Engage & Participate

David Sorley this is the post to keep an eye on for comments on when we will do the next one if you are interested in joining us!

Thanks, everyone, for this discussion. You got an article out of me! It's just a more edited version of what I shared in the comments here and focused on more of a business audience, but I hope it's helpful to someone: www.linkedin.com/pulse/difference-between-cultural-relativism-integral-rayner-jae-liu

Jeremy Walker within the last month or so proof of vaccination no longer requirement to enter New Zealand, Australia. And countries in Europe like Germany also dropped any requirement some time ago. Also Mexico has no requirement (not aware if it ever did). It seems US and Canada are becoming outliers in the group of western modern European nations in which they are typically grouped. Japan also still requires vaccination certificate, but certain asian countries (Japan, Korea, China) historically have a disposition to isolationism in response to, say, presumably corrupting foreign influences on many levels; that makes me interpret their response to the covid pandemic as of a differing character than US and Canada (in which the red vs blue "culture war" plays a part). But Biden did declare "the Covid pandemic is over" (and now endemic, to which Dr Leana Wen agrees in recent WaPo editorial). I note, for one, from watching the docs on a recent VPZD podcast, that Leana Wen's position has evolved. I agree with Damania and Prasad that that evolution has been in a constructive direction.

It was a worthwhile experiment, but notice that the action items agreed upon for "responsibility" require zero sacrifice from pandemic deniers. Plus, a lot of work would need to be put into implementing, which I'm pretty sure none of the "freedom first" folks will commit to. So, ultimately, it will be those of us most concerned about the ongoing pandemic that will end up pushing for the neutral action items. In other words, we're just maintaining the status quo of unbridled spread of disease, sickness, and death with zero accountability for any of the entities--or individuals--who made that happen.

Great summary, Jeremy!

Love this discussion!!

It was great fun to support everyone surfacing the polarities. So glad Laura could take it deeper. 💖

This piece makes some important points. I definitely think it is important to recognize that a belief in uninterrupted and irresistible progress has had many negative effects. I also agree it is important to read history through the experiences of those living through it and not through our assumptions. We definitely don't know for sure what will happen tomorrow. Yet we may be able to become better at recognizing the signs. I know a little about this topic but would be interested in knowing more about those few who did recognize the signs and danger of war on the horizon in their time.

Very poignant wise and humble piece. I too forget abt the in-between times even though my whole life has been lived in one of those periods mostly. Amiel Handelsman. So thank you. The only things I might add are 1-that progress does seem to have a trajectory (there really are less wars now according to Pinker) AND that evolution is not totally linear. So there are dips and gyrations. Yet the (mostly) global response to Putin is also evidence of some growth. (I just binge watched the whole Ken Burns new series on the US and the Holocaust and the lack of global response does indicate some growth in the center of gravity when we look at the response to Putin). 🙏🏼 2-To all of that that maybe add a Jeff comment that evolution is beautiful but not pretty? Just thinking abt your humble/uncertain side of the polarity balanced w the hopeful/things are seem to be shifting upward pole? Maybe? Thanks again for this wisdom. 🙏🏼💚

Amiel, Thanks for sharing this very thoughtful reflection. One way I judge the merit of an essay is by the number of thoughts and responses it triggers in my mind, and this essay triggered a bunch. And since you’ve opened the door, I’ll walk in. The outbreak and conduct of the First World War marked a seismic fissure in world history. This rupture in the material world and in the expectations and actions of people in a great portion of the globe has fascinated historians and artists (and me) since its outbreak. The Second World War, although even more ghastly in the extent of its destruction, can be seen as merely an aftershock of that original earthquake that began in 1914. Although I haven’t read Zwieg’s The World of Yesterday (it has sat on my bookshelf quietly for several years, and now it’s screaming at my to be read), but from other sources, I have a strong sense of what you’re reporting. (Keynes makes a similar point when looking back to before the war in his THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE (1919). Indeed, in the era running roughly from 1870 to 1914, which the French came to refer to as the “Belle Epoque. Impressionist paintings that came to the fore in that era displayed shimmering surfaces of peace, prosperity, and progress. But the shimmering surfaces concealed— to those not sensitive to the movement of deep, tectonic plates—the forces that would bring everything down. The signs and prophets were there, but unheeded. And this story, of progress and stability and (some measure of) prosperity can be told again and again, both before and after WWI. For me, it’s an era of reprieve that I grew up in: post-WWII America. For me, the puzzle is how our collective and individual consciousness can evolve, and yet we still suffer from such consequential flaws. In other words, what are the “bugs” (think computers or biological disease—take your pick) that prompts us humans to become the source of our own undoing? Without question, humans have made progress throughout history in our material well-being and our fund of knowledge, especially in the more recent times. Indeed, the growth of knowledge and material well-being has skyrocketed since 1870. (See Brad DeLong’s recently published SLOUCHING TOWARDS UTOPIA: AN ECONOMIC HISTORY 1870-2010. (Sept. 2022).) We ought to have been dancing in the streets now for some time, rejoicing in our prosperity, but we’re not. Of course, we can point to injustices to explain why we’re not all happy. But why are there remaining injustices? Don’t we know better? Don’t we know that injustice leads to discontent and revolution? Don’t we know that greed, envy, jealousy, and ressentiment lead to deep social unrest? We know. We have developed our collective consciousness sufficiently to allow us deep insights into these issues. But we don’t use our insights (don’t get me started on climate change), our foresight, or our empathy to the measure needed by our current (or past) circumstances. Those who’ve gained and cultivated a broadened, deeper consciousness often seem no better off than Cassandra or the Prophets: we can see—or at least sense—that events are going amiss, but our cries go unheeded. We can spread the word; we can educate; but will the bulk of humanity ever obtain the level of consciousness necessary to make better individual and collective decisions? Jung stated at one point that we’re all ‘ten million years old.” (I recall that Ursula Le Guin made a similar point.) To wit, we humans, like all biological evolution, layer new systems onto established systems. A human brain on top of a mammalian brain on top of a reptilian brain, for instance. So with cultural development as mapped by Graves and Beck, for instance. The lower, more fundamental levels never disappear, they go dormant, unused because they're no longer suited to current demands. But these types of thoughts and programmed responses are like plants or microbes that lay dormant for decades and then burst forth when the conditions favorable to their flourishing become manifest. It’s my concerns about these bugs that make me a conservative, of sorts. That is, not conservative so much in the sense of contemporary American politics, but in the sense of a physician who realizes that there are pathological microbes out there with which we must always contend. We can’t completely destroy these microbes (too costly and dangerous to the entire ecosystem, even if within our means), and we can only inoculate so many people and only with limited effectiveness. Think of the common cold. (Don’t read too much into this, viz. COVID-19; and for the record, I’m fully vaxxed and boosted. I’m conservative and cautious and attempt to minimize risks.) It seems that human finitude and fallibility (manifest in both negligent and intentional acts) are never going to leave us, and therefore we must build defenses against ourselves. This is, of course, what human cultures, via religions, laws, institutions, and moral codes, have sought to do throughout human history. But liberalism, as one manifestation of modernity, has challenged many of those prohibitions as too overarching or simply irrational, and rightfully so in many cases. But perhaps some of those challenges have gone too far. Perhaps we need more limits on individual, corporate, and national sovereignty. Perhaps we can only delay the enemy at the gates, but never defeat the foe because the foe is us—humanity as we have evolved through eons of biological and then cultural (consciousness) change. We are at once a part of Nature and apart from Nature. Our minds out race the ability of our animal ancestry to keep pace with or control what our fertile minds concoct. How can we bind ourselves to the mast? How can we enjoy the Sirens' song without putting ourselves in danger (as we so often have) by cutting our own restraints and following the Sirens’ song to our demise? Individually and collectively, this is the role of religions and philosophy up to the time of Modernity, to establish guidelines, limits, and understanding. What have we now? Those ancient antecedents are still available and useful, but there’s another source of more recent vintage that we should draw upon: history. History as a form of knowledge. More on History to come.

This echoes sentiments expressed by Jordan Peterson: (the problem in USA of fame, idols, political figures includingTrump). ( Peterson here appearing with his spouse Tammy, who, in my opinion, is providing some necessary grounding to him ... ). youtu.be/_5os9bT9zuo

A thoughtful essay. I'm too American to be much in favor of royalty or care much about it, but Sullivan hits on the strong point. And, of course, as Sullivan (via C.S. Lewis) agrues, it has to be weighed against the alternatives.

Thanks David. You so often articulate so well my sense of things. I might even add to my beloved CS Lewis’ quote if denied The Divine not just a king. Many images in traditional religions abt G-d as sovereign.

Two words: Archetypal. Psyche.

The book sounds fascinating, Stephen. Thanks for posting on this. Looking forward to reading your essay on Substack (when I get a chance. I know it's going to be very juicy. 🙂)

Thanks Deborah. Not in dialogue at that level though very engaged with conservative Rep Adam Kinzinger’s group Country 1st where a more horizontal oriented political spectrum is well represented (Conservative traditionalists), moderate modernist Dems, some progressives and independent libertarians. our focus is around ending toxic tribalism through politics and dialogue and just starting to look at alternative solutions. Something more integral is def trying to emerge.