I think that the "Will-to-Power"
referred to in this conversation between Harari and Bilyeu in combination with
a dominant, premodern developmental (reality-interpretive) level is
particularly dangerous, especially now that existentially-threatening
technologies have been developed by individuals of a dominant modern
(reality-interpretive) developmental level.
This is because in the pre-modern, mythic, ethnocentric level of
development regarding how individuals interpret reality as per their
identities, values, interpersonal affairs (and other important lines of
development), the Will-to-Power is particularly justified with absolutist
doctrinal ideas much more readily than at the modern-rational and subsequent
levels and people seek absolutist doctrinal solutions based on ethnic
belonging. It is not a world-centric stage of development in which all of
humanity is "us". Only those that are like us culturally or
ideologically and, often, racially... are "us."
All stages of development contribute
valuable truths but pre-modern ones are not compatible with modern liberal
societies. People in these stages live in the modern, liberal system and (when
politically strongly motivated/activated) tend to use it not for the benefit of
the healthy benefit of the collective in balance with individual freedoms.
Against today's challenges, some of their truths are simplistic, often
vertically hierarchical, and absolute and facts and reason are secondary. On
the other hand, they may be more open to (or vehemently against) non-ordinary
(UAP, otherworldly, psychic, spiritual) experiences (that appear to be vitally
necessary to extend our understanding of nature, reality, and new worldviews in
order to change how we treat the world), but towards which rational-scientific
academics also tend to be dogmatically closed-minded against. While premodern
individuals tend to mythologize excessively relying on absolutist doctrines,
rational-scientific individuals tend to dismiss a deeper connection with
reality via intuition and myth. However, in theory, an integrative, post, postmodern
level of development would be possible to integrate the best and healthy
aspects and findings of all previous levels. This may sound elitist but longitudinal
psychological research appears to validate it: Different stages or levels of
how we may interpret our participation in the world under the same - adaptive -
human nature.
However, individuals at a pre-modern
interpretive stage are bound to defend their positions (and identity groups)
even above evidence and reason and are bound to clash with each other when they
do not coincide and are also bound to clash with modern thinkers, including
those that offer democratic thinking, methods, and solutions. They are bound to
clash with modernity and with pluralist liberal democracies and to do whatever
is necessary to impose their belief systems in the world. They are bound to use
democratic systems in an unfair, abusive manner to impose their beliefs. Once
politically activated/motivated by a charismatic leader and the loss of social
status, it becomes a Holy Crusade for them and their ideologies can be
right-wing fascist, left-wing, communist, and even theocratic and monarchic.
Even if they espouse liberal values by virtue of living in a liberal system,
they will become extremists and diminish or replace that liberal system. And
people thus activated often become followers and supporters of selfish,
power-hungry narcissists regardless of the political system they peddle to
motivate people and gain control.
One of the major problems in humanity today
not only lies in the lack of social cohesion or agreement generated by
information confusion under fake news and easy-to-disseminate false
conspiratorial narratives exacerbating distrust, and a need to belong to the simple
solutions given by an all-absorbing or totalizing identity group. The essential
problem rests in how to increase (percentage-wise) the number of people
interpreting reality at least from a modern-rational, world-centric
developmental level. Otherwise, pluralism, democracy, reason, a modicum of
international coexistence under legal agreements, evidence-based
decision-making, and individual freedom would be in continuous danger.
If most voters do not think in
world-centric terms and values how are we (humanity) going to tackle
world-centric existential problems? The
challenge becomes particularly immense if the cutthroat competitive business
model in social media (and somewhat less in mainstream media) demands multiplying
people's attention-getting outrage and tendentious, false, and accusative
information. How can our continuously (for profit, or personal,
or political gain), abused short attention span (manipulated for someone else's
popularity, greater income, or other the wrong reasons) help us to educate
ourselves in the great effort needed to reach higher, more nuanced, and
comprehensive levels of psychological development?
If technologically advanced, self-sentient beings are finally widely recognized as a real presence in the world what interpretive level of development is going to have the easiest time integrating this reality in a win-win, constructive manner? Will religious and mythically inclined individuals tend to praise-worship or condemn them? Will rational scientifically-inclined individuals be able to integrate the non-classical, psychic, spiritual, and consciousness-based aspects of contact phenomena related to intelligences associated with UFOs? Will the former be better able to integrate these aspects than the latter...under absolutist doctrines?
We need to invest in the creation of
formative, educational societies that motivate people to edify themselves and
reach more advanced (at least world-centric) levels of development; to become ever more coherently inclusive,
towards the responsible integration of practicality, critical-rational
thinking, humane values, and an open-ended, non-fanatical spirituality. As Ken
Wilber points out, some of the developmental psychologists that studied
different lines of development (but generally coincide on the corresponding
stages of development) are Robert Kegan, Clare Graves, Susan Cook-Greuter, Jean
Piaget, Jane Loevinger, Jenny Wade, Michael Washburn, John Broughton, Cheryl
Armon, Chris Cowan, Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Evelyn Underhill, James
Fowler, Abraham Maslow, and Ken Wilber himself. Several longitudinal
developmental studies showed these developmental stages and how the higher
stages would be necessary to adapt to today's world. Usually, this is
erroneously left out in conferences like the World Economic Forum and other
conferences or analyses about our current political, geopolitical, economic,
and ecological situation. Without this - developmental - piece of the puzzle we
risk not being able to have a better understanding and correct the course we
are in.
Unless, politically dominant percentages of
the population are provided with the social and educational stimuli to develop
at least to modern, world-centric levels, more objective and willing to engage
in large-scale social coordination, I think that technologically empowered individuals
(and the danger their pose to society if they think and try to impose premodern
ways) will quite likely be controlled under technologically empowered
autocracies, using surveillance and AI at the beck and call of insufficiently
developed dictators.
The seriousness of our compounding
systemic, structural "poly-crises" demands a seriously creative
approach. We are capable of much better
and must not delay in facing the basic issues behind our existential problems.
Comments
Post a Comment