Building "models" for negotiating this world, like "maps" and theories is not for everyone, I get it. But here is an interesting quote a colleague just sent on the value (a la Van Gogh): "“The absence of models, in literature as in life, to say nothing of painting, is an occupational hazard for the artist, simply because models in art, in behavior, in growth of spirit and intellect-even if rejected-enrich and enlarge one’s view of existence.” Excerpt From In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens Alice Walker
To be clear, Misty's articulation of an applied fear/anxiety/panic management as discussed in this video is primarily based on Cognitive Behaviorism (and its therapies). This approach reflects the Second Wave of Psychology (i.e., movement over the past 100 years and is linked in close interrelation with Cognitivism as the way to understand humans and life). I am appreciative of this wave but not a big fan of approaches to Psychology in general that ignore the other three-four waves of Psychology. Again, my interest and expertise is in fear management/education that is underpinned with a holistic-integral approach, as a critical integralist philosopher-educator. You can find my work, for example on the "culture of fear" phenomenon if you Google Scholar search my name and that topic. Lots of free pdfs.
A colleague emailed me: "I’m so pissed about the unmet need out there! And pissed because Possibikity Managers all over the world have such empowering tools to share and are massively underused. Including me. Many of my to-do list items are my efforts to become more visible so I might flow these effective tools to others. Back to it. Thank you for all you do!"
Jun 7/24, Marianne Williamson official ends her presidential campaign. She calls for a wave of (r)evolution of "decency" and that's pretty much it. She concludes her newsletter and her 'next': "I’ll continue to strive to serve that vision: the emergence of a coalition of decency that will overwhelm the indecencies of our degraded times and return us to our better selves." That sure sounds idealistic doesn't it (?) There's no commitment to building a coalition with political savvy (and a little of her idealism and policies). Nope. It's no doubt on her business agenda to start hitting the road, finally, to marketing her new book "The Mystic Jesus" (2024, HarperCollins).
One colleague emailed in response: "Wow, sounds like birth work, a traumatizing culture for women and girls...then educators caught in the mix. Yes, my elementary school teacher friends tell me so, families are struggling at base, not able to be in healing states and care for each other well."
I am struck by the data (front-line experience) in Emergency Rooms in big cities (e.g., Toronto)--where the high percentage of their intake are 10-13 year old girls in crisis, physically and emotionally. This is a worthy talk to listen to Misty and how she helps bring new insights and realities to the job of teaching children and teaching teachers how to be with children. We didn't get into in this video but the tragedy of what is happening to teachers is also a deep concern for us both.
For critics who think this kind of Beckerian analysis of culture (and fear of death/mortality) is way too much (too dark) and not very practical, I will hold off on my return critique but to rather just say, "You have a point." The more rational-scientific (shallow) way to probe into the problem of death is to ask the obvious question: "Why do we die?" As I just saw a whole video on the neurobiology of why we die. For many, I guess, that helps calm the edge of death anxiety.
An important context/awareness in my self-reflection time this morning: I waited over 4 decades to finally speak out about "worldview" directly in my work. That itself is a puzzlement I am sorting out in the process now of knowing that I want to write a book on worldview(s). Note: one cannot really talk about "worldviews" (restoration, balancing, regeneration etc.) without also including research and analysis of "New Story" thinkers-theorists, e.g., from the 1970s a big player in this was the geologian Thomas Berry. However, more significant, I watched the movie "Grace & Grit" (2021) last night (biography of love relationship of Ken Wilber and Treya Killam Wilber from the 1980s true story) finally and was struck again by a profound beautiful awareness, feeling, and subtle opening of consciousness. I was remembering so many experiences I have had since 1982 when I first opened "Up From Eden" (Wilber's 1981 darkest story of the human journey). Then this morning I get the insight, helpful to those attempting to understand my work on fear(lessness) and on worldview. "I approach the study of fear from an integral perspective, I approach the study of worldview from an integral perspective," I wrote in my journal this morning. Strategically, I have done this to get around (at least theoretically) the problems of those who study "fear" and "worldview" from too narrow of a perspective--and, everyone does. My unique contribution to these topics amounts to: "I approach worldview analysis itself as my subject, not worldview(s)." And, that's what I have devoted my career to in regard to Fear Studies. Which comes down to, in the latter case, I don't spend much time on "fear" nor will I on "worldview" (equally, on fears or worldviews). My task is larger than that. So, as I begin to read Worldview Studies (which I have not done all these decades) as preparation for my background to speak sufficiently as a creator and critic, it is essential to make this distinction of my approach. Again, I am more interested in worldview analysis--that is, the methodological and epistemological basis of worldview analysis than I am of worldview(s) per se. Another way to say it, I am more interested in knowledge (i.e., the Foucauldian notion of discourses) of worldview analysis---same with fearanalysis. And, one of the pivotal units I have named (a la Foucault) is Knowledge-Fear-Power (aka Discourse) and how it operates and constructs reality (and yes, worldviews and worldview analysis itself). I am looking as a critic at this unit always and I am snooping for when the creators of worldview(s) and particularly worldview analysis (theories) do not sufficiently look at their own biases and name them and claim them (let the reader beware)--but rather (more or less) weaponize their models/theories for other agendas. Of course, we all have our agenda. Mine is the agenda of the True, the Beautiful, the Good --a la integral and a la fearlessness. We'll see where that gets me.
Another study that Misty referred to is: Galloway, M. (2023, September 20). Wednesday September 20, 2023 Episode Transcript | CBC Radio. CBC. www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/wednesday-september-20-2023-episode-transcript-1.6973362
Misty mentioned in this talk about a good study by some UBC researchers on the contagion of "stress" from teachers in a classroom to the students; here is that study article: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27156042/
Update (Jun 6/24): New movie trailer is up on RU-vid now for "All Illusions Must Be Broken" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ojDvF6KOClw.html
Thank you for this, Michael. Though some of this is over my head, I find it important for any chance this world has of thriving in the future. I find the notion of "terror of change" ringing with truth. Something I find so true you touched on is the notion of humans having (or not having) the capcity to handle the amount of complex problems coming our way. Your emphasis on the big picture, about not losing the relations with the natural, spiritual world which is beyond culture, to be crucial. Cultural perspective is critical, indeed, yet ultimately the purpose of world view thinking must be to help humanity get to the interpersonal, spiritual, and creative context. Having more capacity to handle the complexity of it all feels daunting, but perhsaps our only hope.
The "horizontal" (plane) reflection and critique I offer near the end of the video is that it is pluralism and heterarchism (in extremis) that has focused on difference, the particular, the many--and, made that a 'religion' as far as I am concerned. Most integralists are post-pluralists and I agree with Wilber's critiques of the nightmare of postmodern extreme post-structuralism/pluralism (multi-culturalism) etc. as a nightmare (toxic soup) of "flatland ontologies" (from the ECO Camp), as he calls it. Much larger conversation there, and it would involve a nuanced complicated conversation re: the metaphysics (ontology, epistemology, axiology) of the topics covered in this video--and, that underlie worldviews and theories about worldviews and their approaches.
Note, I emphasized the "creative worldview" contra the "virtues-based worldview" approaches, and I emphasized the "creative at the center" (end of the talk). These notions require a lot of ferreting out beyond this video talk. I added emphasis that the "creative worldview" (approach, as meta-theory and meta-perspective) is the more "aesthetic" and "artistic." Sure, I am at core an artist, as is my partner/scholar Barbara Bickel. We have taken another slant towards a "creative worldview" approach (not ignoring the virtues-based approaches) under the umbrella of not just integralists but under the umbrella of a "matrixial worldview" contra phallocentric worldviews. Specifically, we have been heavily influenced by the artist-psychoanalyst-aesthetic theorist Bracha L. Ettinger --her Matrixial Theory (which is underwritten by a revolutionary matrixial worldview). I don't mention this in the video talk above.
Another related discussion re: worldview clashes and culture wars, can be found on my talk two months ago: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LajmPaQ_uSk.html I raise a controversial subject re: cultures as macro-defence (buffering) systems, this links my thought to Ernest Becker's great existential analysis of worldviews; see my video on his work lately: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JW9bN7Ccg0w.html
Update (Jun 2/24), yes, near 4 years ago I did this dialogue with Four Arrows (Wahinkpe Topa), a marvelous Indigenous thinker/theorist and is most provocative (I think) for his "Two Worldviews Theory" [1]. Recently, I have brought out of the cupboard and dusted-off my own worldview theory/analyst and have seen it is time to critique Four Arrows' approach to worldview analysis/theorizing. See my talk: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5bAfYL0FUwE.html Note. 1. see Four Arrows' (2016) book "Point of Departure: Returning to a More Authentic Worldview for Education and Survival. IAP.
Thanks for comments folks, I'll wait a bit to see if more comments come in and then I'll respond. Just want to highlight, where I, as a worldview meta-theorist, step into the deep muck (aka, make myself a 'target' of animosity and critique): more or less I say at the beginning of this video talk above, that "I am working on a better way to do culture." And, a critical, creative, developmental, holistic-integral worldview analysis is the way to go--or, at least, it is essential in us all figuring out how to do culture. My experience for decades has been a message from many diverse camps of thought ("worldviews") is: 'Don't mess with my culture!" I make an indirect but pointing of critique, that I am out to challenge "Culturalism" (not unrelated to Four Arrows' critique of what he called "cultural hegemony")--and, that story is a long and complicated ongoing discussion. I am always looking for those who wish to dialogue and co-inquire respectfully into this and/or offer something better than what I am putting out there. That said, I have written 10 pp of notes (in the past 24 hrs) responding to critiques already on the horizon to what I present in this video and to what ultimately is a critique (by my critics) of my entire corpus of work on (integral) Fear Management Systems Theory. Ah, and there is the rub.
This is an excellent presentation Michael that only you could have managed. I took many notes and will find time to put them together for you. They will reflect both agreements and disagreements, but more importantly, I hope they will offer constructive "solutions" to your concerns about the "virtue" orientation you believe my worldview chart represents. I will expess my critique of Ken Wilbur's Integral theory as part of my offering, as well as the anthropocentrism in Johnston's work, despite his work and mine, as you say, having many overlaps. As I have to rush off to a class with my new Antioch University students, just for the fun of it I put into AI (a brilliant phenomenon that I can nonetheless easilty get to apologize for mistakes and that has many potential hazards if misused), the following question: Please compare Charles Johnston and Four Arrows ideas on wordview: 1. Comparison and Contrast Commonalities: 1. Holistic Approach: Both CST and Four Arrows' rebalancing stress the importance of a holistic perspective that integrates multiple dimensions of experience and knowledge. 2. Integration: Each framework seeks to integrate disparate elements (whether cultural stages or dual worldviews) to foster a more comprehensive and balanced understanding. 3. Future Vision: Both approaches are forward-looking, aiming to guide humanity towards a more integrated, sustainable, and harmonious future. Differences: 1. Focus on Creativity vs. Indigenous Knowledge: CST centers around the creative developmental process and the evolution of cultural complexity. In contrast, Four Arrows emphasizes the integration of Indigenous knowledge systems with Western thought. 2. Cultural Evolution vs. Rebalancing: CST is rooted in the idea of cultural evolution and developmental stages, whereas Four Arrows focuses on rebalancing and decolonizing dominant paradigms. 3. Theoretical vs. Practical Orientation: CST is primarily a theoretical framework describing cultural evolution, while Four Arrows' approach is more explicitly practical, advocating for specific changes in education, environmental policy, and social systems. Application: 1. CST: Applied in understanding cultural trends, guiding personal and societal development, and fostering integrative thinking in complex problem-solving. 2. Four Arrows: Implemented in educational reform, environmental activism, and promoting social justice by integrating Indigenous principles into mainstream practices. In summary, while Johnston's CST offers a framework for understanding the creative and developmental trajectory of cultures, Four Arrows' approach provides a pathway for rebalancing contemporary Western thought with Indigenous wisdom to address ecological and social challenges. Both perspectives highlight the need for holistic and integrative thinking in navigating the complexities of modern life.
One more thing missing in your presentation that I know is deep in your knowledge base relates to trance-based learning. I refer readers to your excellent overview of CAT-FAWN as a "dehypnotizing technology"
@@wahinkpetopa Oh, good reminder, here is the link for that blog: fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/de-hypnotizing-technology-of-cat-fawn-by-four-arrows
Finally read this initial response. Four Arrows and I have an academic and friendship going back to 2007 and we have co-written and published and have had many dialogues, including two spontaneous dialogues (re: FearTalks) over the last 5 years, you can find here on my RU-vid channel, e.g., ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GKKNWEfl_nY.html I'll await your more detailed critique to say more. To note, I appreciate your interest to "offer constructive 'solutions' to my concerns expressed in the video--especially, re: the virtues-based approaches to worldview analysis. A much longer conversation. As for myself, I have long followed the unique and potent philosopher Ken Wilber (and Integral theory --note, they are not equivalent) and I (a committed integralist as distinct from holist or holistic thinker) have been in that Integral sphere/camp for 42 years more or less, and the "integralists" and I don't get along, including Ken Wilber and I (not that I haven't tried to several times), as they don't seem to like my way of thinking and my critiques of their work (e.g., they don't care about my fearist perspective at all). In short, I have long been working on an integral-aperspectival imaginary/theory of indigenizing curriculum and pedagogy--still in progress. I have done a research study with an Indigenous perspective (on heart health problems) with a big grant (out of Univ. of Manitoba)--and, I worked on designing an Indigenous-Integral 'mapping' of the scoping review data--and, it was impressive to many and the Indigenous people on the study were intrigued (unfortunately, no paper was ever published on that but I can share more of how I approached that synthesis of things, using Wilber's AQAL epistemic model). I said in the video, I don't buy all of C. M. Johnston's approach but I also have not studied it in near sufficient detail to say more at this time. Oh, and as for the A.I. summary (like all things, partial truths, very thin). Not sure if it is at all helpful, as the 'devil is in the details' and in the art of knowing a person's work than just surface scraping it for the 'fast info' (fast consuming life-style of mining people's work). Not my thing!
The values/virtues approach resonates with me because, according to BaNtu cosmology, human beings (muntu) possess a physical body, but the body is not the "muntu." Rather, "muntu" signifies a vital force endowed with intelligence and will, differentiating humans from other beings. For me, this will enables us to decide how we want to be present in the world-whether we choose to be regenerative or degenerative, inspiring growth or causing decay. I believe virtues can be helpful in directing how we navigate life. By consciously cultivating virtues, we can decide whether our presence in the world is regenerative or degenerative. The Indigenous Worldview, rooted in virtues from Indigenous peoples and hundreds of precolonial years of thriving community life, inspires growth and contributes to the vitality of the community and environment. I think the lack of virtues (not having any guiding principles for life) can lead to degenerative effects, hindering growth and contributing to societal and environmental degradation as we are seeing.
Also, remember the definition of worldview most accepted is a combination of values (and virtues), beliefs, assumptions that create a foundation for understanding and living as relates to human relationships with the other and with that which follows death. So it will always describe "virtues" in one way or the other. The nuance of my chart is manditory if you do not pick and choose from the precepts but employ all of them in a mosaic that includes embracing the mysterious, etc. Moreover, it does not assume "evolution to maturity" but rather reveals we are born self-actualized and that Nature rules. The creativity of Nature and its ever-changing realities is not about moving toward maturity, it is the essence of healthy maturity.....
I sense a knowing that a virtues-based approach is connected to indigenous worldviews that are often embedded in the Laws of the Universe/a Unity Consciousness that speaks to our connectedness/Ubuntu. This connectedness would see my liberation as your liberation.
@@consciousconversationswithmm All sounds good to me, on the surface. Again, such generalizations require much more nuanced tweezing apart what one is actually meaning in use of these kinds of terms, claims, beliefs, values, and worldviews. Most people don't think deeply and self-critically enough around "virtues" and "values" by which I mostly mean they ignore the 'shadow'-side of virtues-based approaches/theories (and, of course, I too could be critiqued for the same). I recently watched Jeremy Lent's 2018 Standford Univ. lecture on a worldview analysis (similar in rough form, imaginary, to Four Arrows and Darcia Narvaez's approach). I was horribly critical of it. I found Lent still thinking like the 1980s worldview thinkers and it ended with a validation of his analysis as so skewed (meaning, he has no negative consequence of his "Web of Life" worldview, new story). Exactly, a case study in the failure of this approach as I talk about in my video. Lent's talk is on what he calls "cultural mindfulness" (same old wine in a new wine-skin): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oKn7k8n__Fs.html
My dear friend Michael., in some ways my worldview chart of the "two worldview" that that Redfield and his colleagues at the U of Chicago thought there to be. They used "primal and metropolitan," I used Indigenous and dominant. These really are not examples of generalization, althought the specificity of the contrasting pairs can and should be nuanced owing to the affiliated complexities in individual and institutional complexities. While the chart may appear an oversimplification or a rigid binary to some, I prepared these considerations that I think answer most of your concerns about my approach to worldview: Seven Considerations for Using the Worldview Chart 1. Understand “Worldview”: Consider “worldview” as a set of fundamental, and often uninvestigated, beliefs that manifest in primary aspects of cultures, religions, educational institutions, economic systems, sports, science, and media. Not all individuals within these systems believe all the precepts on one side of the chart or the other, but enough support, tolerate, or comply, whether forced or not, allowing these systems to operate in ways that ultimately reflect either the “Dominant Worldview” or the “Indigenous Worldview.” 2. Distinguish Between Worldviews: The “Dominant Worldview” refers to beliefs that emerged around ten thousand years ago, reflecting human-centeredness and a sense of human superiority over nature. It also generally describes the consequences of colonialization. The “Indigenous Worldview” refers to beliefs that guided humanity for most of our history. It is nature-centered and understands humans to be interconnected partners with other sentient beings that make up the rest of the world. 3. Practical Phrasing of Opposites: Individual precepts are phrased as practical opposites to help individuals “walk in balance” by recognizing the degrees to which they engage with the precept. One may believe in the Indigenous worldview precept but still live in ways that help maintain the Dominant worldview precept in life systems. For example, consider the contrasting precept pairs described in #12 on the chart. While an individual may espouse the Indigenous perspective that “words are sacred and truthfulness is essential,” the use of “words to deceive self or others” is a prominent reality in most Dominant Worldview systems listed in #1. For positive transformation, the person studying the chart should do so with honest self-reflection. Acknowledging the degree to which one is engaging or supporting the Dominant side and the reasons for it, and using other related precepts, one can make affirmations for transformation, using trance-based learning (and believing in it as per the Indigenous worldview precept) to actualize it in one’s life. 4. Interconnected Precepts: Many people hold beliefs represented on both sides of the chart in varying degrees. However, the precepts are highly interconnected and ultimately inseparable. One cannot pick and choose a few Indigenous worldview precepts while practicing a number of Dominant worldview precepts to rebalance life systems. Each Indigenous worldview precept must be lived as interrelated for a life system to be considered balanced via the Indigenous Worldview. For example, one may decide to no longer support rigid hierarchy or strict authoritarian control and may begin transformational work with much success. However, if they continue to have low respect for the feminine or see humans as superior to animals, the Dominant worldview is maintained. 5. Non-Binary Thinking: The Indigenous worldview precept about non-binary thinking is crucial for understanding the two sides while realizing the goal of moving toward the proven healthier Indigenous Worldview precept. Seeking complementarity between the two sides is not about acceptance of or compromise with the Dominant Worldview. Rather, it is about understanding the Dominant worldview precepts empathetically and holistically in ways that complement or enhance the ultimate embracing of the Indigenous pathway for rebalancing life systems, always recognizing the tension and potential of the opposites. 6. Contemporary Indigenous Cultures: Individuals in contemporary cultures we define as being Indigenous may or may not still live according to the original “Indigenous worldview,” depending on the degree of colonization they have suffered. However, where this worldview is still operating in the categories described in #1 above, life systems are proven to be healthier. We define this nature-based, interconnected, non-materialistic, spiritual, kinship-oriented worldview that potentially belongs to all people as “Indigenous” to recognize its “indigenous” (small i) aspect and to recognize the groups most likely to still express it. (See ProvenSustainable.org for contemporary examples). 7. Misappropriation vs. Embracement: While misappropriation of Indigeneity is a real problem, studying, teaching, or embracing Indigenous Worldviews is not misappropriation. The “Indigenous worldview” belongs to all creatures on Mother Earth. With a good heart and being an ally of the remaining First Nations as one can, restoring the Indigenous worldview should be a goal for all of us. Indigenous place-based knowledge, however, can only belong to each of the unique Indigenous cultures or First Nations. To have such knowledge requires fluency in the language, intimate knowledge of traditional ceremonies, generations of handed-down wisdom about local flora and fauna, etc. Saving such cultural knowledge and giving sovereignty to those who have it is a vital goal for everyone.
Jun 1/24 update: I just wrote a short commentary on "radical feminist" in relation to what sources I would utilize for a world philosophy and pedagogy; in particular the problem of the "escape from intimacy" (a la Anne Wilson Schaef) and in turn "escape from Reality": go to: fearlessnessmovement.ning.com/blog/gender-sex-wars-a-fearanalysis-solution?commentId=6662424%3AComment%3A37258
If you want to talk about what I have called "philosophical disability" and "political disability" in prior videos on this channel, and you ought to take that argumentation in with creating a therapeutic (sane) world for children today on this planet, then it is worth going to listen to Bernie Sanders and his rant, along with Naomi Klein's views (about the war/genocide going on in Gaza via the Israeli mass destruction there in that society). Bernie hits the point I too would make that is so egregious in regard to the life of a 10 year old in Gaza right now. Go to 20:04 in the talk for that: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_3-CSRTVwys.html And, if that life of a 10 year old in Gaza is iconic, it is 'recorded' across the world in the field of care and compassion, and it is resonant in and through the souls and psyches of children everywhere, at some level of consciousness. There are not strong enough words to describe how horrific the impacts are to our young and the future. Yes, Bernie and Naomi do give some suggestions of what to do about it--bottomline, there are many things to do about it.
For any theoretical geeks out there, my latest theorizing on education is shaped by Becker-Wilber (and others) and I define it (roughly): Pedagogical Terroir Theory: one of my newest theories based on the understanding of terrior as used to describe the aesthetic-essence-characteristics (analogous to ‘personality’ or ‘character’) of a food substance produced; each child, and cohorts of children, in my theory are importantly soaked and marinated, consciously and unconsciously, in environments (within and outside of the cellular integrity of the organism) or contexts and meta-context-and this ought to be included in any educational (curricular-pedagogical-socialization) processes; in particular, the connection of “terror” to “terroir” is not without its meaningfulness-in that my use of pedagogical terroir is one already marinated in environments of terror(ism) and underneath that fear(ism)-toxic formations thereof (see Knowledge Theory)
The published journal article I speak about that I wrote on some aspects of this project and "minusio" and "aesthetic enunciations" go to: opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/atj/vol7/iss1/15/
A good popular article in The Washington Post came out in the past month on Linda and her daughter's story: www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/05/12/down-syndrome-regression-disorder-mothers-support/
Implicit, in the background of my talk and educational philosophy is the context of raising children in and through the dynamics of The Fear Problem (Fisher, 2024), and within that is a mandate, arguably (a la Becker and others) that a pedagogical terroir is the ground of child development and learning. Another way to put it is, that children require continual (and appropriate) fearanalysis in classrooms, homes, institutions and other places they inhabit--in order for healthy, sane, sustainable growth, healing and development through to maturity. Someday, I'll write and lecture more on fearanalysis for/with children. note: fearanalysis is a term I have used for a few decades and is my take-off and application of psychoanalysis for the 21st century note: see Fisher, R. M. (2024). The Fear Problematique: Role of philosophy of education in speaking truths to powers in a culture of fear. Information Age Publishing.
For more information on Down's Syndrome that Linda R. is talking about and its rare disorder: go to: www.dsrf.org/resources/blog/u-turn-down-syndrome-regression-disorder/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmMayBhDuARIsAM9HM8fFSyK6PBP6QKBtD1xUeCynFB-L7dsQMCn6KRroqj6-9YvksTJ2r1IaAmWeEALw_wcB
At the 41 min. mark I talked about A-D/ness Theory (my model of 'testing' aesthetic developmental line); I had shown this chart of the four images to 3-4 year olds at the daycare once, and was amazed. I wrote about this to one of the ECE teachers there recently describing what I did: "What I recall is, they knew I was an artist for months at NIA, I had shown them my larger paintings, and I had done some coloring/drawing with them weeks before, but this day, I gathered a small 1/2 group of them, told them I had an "Experiment" and I wanted their opinion on different ways of coloring/drawing a shape: and, asked them collectively 3-4 questions about the A-D images...and, I gave them a raven feather (see in the one boy's hand) so when they had an answer to my question about the images (e.g., which is the most artistic and creative, which is the best, which is most beautiful etc.) they were to take the feather and point it directly on the image (as I held the chart)--and, all their peers could witness their choice(s) --that witnessing process and use of a sacred feather added a whole set of 'dramatics' to the lesson; they remained amazingly engaged in this and we had a little discussion about "why" did you choose this or that (but I can't remember now)--I do remember how aesthetically astute (accurate, relatively) they were in answering the questions (I didn't record their answers, and really wished I would have had it on video tape ideally)" -M.
A colleague recently wrote me: " I started reading your book Philosophy of Fearism, and I've been enjoying it. Fear both excites me and scares me. It pushes me and holds me back at the same time. I don't let fear stop me often, but occasionally I do, especially when it comes to physically dangerous situations and heights."
One colleague wrote me: "Hi Michael, I am listening and was reminded of this podcast interview open.spotify.com/episode/5TJ8norlRcWNfSkTuyibyb?si=273f821dc7f6452d , the Death Studies Podcast. They were speaking to Dr. Yasmin Gunaratnam about transnational dying and end-of-life care in cities, education with end-of-life care professionals, artful risky care, and using social science research, palliative art, hospitality, migration and death, climate crisis, etc…".
Another angle (somewhat similar to my own) by educational philosopher Zak Stein on how we need to give youth a "strong signal" we really care about them and need their help in solving the problems of this world, go to: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zFVoearUvP8.html On the other side, I am critical of Stein's philosophy; go to: prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/b513252e-d4bb-45b5-b3b6-f8b986e11361/content
I mention that central to this new film documentary "All Illusions Must Be Broken" is the critique of "education" in a broad sense, and that means how we start that with the child born onward. Indeed, we need a massive restoration and transformation of education. I am certainly not alone with this idea. But, let's call it an "Educational Renaissance," is required as soon as possible, according to education philosopher Zak Stein: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zFVoearUvP8.html
A strong message [leftist-like] campaign, might be the way of a Marianne Williamson type of candidate for President, and same with a Dr. Cornel West; but I have to say, that Jill Stein (current Green Party candidate for 2024) has pretty much said it: "It doesn't get you anywhere in a Presidential election to have a strong message"--as she spoke on Bad Faith podcast May 13/24 (go to: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hue6TN0A1Vk.html). I agree with Stein's critique of solo (charismatic) types like Cornel West (I would add MW) and their strategic flawed campaigns. The results are clear that MW and West are not going anywhere fast in the race. Now, of course, each of them can make up their own narrative and say upon seeing their poor ballot showing that "but we are here with a strong message"--okay, then that is pretty much what they used the campaign for, was a strong alternative message--and, for their charismatic leadership popularity and preaching. But there is fall out too of such a positioning, and one of those is to create more divide on the Left, a point Jill Stein makes in the above interview. Yes, "personality" campaigns + messaging campaigns may get some media and populist attention and support, but in the end, Dr. Cornel West in particular fell on his personality-style (and I think MW as well), according to Green Party long-time black member Ajamu Baraka--see that interview today on Bad Faith (May 20/24): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--d1-wm22C-M.html Ajamu Barak in the above interview with Brianna really makes the point of "unseriousness" amongst the Left at times and the personality clashing (egos)--is so distressing because these conflicts lead to people separating and not joining for a larger common ground (see end of the interview)--and, this is exactly the point made by Mark Satin in his analysis in his recent book "Up From Socialism" (see my interview with Mark a few months back; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Wv-tFgxRXUQ.html
A colleague emailed: "You two dialogue well. Being a part of a community that is about both "care and liberation". I love it and am with you on it for sure!"
I so relate to Cornel West and his philosophy of catastrophe and the black lens of jazz; and, his philosophical arc of a thinking about the human condition, a thinking about the re-visited hero (non-European), and he speaks: "In my tradition it begins with tears, begins with moans and cries" in the spirit of transfiguration of that heart of darkness--a radical trust and love, he argues is the only life of jazz and of a philosophy that tips away from the trajectory of the entirety of the W. philosophy of Socrates who says he shall not shed a tear and the Stoics took that on to further elaborate what they called (or could have called) a brave philosophy for the brave philosopher. And, West, tips that upside down, as would I, and it is more or less what I am saying about this philosophical disability that is so required in philosophy today and in the past as the West has passed down to us here, like me born and raised in North America. Thank you Dr. West, for your perspective and theology, your philosophy and psychology--which, deserves to be heard. And may you have the best in your run for Pres. of the USA in 2024. This quote is from his talk The Gifford Lecture, at University of Edinburgh 2024. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aQ0toc7yCY0.html
As MW's 2024 campaign has fizzled (as of May 18, 2024) at the ballot box, and yes some gains of popularity (over 400,000 voted for her across the nation in primaries)--I want to note: there are others who like her have fought for and continue to fight for the "rights" MW has fought for and they are still in Congress (progressives in the Democratic Party and they are endorsing Joe Biden because they want to win the election and that includes Bernie Sanders and AOC for example, who give a pretty decent talk on their passion and politics; see here recently:) Bernie: “What we don’t talk enough about in society has to do with stress. Stress has a lot to do with economics....My family had that stress.” “Just tremendous stress.” “I ain’t gonna give up.” AOC: “Oh my god.” [both “Democratic socialists”] [FDR “economic rights” a “human right”] AOC: “The alternative is barbarism.” [also said by Rosa Luxemborg after WW-I] Bernie: “A handful of people on top who greed is their religion.” AOC: “Then we will condemn ourselves to barbarism. And I refuse...” Bernie: [thanks her] “For being an enormous inspiration to so many millions of young people. You are playing an enormously important role.” May 15/24 on Bernie Sander’s podcast ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qE5BWFRETdk.html I share this because I was disappointed from the start of MW's campaigns going back to late 2018 when she threw her hat in, she was not able (or willing) it seems to me to build any alliance with current Democrats in Washington, like Bernie or AOC;, And thus, she tended to dismiss them, and/or take the course that she was going to be the (best) one wolf runner all the way (on principle). But guess what? It flopped as a strategy overall for her campaign and she did not come close in all those 5+ years of campaigning to build a coalition of millions of young people, not even close. MW is not the best 'team player' one could argue.
To clarify, a real cultural psychiatrist (Charles M. Johnston) and futurist, whom I have known since the 1980s, has written a book 2015) on "Cultural Maturity: A Guidebook for the Future (with an introduction to the ideas of Creative Systems Theory). The point is, cultural psychiatry is not just about diagnoses of illness and their repair but equally is about how to help culture(s) and the cultural sphere itself to evolve and mature beyond its immaturities (much of which is not helpful to human potential and planetary heath and sustainability). Another topic, which greatly interests me... I quote Johnston (2015), "I've made the claim that if we wish our psychotherapeutic methodologies to support culturally mature outcomes, we need to apply fundamentally different kinds of approaches than psychologists and psychiatrists have drawn on in times past" (p. 497). I and others have called this a meta-perspective (Integral) lens.
You may have gathered, Ernest Becker (and those who follow his work generally) are not much on celebrating overly the (W.) Enlightenment narrative of human progress and greatness of civilization (cultures)--that is, the superiority of reason and rationalism. I would label Becker an Endarkenment philosopher-theorist of the human potential and much like Carl G. Jung before him, Becker would no doubt have agreed with Jung's statement: "One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. This procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not very popular." (Jung, 1967, p. 265). That said, what I am talking about at the core of cultural psychiatry is "shadow work" by any other name, and, I also call it "fearwork" --or "fearanalysis" --also, not very popular.
An iconic cultural psychiatric diagnosis, Becker makes in the film: "From the point of view of social philosophy, it is the lie about the world that is killing the world." And, my fearanalysis says: "From the point of view of fearlessness, it is the (toxic) fear about the world that is killing the world." Becker continues: "The task of freeing ourselves from our cultural mental illnesses, society-wide madness is, not so that we may become gods, but simply that we shall see the world as it is, and make an intelligent adaptation to it, so that we secure a future for our children." Note, above, in this quote Becker is referring to the "immortality project" (as the unconscious or conscious attempt to be like gods, immortal, death-denying and victorious transcendent beings). That's a whole other critical topic, which I connect to what I call the 'Fear' Project (and, philosopher Ken Wilber connects to the "Atman Project" etc.). Sam Keen says in the film: "The world is terrifying....We have projects to alleviate that terror and have to be careful of those projects or they will double the quantity of evil in the world." He is referring to 'do-gooders' projects as much as those who intend to do harm in their projects--both, can be equally destructive. In my view, that means we have to diagnose and assess the 'fear'-based intentions in any project of so-called progress or what seems a lesser evil or a necessity. Yet, there is great resistance in all aspects of societies and individual's psyche's to facing up and being responsible for how we relate to and weaponize fear ('fear').
One thing I did not address in this talk here is the increasing gender divide (males and females) in Gen Z (especially, but in young people in general going back to Millenials)--and, there are potent cases to be made that GenZ's are 'not one generation' but a divided one. Go to: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-54H8ppxnp8I.html
Twenty years earlier than the Laura Dunn interview of Sam Keen on Becker, you can hear Sam Keen (emotionally) talk about Becker: go to: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--7FaWj9i9XI.html (which is a clip from the documentary 2005, "Flight From Death" which is on terror management theory.
For a sharp critic, and Beckerian thinker, and school teacher and philosopher see Sam N. Gillian Jr., ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wezFdmW2OOk.html
For more in depth connection between my fearwork and Becker's, see my 2020 article "Dialogue Between Terror Management Theory and Fear Management Education" prism.ucalgary.ca/items/a5c194da-47dc-4b8a-994f-a485d5252488
For more info. on Ernest Becker, you can start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Becker Also, when I use "Cultural" sphere/existence, that is part of a much larger critical integral (evolutionary) meta-theory I utilize which is not included in this video. I have written and talked about the meta-theory NCS (Natural, Cultural, Spiritual) in articulating a metaphysics of sorts for understanding these relationships. If you want more on it you can search the internet and/or let me know you are interested to hear more.
For another talk picking up in more technical detail what I see as "liberation" in its advanced conceptualizations, go to my lecture a few years ago: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wa00zp0QlwU.html
