Why?

They have no understanding about the vertical complexity within themselves. Thriller authors and crime writers could guide them there. And, hell, I love the British contributions in this genre especially.

I want to share in this context something from Eric G. Wilson. A writer whom I much appreciate for his investigations into the dark arts of melancholy:

http://users.wfu.edu/wilsoneg/

http://www.amazon.com/Everyone-Loves-Good-Train-Wreck/dp/0374150338

Thats exatly why we need integrated SocioPsychology.

The approach of Clare Graves needs many pathways for the 21ct century. Human Emergence is no lillywhite Kumbaya My Lord approach.

Thanks again,

Albert Klamt, Berlin

The third of Durkheim’s reasons for having this view is that there is often a drawing together of a community in shared revulsion and outrage at a particularly horrific crime. This strengthens social cohesion – the sense of belonging to a community.

In so much revulsion at Abu Sakkar’s crime right around the world, briefly, there is indeed a sense of there being an ‘international community’. Most people seem to be revolted – even if it’s a fascinated revulsion. Unfortunately the revulsion in the West only seems to undermine any argument to do something about Syria beyond cat calling the Russians and the Iranians.

Keith

There is even a crime section on your site , and indeed, crime is such an essential element of civilization. As not only British writer Colin Wilson confirms in his books. ( Like Wilsons work as much as Colonel Gadddafi, yet we know how much challenging and tough distinctions are needed.)

There are these worlds of archaic basic instincts. Of primal impulses and the “darl energy” of relational instincts. (Romero/Albareda)They cannot be reduced to some transitional manifestations of development. In all facettes they are part of any complex emergence in human cultures. Some longitudinal cross studies are a “MUST” for me for next decades.

Best,

Albert

Thanks for this article. My perspective on Thatcher has changed over the years. I really enjoyed it and found it thought-provoking (although I’d have a liked at least a passing nod to the fact that many of the economic changes to old industries that Thatcher implemented were determined by global factors).

It might also have been interesting to consider how her response / leadership during the Falklands War was reassuring to those who felt their “British” identity of being part of a global power challenged in the modern world. What would a Spiral Wizard do then?

All very interesting stuff!

Best regards, and many thanks for all your posts – always interesting and usefully thought-provoking…

Anna

Don

I’d like to think I have some understanding of Feminism – though I doubt most men could understand it from the perspective of a woman because our biology usually reduces our ability to feel the same way about many of those issues which drive Feminism.

In the case in question, as I point out, Evolutionary Psychologists argue that men are programmed to look at ‘tits ‘n’ ass’ as an indicator of a woman’s fertility. A BEIGE level survival-of -the-species/survival of-the-fittest adaptive response.

Of course, human beings can function at much higher and more complex levels of consciousness – and often do. But the pull of the lower levels will frequently drag us down – and most people, most of the time, tend to be centred in the lower levels. It’s no accident that Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs version of the levels – see: http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/hierearchy_of_needs.html – portrays the structure as a pyramid with more energy and more people working at the lower levels and less energy and fewer people at the higher levels.

Feminists, usually centred in GREEN, often find basic ‘tits ‘n’ ass’ scenarios vulgar and distasteful, stripping women of their humanity and treating them as ‘meat’ – especially when used to generate profit (ORANGE-driven). Men, when thinking in the higher levels, also often find such displays gratuitous and offensive. It’s just different ways of thinking in different times/contexts.

The meme is that men exploit women’s sexuality in everything from chocolate advertisements to pornography. But FEMEN activists like Galina Sozanskaya recognise this evolutionary-based drive in men and believe they are exploiting it to get their message across in a way they wouldn’t be able to otherwise.

It becomes a bit chicken-and-egg. Hence the second part of the title: ‘who’s exploiting who?’

My point is that the RED-ORANGE ‘machine’ is capable of reducing FEMEN’s tactics to novelty value – in which case, will FEMEN resort to ever more-extreme tactics to get the message heard?

Keith

Such ugly comments are exactly why these radical reactions begin.

You have been happy to rip in to Femen’s ideals but you have done nothing to further the cause of equality and in fact, you have just made any chauvinist readers you have feel validated.
It’s an abuse of your privilege and field.