Memememememememememememememememe

Got serious, no, obsessive, yesterday about figuring out backing up my data onto my external hard drive. For about a year now I thought I was doing just that, only to discover I'd had a false sense of security. My only "back-ups" were stored on my internal hard drive because the external drive was formatted in a system that my system could only read, and not write to. Not to mention it was taking up tons of room on my hard drive. Discovering that fact was a major piece of effort, and that was before I began to dig for the solution. 6 hours later I was feeling utterly defeated, in bad need of a geek. Then I stumbled accidentally on the solution.

I don't know whether to be glad, or exasperated.

It's amazing how time can just ooze by for me when trying to navigate my way through technology. Gary had taken the boys to the beach, and that's not really my desired way to spend the gift of alone time. But I'm trying to see it as an "investment" that makes my "sacrifice" worthwhile.

I've been thinking about my last post and feeling a little uneasy about it. I love my father, and didn't mean to trash him in public. Nor was I trying to exploit him as a relic. The conversation I reported was emblematic of many with him which leave me feeling disturbed at the underlying conflict that we stop just short of.

And it makes me wonder if it's emblematic of deeper themes than political differences. Underneath the differences lies a deeper split--about how to orient oneself in the world. From what posture do I choose live? I sense that for him the debate becomes personal--it's about more than politics, it's about a way of life.

It seems odd that a posture of deference to authority should so naturally include nationalism.

But then I look at a framework that Ken Wilbur writes about, which in turn he has borrowed from other sources , the theory of Spiral Dynamics. It is a sort of hierarchy of consciousness, and the development of humanity along that hierarchy over time. It was pioneered by Clare Graves, then refined by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan who coined the term. He calls the levels of consciousness "memes". Each level has its own internal system of perspective and social structure. Eight are identified. Level 4 is described:

"Life has meaning, direction, and purpose, with outcomes determined by an all-powerful Other or Order. This righteous Order enforces a code of conduct based on absolutist and unvarying principles of "right" and "wrong". Violating the code or rules has sever, perhaps everlasting repercussions. Following the code yields rewards for the faithful." (pg 9, 10, A Theory of Everything, Ken Wilbur)

Sounds like the meme of nationalism, and religious fundamentalism. Such a meme would be inherently authoritarian, with the goal of maintaining order. A guiding principle would be an ultimate Authority, God, and one's worth determined by how closely aligned they are with this authority. Authority would be delegated hierarchically, from God, to the church, to the leaders of the church (and/or government), to parents. (And in the old days, to man, to wife, to child).

What's interesting is that each of these memes cannot appreciate the existence of others: Each of the first-tier memes thinks that its worldview is the correct or best perspective. It reacts negatively if challenged; it lashes out, using its own tools, whenever it is threatened." (pg 12)

And:

"This is why many arguments are not really a matter of the better objective evidence, but of the subjective level of those arguing. A person who operates from one meme will never be convinced by the arguments at the disposal of a different meme.


Wilbur writes that each level, or wave is "crucially important for the health of the overall Spiral", and development's goal is humanity's "transcending and including" each preceding wave. The 'higher' order includes the lower, the way that molecules contain atoms. It takes a leap into higher order thinking though, to permit this process. He calls the squabbling among the levels as an "autoimmune disease", and until humans can move into higher order thinking we are destined to more violent struggles for supremacy.

This is a context that helps me to understand the underlying heat beneath my father's and my differences. When Bill O'Reilly champions "traditional American values" in his book Culture Warrior he is defending the meme he lives in with my father. He claims these values are under attack by "Secular Progressives". To answer to the claims and accusations of this meme I find I must enter it, and in entering it I'm stripped of my perspective and vocabulary. I'm forced to speak on their terms. I suppose this can account for the sense of helplessness I feel when I do try to engage, the feeling of gasping for air.

George W. Bush appealed directly to people's sense of loyalty to an outer authority. Somehow this authority is aligned with obedience to God and parents, and to the sense that one's own goodness depends on that loyalty and faithfulness.

This was the stuff I breathed growing up. Is there anything comparable to this in England, Canada, Australia, any other nationals reading this (because it would be interesting to go beyond nations that began as England's colonies)? I'm curious what others' bedrock core group identity is based on.

I haven't forgotten about my project

The one I signed onto publicly, in this blog. To challenge my basic stance in this world.

I've spent quite a bit of the last year musing about the nature of authority, and authoritarians. Authoritarians aren't necessarily those who wield power; some are submissive and loyal to it.

Authoritarians stake a claim on 'Rightness'--that they represent and are champions of 'the Right Way'. This "right way" is the ability to adhere to a certain code and tradition that is imposed from the outside. To the extent that one is unable to conform, one is Wrong. Will power is the strength to maintain conformity to the Right Way and is considered a measure of one's moral character.

I dutifully did my best to conform. And to all appearances I was doing a pretty good job of it. I was compliant, obedient. I was a born again Christian. But slowly over the years grew in me a novel idea (for me): a notion that Authority instead of being imposed from without could organically grow from within. That the notion of authority-imposed could be replaced with a kind of responsive awareness. For years I assumed that was the 'devil' attempting to lure me away from the Right Way and I redoubled my efforts to be loyal to the Code.

Nationalism is a key feature of the Code. A sort of aggressive nationalism which assumes that we Americans somehow carry a legitimacy as a people that others don't possess and thus we can exempt ourselves from standards we hold other peoples to; that we have a 'mission' that is God-given and increases our legitimacy. We are told to 'love' our country. To question the practices of the powerful in this country resembles disloyalty and therefore is considered disloyal.

Podhoretz's book (World War IV/The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism) is grounded firmly in this kind of nationalism. It has an internal logic that's convincing from it's own internal viewpoint.

To attempt to balance this somewhat, or at least place nationalism in a larger context I'm also reading "America Right or Wrong/An Anatomy of American Nationalism" by Anatol Lieven. He points out that nearly every nation has seen itself as somehow exceptional, and as having a mission. National identity was a characteristic of old-world imperial Europe and particularly of conservative elements of those socieities. He posits that having endured the destruction and devastation of WWII many of these older countries have tempered their nationalism somewhat, having experienced first-hand the end result.

So the project proceeds, but slowly. I interrupt it periodically with the books I'm reading for my book reading group. February's is "Any Human Heart" by William Boyd.