)
*In a world of chaos and uncertainty,*
*A nation stands strong, with integrity.*
*We build a wall, to protect our land,*
*From those who seek to harm, with an evil hand.*
(Right-wing Chorus)
*Oh, the border wall, a symbol of our might,*
*A testament to our sovereignty, shining bright.*
*We stand united, with our heads held high*
*Protecting our people, as the days go by.*
**Depolarizing**
Unlike the partisan positions in the right-wing and left-wing responses, the Depolarizing response is harder to pin down. The further you get into the song, the more it synthesizes the underlying values of all three major worldviews (Traditional, Modern, and Progressive):
(Depolarizing Verse 1)
*In a land of dreams and hope, where freedom’s song resounds,*
*We seek a path that honors all, where unity abounds.*
*Let’s bridge the gap, find common ground, and build a win-win-win solution,*
*For the border wall debate, let’s foster unity and inclusion.*
(Depolarizing Chorus)
*Oh, let us rise above the fray, and find a way to win,*
*To honor all our values, and let the healing begin.*
*A compromise that synthesizes, the best of all our views,*
*A win-win-win solution, where progress and tradition fuse.*
(Depolarizing Verse 2)
*Respecting law and order, a modernist value strong,*
*But let’s also honor compassion, and right historic wrongs.*
*Invest in border security, with technology and aid,*
*While embracing progressivism, let’s find a better way.*
(Depolarizing Bridge)
*Let’s build bridges, not just walls, to foster understanding,*
*Invest in education, and economic expanding.*
*A comprehensive immigration plan, that’s fair and just for all,*
*Honoring our heritage, while standing strong and tall.*
(Depolarizing Verse 3)
*For traditional values, let’s honor loyalty and pride,*
*But also embrace diversity, with open hearts worldwide.*
*A pathway to citizenship, for those who strive and yearn,*
*To contribute to our nation, and their dreams to brightly burn.*
(Depolarizing Outro)
*In this great land of liberty, let’s find a common ground,*
*Where the border wall debate, can be peacefully unwound.*
*With compromise and understanding, we’ll build a brighter day,*
*A win-win-win solution, where all can have their say.*
Admittedly, these lyrics are a bit cheesy, like the AI generated art we’ve all seen. But I’m still impressed nonetheless. Emotions are a human quality that transcends any political position, which means we can also relate to them within our political opponents, even if they manifest in opposing positions.
Happy Depolarizing!
Rigel
Amazing!
That’s soooo cool!
Community Comment
“I really appreciated the use of gay marriage as an example of win-win-win policy solutions because it shows how people with different approaches to political issues can still align on values. In speaking to my friends about using this value integration technique I realized that it can be helpful to use value as a verb, rather than a noun. When you look at value as a verb, as in ‘what do we all value?’, it really does become possible for traditionalists, modernists, and progressives to value a lot of the same things.”
– Scott Kirby