Greetings, someone sent me this. I think this is well said - though, I'd love to hear a more expanded account of what you mean in your closing remarks on the 'pre/trans fallacy' :
"These behaviors do not attract people. They replace one kind of unsafe environment with another unsafe environment. They don’t invite dialogue or build bridges; they push people away. I think Wilber is getting at this with his “pro/post fallacy,” though I bet most readers skim over that phrase because it’s not immediately clear what it means. But his core point is this: if Green wants to lead the way to Integral, it needs to keep the first list and let go of the second one."
The pre/trans fallacy is a concept that is contextualized in a developmental sequence, sometimes framed as pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. In the pre-conventional stage, people classify their actions as right or wrong based on clear statements by those in authority. They are motivated by personal consequences (reward or punishment) rather than broader social rules. Conventional people understand the function of the "social contract" and seek to maintain social order by following the norms, rules and laws of society for the good of society. Post-conventional people base moral decisions on more abstract principles like social justice, inclusion and sensitivity, especially for historically oppressed people. The fallacy comes in when people articulating post-conventional values become overly judgmental and engage in blaming and shaming people who are not perfectly behaving according to a new set of rules being articulated by post-conventional spokespeople. They are, in effect, reverting to the same rigidly "right and wrong" thinking as the pre-conventional people do. The "pre/post" fallacy is the assumption that pre and post people are different. Wilber maintains they are very similar.
It takes too much time to explain this idea--and it's still unclear! That is why I think people probably skim over it. In my post, I wanted to present the Broken Green idea in a new light: comparing the healthy green attributes with the broken green behaviors that turn people against them. I hope this helps. Gary
Gary, I very much appreciate your post. I don't follow a lot of digital media, but a friend of mine sent your post over, as I'm somewhat of a integral nerd. I find the pre/trans fallacy one of the most important elements to understand in interpreting the motivations and pathology within the "broken green," as you name it. I have never heard the pre/trans fallacy in relationship to authority structures - I find this very interesting - and while I 100% agree with what you are depicting happening, I wonder if this is not more of what Wilber calls "shadow," or "fixation" (when he evokes more Freudian language)?
My understanding of the pre/trans fallacy is in a confusion of these structural aspects of reality (in any context, really), where something/or way of being, is championed as trans (or post) simply in leu of it not being conventional. My understanding is that the fallacy is more of conscious or intellectual interpretation, rather than a shadow, or underlying subconscious operating. The way I read Wilber, it seems that the pre/trans fallacy arises as a pathological element within the Green meme as a reflex against a traditional/conventional worldview that is unable to see the value in multiple perspectives - - -that the Green worldview, or poststructuralist worldview is able to take all worldviews into account, but instead of being able to differentiate any type of useful hierarchy, simply elevates everything that isn't conventional, to a "trans" or "post" conventional place.
What I hear you saying is that the fallacy is actually operating behind the scenes and causing these authoritarian styles of communication, when individuals don't agree with the "brand of green" one is supporting - - - This certainly is an element of the broken green, I'm just wondering if it has more to do incomplete transcending, and therefore more of a pathological fixation (subconscious shadow) rather than a cognitive or intellectual misunderstanding - translation??
I really appreciate your thoughts, as I don't often find someone able to talk about this type of nuance:) - - -Node
Spot on! This gets straight to the point that stage theory, accurately understood, explains the current culture wars that are driving today's geo-political convulsions. Yes, it's a tricky point and important to get right.
(In the last paragraph, did you mean "pre/post fallacy" rather than "pro/post fallacy?"
There is a lot of confident, well-crafted truth telling, such the JD Vance speech at the Munich Security Conference and Jeffrey Sachs speaking before the EU Parliament. Also, Mike Benz holding forth on several podcasts. And, lest we not forget, Eric Weinstein offers an integral view and his voice is being heard. Weinstein doesn't stick with lockstep narrative, but provides a much more nuanced and accurate analysis that allows not liking and taking issue with many things, and seeing the potential good in the current situation rather than black/white thinking. This feels healthy, and healing. I don't know if this is a harbinger of 2nd-Tier, healthier Blue then we've seen in the past, or something that isn't easily framed in Integral Theory.
Having a social science, rather than political science background, my perspective leans towards understanding the reactions of individuals and groups. I did listen to Jeffrey Sachs speaking to the EU parliament. He was drawing from several levels and suggesting ideas that were much more inventive than someone representing a party line. Thanks for the suggestions.
Greetings, someone sent me this. I think this is well said - though, I'd love to hear a more expanded account of what you mean in your closing remarks on the 'pre/trans fallacy' :
"These behaviors do not attract people. They replace one kind of unsafe environment with another unsafe environment. They don’t invite dialogue or build bridges; they push people away. I think Wilber is getting at this with his “pro/post fallacy,” though I bet most readers skim over that phrase because it’s not immediately clear what it means. But his core point is this: if Green wants to lead the way to Integral, it needs to keep the first list and let go of the second one."
I wasn't entirely clear on the connection here?
- Dr. Node Smith
The pre/trans fallacy is a concept that is contextualized in a developmental sequence, sometimes framed as pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. In the pre-conventional stage, people classify their actions as right or wrong based on clear statements by those in authority. They are motivated by personal consequences (reward or punishment) rather than broader social rules. Conventional people understand the function of the "social contract" and seek to maintain social order by following the norms, rules and laws of society for the good of society. Post-conventional people base moral decisions on more abstract principles like social justice, inclusion and sensitivity, especially for historically oppressed people. The fallacy comes in when people articulating post-conventional values become overly judgmental and engage in blaming and shaming people who are not perfectly behaving according to a new set of rules being articulated by post-conventional spokespeople. They are, in effect, reverting to the same rigidly "right and wrong" thinking as the pre-conventional people do. The "pre/post" fallacy is the assumption that pre and post people are different. Wilber maintains they are very similar.
It takes too much time to explain this idea--and it's still unclear! That is why I think people probably skim over it. In my post, I wanted to present the Broken Green idea in a new light: comparing the healthy green attributes with the broken green behaviors that turn people against them. I hope this helps. Gary
Gary, I very much appreciate your post. I don't follow a lot of digital media, but a friend of mine sent your post over, as I'm somewhat of a integral nerd. I find the pre/trans fallacy one of the most important elements to understand in interpreting the motivations and pathology within the "broken green," as you name it. I have never heard the pre/trans fallacy in relationship to authority structures - I find this very interesting - and while I 100% agree with what you are depicting happening, I wonder if this is not more of what Wilber calls "shadow," or "fixation" (when he evokes more Freudian language)?
My understanding of the pre/trans fallacy is in a confusion of these structural aspects of reality (in any context, really), where something/or way of being, is championed as trans (or post) simply in leu of it not being conventional. My understanding is that the fallacy is more of conscious or intellectual interpretation, rather than a shadow, or underlying subconscious operating. The way I read Wilber, it seems that the pre/trans fallacy arises as a pathological element within the Green meme as a reflex against a traditional/conventional worldview that is unable to see the value in multiple perspectives - - -that the Green worldview, or poststructuralist worldview is able to take all worldviews into account, but instead of being able to differentiate any type of useful hierarchy, simply elevates everything that isn't conventional, to a "trans" or "post" conventional place.
What I hear you saying is that the fallacy is actually operating behind the scenes and causing these authoritarian styles of communication, when individuals don't agree with the "brand of green" one is supporting - - - This certainly is an element of the broken green, I'm just wondering if it has more to do incomplete transcending, and therefore more of a pathological fixation (subconscious shadow) rather than a cognitive or intellectual misunderstanding - translation??
I really appreciate your thoughts, as I don't often find someone able to talk about this type of nuance:) - - -Node
Spot on! This gets straight to the point that stage theory, accurately understood, explains the current culture wars that are driving today's geo-political convulsions. Yes, it's a tricky point and important to get right.
(In the last paragraph, did you mean "pre/post fallacy" rather than "pro/post fallacy?"
Yes, pre/post, since corrected. Thanks
There is a lot of confident, well-crafted truth telling, such the JD Vance speech at the Munich Security Conference and Jeffrey Sachs speaking before the EU Parliament. Also, Mike Benz holding forth on several podcasts. And, lest we not forget, Eric Weinstein offers an integral view and his voice is being heard. Weinstein doesn't stick with lockstep narrative, but provides a much more nuanced and accurate analysis that allows not liking and taking issue with many things, and seeing the potential good in the current situation rather than black/white thinking. This feels healthy, and healing. I don't know if this is a harbinger of 2nd-Tier, healthier Blue then we've seen in the past, or something that isn't easily framed in Integral Theory.
Having a social science, rather than political science background, my perspective leans towards understanding the reactions of individuals and groups. I did listen to Jeffrey Sachs speaking to the EU parliament. He was drawing from several levels and suggesting ideas that were much more inventive than someone representing a party line. Thanks for the suggestions.
Excellent post. I wish more people understood these dynamics in what we’re seeing unfolding. Keep going, your work is important.
Good post Gary.
Thanks, Steve. It's a tricky point to get right, and it's important to do so.