This thoroughly dispiriting focus on the psychologies of our “leaders” omits the systemic or structural factors that influence their behavior in democratic contexts: the need to be all things to all people (or at least to a majority); to build for consensus or at least a majority; to compromise; “to cross the aisle;” to be liked (yes, psychological as well as instrumental). I see these factors in the actions of the university presidents when dealing with the effect of the current Israel-Hamas war on their constituencies.
“According to Wilber, all four perspectives offer complementary, rather than contradictory, perspectives. It is possible for all to be correct, and all are necessary for a complete account of human existence.” [Btw, I don’t like the rest of Wilber’s theories very much, but this element is crucial.]
Agree with comment below: one of the best chapters so far.
A suggestion: Thomas Jefferson might not be a good example of an honest man, given that he lived a fundamental lie of omission (regarded as scandalous when it was publicly revealed) regarding his relationship with Sally Hemings and their six children. Jimmy Carter may be a better example?
Yes, I was about to remove Jefferson (a slave owner), but was then stumped about what elected leader would be instantly perceived by nearly all readers as being symbolic of a "good" leader to fit the "poetic" two vs. two examples. Perhaps I should just narrow it to Hitler vs. Mandela (though, like all humans there may be skeletons in Mandela's closet too).
One of the best chapters so far. 👏
P.S.: It’s "Adolf“
This thoroughly dispiriting focus on the psychologies of our “leaders” omits the systemic or structural factors that influence their behavior in democratic contexts: the need to be all things to all people (or at least to a majority); to build for consensus or at least a majority; to compromise; “to cross the aisle;” to be liked (yes, psychological as well as instrumental). I see these factors in the actions of the university presidents when dealing with the effect of the current Israel-Hamas war on their constituencies.
George Goverman
…which is no contradiction:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber)#Four_quadrants
“According to Wilber, all four perspectives offer complementary, rather than contradictory, perspectives. It is possible for all to be correct, and all are necessary for a complete account of human existence.” [Btw, I don’t like the rest of Wilber’s theories very much, but this element is crucial.]
Agree with comment below: one of the best chapters so far.
A suggestion: Thomas Jefferson might not be a good example of an honest man, given that he lived a fundamental lie of omission (regarded as scandalous when it was publicly revealed) regarding his relationship with Sally Hemings and their six children. Jimmy Carter may be a better example?
Yes, I was about to remove Jefferson (a slave owner), but was then stumped about what elected leader would be instantly perceived by nearly all readers as being symbolic of a "good" leader to fit the "poetic" two vs. two examples. Perhaps I should just narrow it to Hitler vs. Mandela (though, like all humans there may be skeletons in Mandela's closet too).