Boulder, CO July 28, 2007

FREEDOM B CONSERVATIVE AND PROGRESSIVE

Francoise Hall

Number of words:10,049

FREEDOM B CONSERVATIVE AND PROGRESSIVE

THE UNCONTESTED CORE OF FREEDOM............................................................................ 3

The Concept of Freedom..................................................................................................... 3

The Structure of contested Concepts.................................................................................. 3

The Core of Freedom........................................................................................................... 4

Characteristics of Freedom.................................................................................................. 5

The Opposite of Freedom.................................................................................................... 6

Free Will.............................................................................................................................. 7

Freedom, not Indulgence..................................................................................................... 8

Political Freedom................................................................................................................. 9

CAUSATION AND FREEDOM................................................................................................. 10

Causation B Conservative and Progressive....................................................................... 10

THE CONTESTATION OF FREEDOM..................................................................................... 12

Points of Disagreement...................................................................................................... 12

Situations exempt from Judgment..................................................................................... 13

Nature.................................................................................................................... 13

Competitive Situations.......................................................................................... 14

Situations warranting Judgment........................................................................................ 16

Access to the chosen Goal..................................................................................... 16

Impediments to reaching the chosen Goal............................................................. 22

FREEDOM CONTESTED B IMPLICATIONS.......................................................................... 23

The Periphery of Freedom................................................................................................. 23

Morality................................................................................................................. 23

Personal Freedom.................................................................................................. 24

Economic Freedom................................................................................................ 26

Religious Freedom................................................................................................. 28

Foreign Policy........................................................................................................ 30

MY CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................... 34

An uneven Conflict B Levels of Consciousness................................................................ 34

The Cart and the Horse...................................................................................................... 37

A Value Judgment............................................................................................................. 37

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 47

FREEDOM B CONSERVATIVE AND PROGRESSIVE

THE UNCONTESTED CORE OF FREEDOM

The Concept of Freedom: Freedom is a highly contested concept. It is interpreted differently by people with different moral and political views (p. 22).

The Structure of contested Concepts: Highly contested concepts, such as freedom, do not become contested in a haphazard way. Rather, the contestation arises in a systematic way. In 1956, Professor Walter Gallie (1912-1998), in the Department of Political Science, at Cambridge University, England, introduced the term Aessentially contested concept@ to facilitate the understanding of the different interpretations of abstract, qualitative, and evaluative notions, such as Aart@ and Asocial justice.@ The structure of these concepts, Gallie pointed out, is one where there is widespread agreement on a core notion, and endless argument about the best instantiation, or realization of that notion.

Contested concepts have the following characteristics:

1. Core: The concept has a core which is uncontested B a well-known case or a class of cases on which most people agree. A jailed person is not free.

2. Complex: The concept is sufficiently complex to allow for variations. Freedom may be physical or psychological. It is understood by means of a metaphor (the body in space) and makes sense only within a certain framework (the achievement of a personal goal). It may refer to the individual or to the societal (political) level. It does not apply to certain situations (nature, competition). Each of these aspects of freedom may be contested.

3. Complex constituent Elements: The concept has constituent elements which themselves are subject to variations. Among the important constituent elements of freedom are property, security, rights, justice, the rule of law, equality/fairness, harm and coercion. Other constituent elements include education (information offers access to freedom), health (illness interferes with freedom), democracy (self-government), opportunity (access to civil society), the press (a free press), the market (a free market), and academia (academic freedom).

4. Evaluative Use: The concept is evaluative B it delivers a value judgment. It is good to be free. It is not good to be enslaved, oppressed, threatened (pp. 14, 23-24. Wikipedia 2007, AW.B. Gallie,@ p. 1. Wikipedia 2007, AEssentially contested Concept,@ pp. 3-5).

The Core of Freedom: At its core, the concept of freedom is uncontested. ASimple@ freedom is being able to do what one wants to do.

All agree that this implies:

1. Free Will: For freedom to exist, there must be an unconstrained choice of a goal. We conceptualize this in terms of a free will.

2. A clear Path to the Goal: The path to the goal must be clear:

a. Clear Access: For freedom to exist, there must be ease of access to the goal B freedom to move toward it. There must be freedom to Asee@ or Ahear@ a goal, either physically or perceptually. One must know about education and knowledge before one can choose them as goals. One must Asee@ a goal before one can Areach@ it. One must Ahear@ a calling before one can respond to it (p. 30).

b. An Absence of Impediments: For freedom to exist, there must be an absence of impediments to move toward it B freedom from being constrained to Areach@ it.

The impediments may be:

i. Physical B road blocks, being physically held back, having insufficient power, having burdens imposed, being threatened.

ii. Psychological B being psychologically blocked, being emotionally threatened (pp. 30 and 35).

3. The Achievement of the Goal: To achieve a chosen goal, one must be capable of achieving it, have the power to achieve it. We conceptualize goal achievement metaphorically in terms of our body in space B as using our body in three fundamental ways:

a. Motion forward through Space: To achieve a goal is to Areach@ a desired destination. With freedom, one can go as far as one can in life. We have organized a program called Head Start to help children reach their life=s goals.

b. Motion of one=s Limbs: To achieve a goal is to Aget@ some desired object. With freedom one can get what one wants in life.

c. Action of one=s Body: To achieve a goal is to Aperform@ a desired action. With freedom, one can function (manage, act, execute tasks) successfully in life (pp. 25-26 and 29-30).

Characteristics of Freedom: Freedom is not a free-floating concept which can be defined abstractly on its own terms. It is both thoroughly metaphorical and frame-based.

Freedom is:

1. Metaphorical: The idea of freedom is abstract but via metaphorical thought, it is linked to visceral, bodily experiences. We think of freedom in terms of bodily motion. There is little that is more infuriating than interference with our everyday bodily movements. It is this embodiment of freedom, via metaphor, which makes it such an important and emotionally powerful concept. Freedom cannot be defined without the use of the body metaphor (pp. 28-29 and 31).

2. Frame-based: A frame is a mental structure with a limited scope and a systematic internal organization.

The concept of freedom is defined within a frame which consists of three parameters: a willingly-chosen goal (free will), conditions necessary for reaching that goal, and the capability of achieving the goal. Should any one of these parameters be absent, freedom does not exist.

For example:

a. The Absence of a Goal: Freedom presumes goals. It is about achieving goals and satisfying desires. Without a goal, the issue of freedom is mute.

* Is freedom increased if goals (purpose, desire) are not present? No. Freedom makes sense only within the frame of achieving goals and satisfying desires. If this part of the frame ceases to be applicable, freedom, which is defined only relative to the frame, makes no sense.

b. The Presence of Interference: Freedom presumes access to a goal and an absence of impediments to reaching that goal. Any interference abridges freedom, even it the interference is one=s choice.

* If one is a slave by one=s own choice, is one free? No. Freedom makes sense only within the frame of access to a goal and an absence of impediments to reaching that goal. Applying this frame to a self-appointed slave shows that this person is not free.

Frames have boundaries, and when we think within a frame, we tend to ignore what is outside of it (pp.11 and 38).

The Opposite of Freedom: The opposite of being free is to be:

AIn chains,@

AImprisoned,@

AEnslaved,@

ATrapped,@

AOppressed,@

AHeld down,@

AHeld back,@

AThreatened,@

AFearful,@

APowerless.@

All these expressions describe bodily experiences we all have had as a child (p. 29).

Free Will: Freely and willingly choosing a goal implies free will. We conceptualize our thoughts in terms of metaphors. The concept of freedom of the will combines two metaphors B the ASociety of Mind@ metaphor and the AThought as Motion through Space@ metaphor.

Free will assumes:

1. A Society of Mind: Most thought is unconscious. Conscious thought is the tip of our thinking iceberg. And yet, we have the conscious experience of giving in to a desire, making a plan, setting a priority, and making a decision based on our evaluation of the pros and cons of our possible actions.

During the 1600=s, Western tradition understood our experience of decision- making metaphorically as being executed by the AWill@ B a person-like entity in our mind, whose job it is to choose how we will act.

During the Enlightenment, faculty psychology theorized that the mind was a kind society, with individual members assigned various tasks. There were Perception (the gatherer of sensory data from the outside world), Reason (the informer of the consequences of the data), Passion (the locus of desire, the one who pulled one off the track), and Will (the controller of our actions).

Decision-making was a tug-of-war between Reason and Passion. In order to stand up to the pull of Passion and act according to the dictates of Reason (that is, rationally), Will needed to be strong. A weak Will made one act irrationally. Whenever Passion and Reason were at a standoff as to what Will should decide, yet another member, Judgement, made the decision. Good Judgment was necessary for rational, sensible action. Most of us, Americans, still live with this metaphor.

Denial of the Metaphor: AJust say no,@ the answer proposed by Nancy Reagan (1921-) for recreational drug use, is a denial that the Will may at times or even permanently, be at the mercy of Passion. It assumes that the Will is always strong enough to resist (pp. 10, 33-35 and 251. Wikipedia 2007, ANancy Reagan,@ p. 1).

2. Thought as Motion through Space: We commonly think of thought as motion in space. The mind moves through space to reach ideas, which themselves are locations. Reason is a force that pushes the mind in certain directions. If we are rational, we think step-by-step and directly, not in circles. If we do not pay attention, our thoughts wander. If we think according to the force of reason, we will reach a rational conclusion (p. 34).

Free will is not totally free. It is constrained by the perimeter of the frame within which we think. We cannot will something which is outside our capacity to imagine (p. 16).

Freedom, not Indulgence: Free will, understood as the freedom of the Will to move in any direction, is central to the notion of uncontested (Asimple@) freedom. The concept of freedom itself is grounded viscerally in the freedom to move. A free will can follow the pull of Passion or choose the course of Reason.

But free will is not the freedom of the Will to move in any direction whatsoever. Freedom is neither indulgence nor irresponsibility. Free will leads to freedom only if it is accompanied by responsibility and discipline.

For example:

* Freedom is not Irresponsibility: A person who is free, rational, and responsible uses free will as constrained by Reason and (good) Judgment. Freedom at its core (in its Asimple,@ uncontested version) is not irrational free action or irresponsible free action left to wander willy-nilly. It is action which follows a particular path toward specific goals.

* Freedom entails Discipline: The battle between Reason and Passion is the background for the idea of discipline, which is conceptualized as directing the motion of one=s Will according to Reason.

Since life is commonly conceptualized as a lengthy journey on which many decisions as to direction must be made, free will is used repeatedly throughout the course of one=s life.

For both Conservatives and Progressives, discipline is an important component of morality (p. 34. See also the present document under Freedom contested B Implications, The Periphery of Freedom, No. 1, Morality).

Political Freedom: Freedom at the level of society encompasses not only individuals but also systems B governmental institutions, non-governmental institutions (such as advocacy groups, think tanks and foundations), educational institutions, religious institutions, businesses, political parties, and informal groups.

Historically, the metaphor of the ASociety of Mind@ has been used to translate the idea of core (uncontested, Asimple@) freedom for an individual, into core (uncontested, Asimple@) political freedom for the body politick. The metaphor is the rationale for the infrastructure of a democratic government in a free society. Reason is the legislature (the maker of the laws), Judgment is the judiciary (the resolver of disputes), and Will is the administration (the executor of the laws) (pp. 36-37).

Uncontested (Asimple@) political freedom consists of:

1. Democracy: At the national level, core political freedom consists of:

a. Self-government and its democratic institutions (Congress, the administration and an independent judiciary), with a balance of power between these principal branches of government.

b. A civilian-controlled military.

2. A free civil Society: At levels lower than the national, core political freedom consists of:

a. Self-government with structures similar to those at the national level.

b. Free elections, free political parties, a free market, free media, and free religious institutions (p. 58).

CAUSATION AND FREEDOM

Causation B Conservative and Progressive: Causation is a highly contested concept and is fundamental in giving rise to the conservative and progressive views of freedom.

Conservatives: Conservatives conceptualize the world in terms of direct causation B causation by a single individual. There is a single agent who purposely exerts force on something, and as a result, that thing moves or changes. There is one agent, one action, one entity affected. There are no intermediate causes. An example is taking a ball, throwing it, and thus making it go through the air. Another example is overthrowing Saddam Hussein in order to free Iraqis. Thinking that ARegime change@ was all that was needed, is an example of direct causal reasoning. As they occur in the world, the situations of the ball thrown into the air and that of Iraq, are in fact very complicated. However, conservatives conceptualize them in terms of direct causation.

For example:

1. Ecology: Conservatives focus on the private property rights of individuals. They approach ecological issues in terms of direct causation B short-term job loss, profit loss.

2. Health Care: To improve health care, Conservatives favor private health accounts.

3. Evolution: The Conservatives= attack on evolution is not an attack on all science. The sciences attacked are those in which systemic causation is most central B evolution and global warming. There is no attack on Newtonian physics (gravity, billiard ball causation, conservation of momentum, conservation of energy) (pp. 51, 111-112 and 124. See also the present document under The Contestation of Freedom, Situations exempt form from Judgment, No. 2, Competitive Situations, Constestation, Evolution).

4. Taxes: To promote democracy, Conservatives favor lowering taxes (See also the present document under The Contestation of Freedom, Situations warranting Judgment, Item A, Access to the chosen Goal, No. 1, Property, Contestation, Taxes).

5. Poverty: To alleviate poverty, Conservatives focus on individual initiative (See also the present document under The Contestation of Freedom, Situations warranting Judgment, Item A, Access to the chosen Goal, No. 3, Rights, Contestation, Poverty).

6. Equality and Fairness: Conservatives focus on equality of opportunity and contractual fairness. In each case, the individual, not society, is the primary focus (See also the present document under The Contestation of Freedom, Situations warranting Judgment, Item A. Access to the chosen Goal, No. 6, Equality and Fairness, Contestation, Priorities in Equality and Fairness).

Progressives: Progressives conceptualize the world in terms of systemic causation B causation within a social, ecological, or economic system. Systemic causation is a causal relation involving at least one complex system. Examples are seeing global warming as causing the melting of the polar ice, or seeing the increasing in health care costs as putting a stress on the economy.

For example:

1. Ecology: Conceptualizing ecology, Progressives see complex systems, such as that of rivers and wetlands.

2. Health Care: To improve health care, Progressives favor a complex health care system.

3. Evolution: Progressives are comfortable with the sciences in which systemic causation is most central B evolution and global warming (pp. 111-112, 122-124, 129, 138-140 and 210. See also the present document under The Contestation of Freedom, Situations exempt from Judgment, No 2, Competitive Situations, Contestation, Evolution).

4. Taxes: To improve democracy, Progressives want taxes, which they see as a contribution to the common wealth, without which no individual freedom would be possible (See also the present document under The Contestation of Freedom, Situations warranting Judgment, Item A, Access to the chosen Goal, No. 1, Property, Contestation, Taxes).

5. Poverty: In order to alleviate poverty, Progressives see complex social causes which need to be changed (See also the present document under The Contestation of Freedom, Situations warranting Judgment, Item A, Access to the chosen Goal, No. 3, Rights, Contestation, Poverty).

6. Equality and Fairness: Progressives focus on equality of distribution and need-based fairness. In each case, the forces of society are involved (See also the present document under The Contestation of Freedom, Situations warranting Judgment, Item A, Access to the chosen Goal, No. 6, Equality and Fairness, Contestation, Priorities in Equality and Fairness).

THE CONTESTATION OF FREEDOM

Points of Disagreement: The controversies about freedom begin with contestation as to whether judgment is warranted. All agree that interference by either natural causes or during a competition situations, is exempt from judgment regarding imposition on freedom. However, contestation arises as to what are natural causes and what are competitive situations.

All other situations warrant judgment. And in these cases, the contestation is either around access or around impediments. What counts as access? What counts as an impediment?

The sequence is as follows:

1. Is Judgment warranted?:

a. Is the abridgment of freedom from natural causes? What are Anatural causes@?

b. Is the situation competitive? What situations are Acompetitive@?

2. Judgment is warranted:

a. What is reasonable Access?

b. What are detrimental Impediments? (p. 52).

Situations exempt from Judgment: Freedom is about possibility, and how other people can interfere with it. Where there is no possibility, there can be no interference. Harm done by natural causes and in competitive situations, are such situations. Contestation is about the definition of Anatural causes,@ and Acompetitive situations.@

1. Nature:

a. Natural Causes: Natural causes, such as an earthquake, are not considered to interfere with freedom. The imposition has to be by a human in order to qualify as potentially interfering with freedom.

b. Human Nature: When nature is internal to a human being (such as being born left-handed), the person has no possibility but to act according to his or her nature, and there is no interference with freedom.

Freedoms based on Ahuman nature,@ such as expressing one=s own ideas or associating with people of one=s choice, are called inalienable rights (pp. 52-53).

Contestation:

Homosexuality:

Conservatives: Homosexuality is a human choice B the choice of a certain Alifestyle.@ It does not belong in the category of Ahuman nature,@ and hence homosexuals do not have an inalienable right to marry. Marriage is the formalization of a bond between a man and a woman. The freedom of homosexuals is not abridged if they choose a lifestyle which does not permit them to marry. Living as homosexuals, they forfeit this right.

Progressives: Homosexuality is in one=s Ahuman nature.@ It is not a Alifestyle@ choice. Homosexuals should have the same inalienable rights as heterosexuals. The issue is one of personal freedom B the right to marry. A homosexual couple in a stable and loving relationship should have the right (be free) to marry (pp. 45 and 53).

2. Competitive Situations: In competitions, the freedom to compete takes precedence over interference with the freedom of others.

a. Lack of Resources: In situations such as lack of resources, where there is no possibility for everyone to achieve his or her goals, there is no interference with freedom. Freedom to compete is a form of freedom and takes precedence.

b. Winning a Competition: Winning a competition, such as for a job, or by making a better product, does not interfere with the freedom of other contestants. However, rules and laws usually govern the competition, and a violation of these may result in injustice, which then does impose on freedom (p. 54).

Contestation:

Affirmative Action:

Conservatives: The issue of college admissions is one of competition. The criteria for admission should be clear and objective (such as grades and SAT scores). Race, gender and ethnicity should be irrelevant.

Progressives: College admissions are part of a complex moral mission B to provide social, cultural and educational capital to talented minority students who have historically lacked access to this capital. Colleges should use admission criteria which provide access to minorities and thus increase freedom in the world at large, both by providing minorities a fair chance in the job market, and by training professionals who will work in under-served communities. In addition, a culturally diverse student body promotes tolerance (freedom from discrimination) and helps educate students about diverse cultural heritages (freedom of access to knowledge) (pp. 54-55).

Evolution

Conservatives: The issue of evolution vs. Aintelligent design@ is one of competition between two theories. The theory of Aintelligent design@ posits that living creatures are too well and too intricately Adesigned@ to have evolved without a designer B and that designer is God. The theory should not be treated as a religious myth. It should be treated in the same manner as the scientific theory of evolution B both being beliefs. The two theories are in competition with one another, and neither should be privileged. The issue is one of freedom of self-expression B the freedom to express one=s beliefs and have them accessible to the public. It is an imposition on the freedom of public school students and teachers, to forbid them from discussing Aintelligent design@ in the classroom. This is Acoercion@ privileging one of the contestant theories.

Progressives: The issue of evolution vs. Aintelligent design@ is indeed one of competition B not between two theories but rather between the ability of each Atheory@ to bring forth scientific evidence in support of it. The theory of Aintelligent design@ entered the competition with the scientific theory of evolution. It was not able to substantiate its statement according to the rules defined by the scientific method, and it was eliminated from the competition. Being a competition, the situation is exempt from judgment as to whether the freedom of any of the contestants has been abridged. The freedom to compete takes precedence. If Conservatives insist on imposing their myth on public school curricula, they are coercing disbelievers into studying it, thereby abridging the right of those disbelievers to distinguish between an un-substantiated religious myth and a scientific theory for which the evidence is overwhelming. It is privileging one particular religion over other religions, and privileging religion in general over science (pp. 42, 55-57 and 104. See also the present document under Causation and Freedom, Causation B Conservative and Progressive, Conservatives, For example, No. 3, Evolution, and under Progressives, For example, No. 3, Evolution).

Situations warranting Judgment: Freedom presumes a number of concepts essential for maintaining clear paths to goals. As with freedom itself, each of these concepts has an uncontested core on which there is general agreement, and a periphery which is highly contested (pp. 39-40).

A. Access to the chosen Goal: Concepts necessary to guarantee clear paths to goals, include property, security, rights, justice, the rule of law and equality/fairness.

1. Property: Property is both directly and indirectly related to goal access:

a. A direct Relationship: Wealth can buy many types of freedom, such as the freedom to travel or have protection. There is, therefore, a direct link between freedom and property B a link which may be either literal or metaphorical.

b. Property as an Object: Being able to get a desired object is part of being free, and the object may be property B a property which may be either literal or metaphorical (such as intellectual property) (pp. 42-43).

Contestation:

Taxes:

Conservatives: Taxes interfere with property rights. One=s money is one=s own and should not be taken by the government in the form of taxes. The government should maximize privatization, building on the idea that everybody is, and should be, on his or her own.

Progressives: Taxes represent a pooling of wealth for the common good. The money one has, was partly earned through the use of a government-supplied infrastructure (highways, the banking system, the courts, the Internet). The money is, therefore, not all one=s money. Some of it is owed to the government. The government should promote the common good, using taxes to create a commonly available infrastructure. We are, and should be, inter-dependent (pp. 43 and 59. See also the present document under Causation and Freedom, Causation B Conservative and Progressive, Conservatives, For example, No. 4, Taxes, and under Progressives, For example, No. 4, Taxes).

2. Security: Physical security of oneself and one=s property is central to the concept of access to goals because it guarantees physical security of oneself and one=s property, and thus guarantees the absence of interference with goal pursuit (such as harm or coercion) (pp. 43-44).

Contestation:

Social Safety Nets:

Conservatives: Social programs, such as Social Security, make people dependent on the government. These programs undermine the incentive for self-discipline, and thus are harmful to the recipients. Everyone should have sufficient discipline to plan for old age individually. The moral obligation to guarantee freedom from economic harm in old age rests with the individual.

In his second inaugural address (2004), President George W. Bush explained:

AWe will widen the ownership of homes and business, retirement savings and health insurance B preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.@

The Achallenges of life in a free society@ means Athe challenges of life in a society without safety net@ B one in which every citizen is an Aagent of his or her own destiny.@ Persons unable to meet those challenges will be impoverished, and that is just.

Progressives: Social programs help people help themselves. Society should provide safety nets. The moral obligation to guarantee freedom from economic harm in old age rests with the government B the common wealth, the wealth we hold in common (pp. 41, 44, 230 and 238. Quote from President Bush, pp. 230 and 238).

3. Rights:

Rights are understood as:

a. Metaphorical forms of property: I have the right to have access to and use my own property.

b. Tickets to certain kinds of freedom: I have the right to speak my mind, or receive some benefit (such as unemployment insurance).

Human rights are usually conceptualized as tickets to freedoms, such as freedom of speech, association and religion (pp. 44-45).

Contestation:

Poverty:

Conservatives: Care for the indigent should be voluntary. The indigents may have a right to food, but the use of tax money to provide this food, coerces the public to pay for it. The public should be free from this imposition. The responsibility should be voluntarily undertaken by private organizations, such as charities or churches. Individual initiative is paramount.

Progressives: The common wealth should be used to care for the indigent. Supplying food to the indigent is a responsibility of the citizenry. Complex social forces converge to keep the poor in poverty. The system is involved, not just individual initiative (pp. 46-47. See also the present document under Causation and Freedom, Causation B Conservative and Progressive, Conservatives, For example, Item 5, Poverty, and under Progressive, For example, Item 5, Poverty).

Trade:

Conservatives: A farmer whose farm is in a no-sprawl zone (where housing development is forbidden), should have the right to sell his farm to a developer. An owner should be free to dispose of his property as he chooses.

Progressives: The right to trade one=s property should be balanced with the good of the community (p. 45).

4. Justice: Justice is commonly understood within a metaphorical framework where well-being is a form of wealth, and harm is a taking of wealth. Justice is a balancing of the moral books, either by punishment of the perpetrator (paying one=s debt to society) or compensation to the victim by the perpetrator (paying in recompense for the harm done). Retribution is the balancing of the harm done to the victim by harm done to the perpetrator. Restitution is the balancing of harm done to the victim by a contribution to society (such as cleaning up the freeway or working in an AIDS hospice). Justice guarantees all equal access to goals (pp. 47-48).

Contestation:

The Death Penalty:

Conservatives: The death penalty encourages discipline (obeying the laws). The entire system of discipline, and hence morality, would break down without punishment B without retributive justice. Murder must be balanced by the loss of the murderer=s life.

Progressives: The death penalty compounds the harm. Retributive justice is not required for freedom. The death penalty does not deter murderers, and hence does not contribute to freedom from harm. It violates human rights. It makes the state an agent of murder B an agent of ultimate harm to its own citizens (pp. 48-49).

The World Court:

Conservatives: Each nation should be sovereign. The United States should not surrender its freedom by submitting to the jurisdiction of the World Court.

Progressives: All criminals should be brought to justice. War criminals, possibly including high officials from the United States, should be brought to justice. Justice protects people from harm, thus enhancing their freedom (pp. 48-49).

5. The Rule of Law: Societal order is necessary for access to individual goals. Ideally, laws function in the service of societal order.

Enforcement is coercion (the use of force) in order to guarantee compliance with the law. Since it is in the service of freedom, it is considered a positive form of coercion. This idea was most famously expressed by Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), in his metaphor of the social contract B the exchange of absolute freedom (absolute access) for freedom (access) within a social order which offers security and hence makes possible other freedoms (access to other goals) (pp. 49-50).

Contestation:

Civil Disobedience:

Conservatives: Order under the law is necessary for freedom. Civil disobedience should be disallowed.

Note: This long-standing conservative stand has changed recently, and Conservatives are now demonstrating in favor of the Aright to life@ in cases of abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia.

Progressives: Civil disobedience is often necessary for freedom. This is so especially when the guardians of order are themselves unjust. Civil disobedience should be limited and non-violent, and conducted not with the view of overthrowing order and the rule of law, but rather to make these more just. Progressives demonstrate in favor of civil, workers=, women=s, immigrant, and gay rights (p. 50).

6. Equality and Fairness: Only a free (self-governing) society provides equality and fairness to its citizens. In a democracy, it is equality under the law which justifies the rule of law and its accompanying coercion. In such a society, justice is seen as fair since all citizens receive equal treatment B that is, equal access to goals.

The concept of fairness encompasses:

a. Equality of distribution (one child, one cookie).

b. Equality of opportunity (one person, one raffle ticket).

c. Procedural distribution (you get what is determined by the rules).

d. Equal distribution of power (one person, one vote).

e. Equal distribution of responsibility (we share the burden equally).

f. Scalar distribution of responsibility (the greater your abilities, the greater your responsibilities).

g. Scalar distribution of rewards (what you get is determined by how much you work).

h. Right-based fairness (you get that to which you have a right).

i. Needs-based fairness (you get that which you need).

j. Contractual distribution (you get that to which you agree) (pp. 50-51).

Contestation:

Priorities in Equality and Fairness:

Conservatives: Equality of opportunity and contractual fairness should have priority.

Progressives: Equality of distribution and need-based fairness should have priority (p. 51. See also the present document under Causation and Freedom, Causation B Conservative and Progressive, Conservatives, For example, Item 6, Equality and Fairness, and under Progressives, For Example, Item 6, Equality and Fairness).

(Situations warranting Judgment, continued)

B. Impediments to reaching the chosen Goal: Concepts which refer to imposing on a person=s freedom include harm and coercion.

1. Harm: In the uncontested case, harm is usually seen as having to be sufficient to interfere with normal functioning. Murder interferes with the goal of living one=s life (pp. 41-42).

Harm comes in many forms. Some of these are physical harm, psychological harm, discrimination, poverty, joblessness, illness, lack of education, and pollution (pp. 41-42 and 81).

Contestation:

The minimum Wage:

Conservatives: A high minimum wage harms business.

Progressives: A low minimum wage harms workers (pp. 41-42).

2. Coercion: Coercion is usually conceptualized metaphorically as forcefully moving a person to an undesired location (p. 42).

Contestation:

Religion in Schools:

Conservatives: Children should be exposed to the Truth B namely that all of us respond to God.

Progressives: Religion in schools is coercion. A child who is atheist, and yet forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance (which contains the phrase Aunder God@) or forced to listen to Christian school prayers, is being coerced to do so B even if no physical force, Amerely@ peer pressure is involved (p. 42).

FREEDOM CONTESTED B IMPLICATIONS

The Periphery of Freedom: People with different worldviews have dramatically different interpretations, not only of freedom but also of concepts which are based on freedom. Five of these are morality, personal freedom, economic freedom, religious freedom, and foreign policy.

1. Morality:

Conservatives: Using an idealized strict father family model, conservative moral philosophy makes the individual responsibility aspect of freedom of uppermost importance.

Conservatives conceptualize moral behavior as obedience to the directives of a legitimate moral authority B a parent, God, a law, and ultimately oneself. Reasons for disobedience include most importantly desire (the pull of the passions), inability (reasons beyond one=s control), laziness (the lack of a desire to act the right way), and a challenge to authority (a will to disobey).

Internal discipline involves the strengthening the will, gaining control over external factors (there are no excuses), gathering the necessary energy and using it, and bending one=s own will to the will of another.

The strict father rewards and punishes his child so as to develop his or her character. Character is the use of free will and discipline to follow the directives of one=s internalized legitimate moral authority.

Progressives: Using an idealized nurturant parent family model, progressive moral philosophy emphasizes social and ecological, as well as individual responsibility.

Progressives use empathy and responsibility to develop in their child a positive attachment to them. This attachment will enable the child to observe and mimic parental behavior, and eventually internalize the characteristics of being empathic and responsible. It takes a village to bring up a child, and a nurturant community plays an important role in the child=s moral development. The actions of the whole population have an overall systemic causal effect on the moral formation of the child.

Character is the ability to use empathy to discern how to operate in a complex social system so as to be of help, and avoid causing harm (pp. 69, 75, 85-86, 119-121, 175 and 230. See also the present document under The uncontested Core of Freedom, Freedom, not Indulgence).

2. Personal Freedom:

Conservatives: Conservatives see themselves as Aordinary,@ good Americans who are oppressed (have their freedoms abridged) by a Aliberal elite.@

The ordinary person is identified as poor, uneducated, hard-working (doing manual labor) physically strong, religious, patriotic, with bad grammar, loosely articulated pronunciation, a traditional sex role, and conservative values (strict father morality).

The Aliberal elite@ is identified as having liberal political and social values which include high culture, feminism, gay rights, environmentalism, peace, protection, safety, and being against the death penalty.

ALiberty:@ ALiberty@ is freedom from oppressive restrictions imposed on one=s way of life, behavior, or political views.

AReligious Liberty:@ The Areligious liberty@ sought by Conservative Christians is the political freedom to practice their religion as they choose B a practice which includes spreading the Agood news,@ the Gospel Truth. Conservative Christians do not see this as an imposition on the freedom of others, since they are in fact helping others by communicating to them how to avoid the torture of hell and achieve the bliss of heaven. Display of the Ten Commandments in schools and courts is offering freedom from hell, not imposing on freedom. Saying a prayer or reading a passage from the Christian Bible in school, is simple and natural and should be permitted.

Guns, Taxes, suburban Development: For Conservatives, owning and using a gun, freedom from taxation, and freedom from restrictions on sub-urban and ex-urban development, are matters of Aliberty.@

Progressives: What Conservatives see as oppression (Ainterference@ with their freedom) by Progressives, is often the result of the latter=s conception of problems in terms of systemic causation (which Conservatives, for whom causation is direct, do not recognize as valid), or of Progressives= seemingly self-evident assumption that morality is nurturant (an idea which the Conservatives reject).

The Progressives= Aoppression@ of Conservatives arises from the fact that Progressives do not want Conservatives to be free to interfere with the freedom of others. Conservatives see this either as imposing on their freedom, or as not making any sense.

Using systemic causality and an empathic morality, Progressives focus on everyday behavior which imposes on the freedom of others. They are against large cars because of their contribution to global warming, against the cutting down of old-growth forests, against the killing of aquatic life, against dams, against second-hand smoke having to be breathed by non-smokers, against hate speech, and against low pay, no benefit employment (pp. 133-138).

3. Economic Freedom:

Conservatives: Conservatives see the entrepreneur as the ideal of the free individual. He or she is the hero of economic freedom, the individual who Amakes it.@ The understanding is that any person with sufficient discipline can succeed in a society with a free market. Those who are poor have not had the discipline to use the free market to their advantage and become prosperous. They do not deserve handouts.

The market is the equivalent of the magic sword of the fairy tales, the magical instrument which works for good and enables the hero to succeed. The dragon to be slain and overcome is the government. All the functions of government should be privatized. Corporations should be treated as persons, with individual, inalienable rights.

Grover Norquist (1956-), a conservative activist, says:

AI don=t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.@

For President George W. Bush, self-government is the Agovernment of the self@ B that is, discipline. The idea had a prominent place in Bush=s second inaugural address (2004):

ASelf-government relies, in the end, on the government of the self.@

Sean Hannity (1961-), conservative talk radio host, and television host (Fox News, Hannity=s America, and Hannity & Colmes) explains:

AThat=s the thing about freedom. It doesn=t guarantee success . . . But let=s say you show a little self-discipline B even if you haven=t before . . . Let=s say you go to bed at a reasonable hour at night and get up early in the morning to tackle the day. Let=s say you really work hard. You develop marketable skills. You help invent or produce or distribute some product or service that people want or need. You get out and hustle. Rather than waste your money, you pay off your college loans and your credit cards and your car loans . . . You get serious about your life . . . and your sense of personal responsibility. What=s going to happen? . . . I guarantee you. You=ll be on the road to success.@

Progressives: For Progressives, the common wealth should be used for the common good, to provide the infrastructure everyone needs to achieve his or her individual goals. Taxes provide that infrastructure. Included in the infrastructure are:

Physical Security: Fire fighters, the police, the army, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the national guard, the criminal justice system, levees which will hold back flood waters.

Family Security: Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, public housing, homeless shelters.

Public Health: Food inspections, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control.

Education: Public education, college loans.

Science: Funding for research and development, such as in computer, space and medical technologies.

Transportation: Highways, bridges, public transit, the Federal Aviation Administration.

Communication: The development of the Internet and satellite systems, the Federal Communications Commission which regulates the airwaves.

Banking and Finance: The federal and state banking systems, the Small Business Administration, the Commerce Department, the Federal Trade Commission.

The Stock Market: The Securities and Exchange Commission which regulates the stock market.

The Courts: Courts, which are used mostly for corporate law and contract disputes.

Markets are not Anatural.@ They are constructed according to certain values, and thus reflect society=s morality. Markets are moral instruments which should serve the common good. Large corporations act like government, in the sense that they make decisions which affect the life and the safety of the public. However, they are not accountable to the public. Power should not be transferred from publicly accountable forms of government to private, unaccountable institutions (pp. 18, 60, 97-98, 102, 116, 149, 153, 157, 160, 162 and 168-169. Wikipedia 2007, ASean Hannity,@ p. 1. Quote from Grover Norquist: Wikipedia 2007, AGrover Norquist,@ p. 7. Quote from President Bush (self-government): pp. 18, 206 and 239. Quote from Sean Hannity: pp. 116 and 157).

4. Religious Freedom:

Conservatives: Fundamentalist Christians are political conservatives. Their politics is, as is their religion, based on the strict father model of the family. The central metaphor of Fundamental Christianity is God conceptualized as a strict father.

Good and Evil: Fundamental Christianity sees a strict good-evil dichotomy in the world. God is good and Satan evil. God is the ultimate and absolute moral authority, and He issues commandments which specify right and wrong. Morality is obedience to these commandments. Going to heaven is the reward for obedience, going to hell, the punishment for disobedience.

The Bible: The Bible is the word of God, and is literally true. It provides instructions on how to live. Each person is individually responsible for his or her own ultimate salvation, by either taking Jesus as savior and being redeemed, or rejecting his offer of redemption and going to hell for eternal suffering in alienation from God. Obedience to the word of God takes discipline, and those without that discipline deserve to perish in hell. Character is the capacity to be obedient to the moral law B that is, to measure the effects of one=s actions against the prescription of the strict father.

Evolution: Evolution denies that human beings evolved as per the plan of God. It thus denies teleology. In addition, evolution sees species as developing into other species. It thus denies both absolute categorization and essence. Evolution is unacceptable to fundamentalist Christianity because in its view, heaven is the ultimate freedom, and one gets there by acting in accord with God=s plan, and according to one=s essence. For example, a woman who has an abortion, gives up her freedom B she gives up acting in accordance with God=s plan (to make a new human being), and gives up acting in accordance with her essence (which is to bear children).

Proselytizing: Fundamentalists believe that their religion is the only true religion. Educating others about this truth is, therefore, the most important part of an education. It follows that freedom of religion could not possibly mean Afreedom from religion.@ It can only mean the Afreedom of religion to proselytize@ B to tell its truths aloud in all public places, and try as hard as possible to bring others to recognize the truth. Conservatives are unconcerned about impinging on the freedoms of others who may not want to hear the ATruth of the Gospel.@

The Separation of Church and State: Fundamentalist Christians see the separation of church and state as an Aattack on religion.@ President George W. Bush has initiated a number of faith-based governmental programs which put taxpayer money and social control into the hands of churches approved by his administration.

Progressive Christianity: Progressive Christians see God as a nurturant parent who offers unconditional love and grace. Christ is the embodiment of the progressive values of empathy and responsibility, and offers a model for living.

Progressive Christians see themselves as members of a community (citizens of a nation), whose moral task it is to maximize the possibility (the freedom) for everyone to become his or her best self. The morality of Progressive Christianity is a nurturant morality.

There should be no state religion and no state recognition of any version of any religion. Separation of church and state is essential to prevent the government from interfering in the practice of any religion (except if that practice criminally harms people, interferes with the freedom of others, or endangers public safety) (pp. 7, 137, 170, 177, 179-180, 183, 185-186, 191-193, 198-199 and 214).

5. Foreign Policy:

Conservatives: Strict father morality sees a clear good-evil dichotomy in the world, with evil a strong, tangible force. There is thus the need for an overwhelmingly strong (and inherently good) strict father to protect against evil. It is from this perspective that President George W. Bush declared Iraq, Iran and North Korea an Aaxis of evil@ B implying an alliance between these three very different countries based on their evil essence. The phrase echoes former President Ronald Reagan=s naming of the Soviet Union an Aevil empire,@ and recalls the AAxis powers@ of World War II (Germany, Italy and Japan) which were then also seen as evil.

Fear activates and reinforces the strict father model. Bush has used his Awar on terror@ to:

a. Frighten and intimidate the American Public.

b. Centralize his war powers in the executive branch and enhance his role as commander in chief.

c. Justify his running of the country as one runs the military B a strict father organization in which morality is obedience to orders.

The Defense of Freedom justifies any Behavior: Bush sees the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States as having been Abecause they hate our freedom.@ In the name of the defense of our freedom, Bush justifies torture, arrest without due process, domestic spying, harsh penalties for Aterrorism,@ preventive wars, defiance of allies (such as France and Germany), and defiance of the United Nations, the World Court, and international treaties (such as the nuclear test ban treaty).

Democracy is Freedom to Trade: Since the unfettered free market is the mechanism by which moral discipline results in prosperity, the introduction of Afree markets@ globally will necessarily result in the spread of Ademocracy.@ This is a democracy at first for the wealthy and the large corporations (both groups, because they have Amade it,@ have a benevolent influence), and then eventually, by a trickle-down effect, democracy for others.

Bush equates free markets and political freedom:

ATrade and markets are freedom.@ (1999).

AThe economic liberty that builds prosperity also builds a demand for limited government and self-rule. Modernization and progress eventually require freedom in all its forms.@ (2004).

The World Community: Bush sees himself as the strict father of the world community in which nations are persons B the industrialized states being the adults and the under-developed (Adeveloping@) nations, the children. As father of the family, Bush assumes that he knows how other countries should be run, and he reinforces this moral authority through strength B both military and financial.

In this view, the selfBinterest of the United States and the good for the world coincide. Defending his Iraq War policy, Bush declared:

AAmerica=s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.@ (2004).

Indeed, pursuing one=s self interest is moral, and morality (Aour deepest beliefs@) is bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (via free-market freedom). This is a classic example of Athis may hurt but it is for your own good@ strict father logic.

Latin America: Bush has responded negatively to the recent political developments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile and Equador, where democratically elected leaders have openly opposed laissez-faire free markets. He sees these movements as a threat to (free-market) freedom and hence a threat to (trickle-down) democracy.

Reproductive Health: Fundamentalist Christian beliefs guide important aspects of American foreign policy. One of Bush=s first acts in office was to stop American aid to all reproductive health clinics which performed abortions or even counseled women on how to obtain a safe abortion.

Progressives: For Progressives, foreign policy means empathizing with people of other nations B with individual citizens, not necessarily their government. The issues raised include hunger, poverty, women=s rights, children=s rights, refugee issues, labor rights and public health.

Women: Freedom for women includes the freedom to vote, to have a private sexual life, to marry someone=s of one=s choice, to purse an education, have a career, function in public as men do (drive a car, wear clothes of one=s choice), and it means freedom from forced circumcision.

Workers: Freedom for workers includes freedom from low wages and inhuman working conditions. It means freedom to get an education and to get capital to start a small business.

War: War should not be an instrument of foreign policy. The option of war should be used only as an absolute last resort. Diplomatic and economic solutions to disputes should be maximized. The military should in great part be re-directed to peace-keeping and disaster relief.

Torture: Torture should be outlawed and eliminated.

The Environment: Global warming is perhaps the greatest threat to the earth as we know it. The environment and world health should have priority. We should end our dependence on oil.

International Treaties: International treaties, such as the nuclear test ban treaty, should be honored and extended. Nuclear weapons development should end. The use of any nuclear weapons is unthinkably dangerous. The use of depleted uranium should end. Private contractors are not accountable and should not take over military functions. The National Guard should not be used to fight wars abroad.

Trade: Empathy and responsibility turn free trade into fair trade. Fair trade means avoiding cheap labor, preserving indigenous ways of life, preserving nature, preventing monocultures, limiting the power of transnational corporations, keeping clean water available for free, and preventing the theft of a country=s mineral wealth.

Terrorism: Terrorism should be treated as a crime, not a declaration of war. It should be fought in the most positive and least violent way possible. We do not defend our freedoms by giving them up in the name of a terrorist threat.

[pp. 202-210 and 215-216, 219, 221-225 and 230. Quotes from President Bush: Trade and markets: p. 208 (requoted by Lakoff from Howard Fischer, 1999, ABush places free Trade above Land, Labor Issues,@ Arizona Daily Star, December 8). The economic liberty: p. 208 (quoted by Lakoff from President Bush=s Second Inaugural Address). America=s vital interests: pp. 206 and 233 (quoted by Lakoff from President Bush=s Second Inaugural Address)].

MY CONCLUSIONS

An uneven Conflict B Levels of Consciousness: Conservatives think in terms of lines of authority (strict father model of the family) and direct causation (focus on individual action).

Progressives think in terms empathy (nurturant parents model of the family) and systemic causation (focus on the relationship between the individual and the system in which the individual functions).

George Lakoff does not mention Ken Wilber=s levels of consciousness.

Seen in Ken Wilber=s terms, Conservatives are on a lower level of consciousness than Progressives. Their reliance on a legitimate authority to make rules, and their attack on the science of systems (global warming, evolution), reflect a level of consciousness which is prior to the Age of Reason (which began around 1,700) B prior to Kant=s definition of autonomy as:

AThe courage to think for oneself and not rely on socially given rules and dogmas.@

[Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), quoted in Wilber 1995/2000, p. 389].

The Age of Reason, in the West, achieved an increasingly clear differentiation of the noosphere from the biophere (the mind from the body), and an increasingly clear differentiation of the constituent elements of the noosphere (the AI@ sphere, the AWe@ sphere, and the AIt@ sphere). Reason, the formal operational stage of consciousness development, emerged as the basic organizing principle of society.

These developments gave rise to:

1. Liberation movements (women, slaves). (Biology is no longer destiny).

2. The differentiation of art (the AI@ sphere), morality (the AWe@ sphere) and science (the AIt@ sphere).

3. The separation of church and state.

4. Freedom and equality under the law.

5. Freedom and equality with respect to morality (religion).

6. Political freedom in a democratic state B that is, politically free subjects with more relative autonomy than was possible in the tightly bound mythic-membership roles of dominator hierarchies (Wilber 1995/2000, pp. 381-383, 389, 392 and 397-398, 425 and 427; summarized in Hall 2005, p. 37).

The Age of Reason was anticipated and then represented by artists:

C.E.

Before the Age of Reason:

c.1123 The Master of San Clemente, Christ in Majesty. (See the present document p. 38). This painting from the Church of San Clemente, Tahull, Catalonia, Spain, fills the curve of the apse=s half dome. Christ has a powerful presence as ruler and judge of the world. The iconography is traditional. Christ sits within a mandorla (an oval area, sometimes also called an aureole or vesica pisces, which by medieval Christian convention surrounded a deity). The symbols alpha and omega are on each side of Christ=s head. He holds the open gospel inscribed Aego sum lux mundi@ (I am the light of the world, John 8:12). Four angels, each holding an evangelist=s symbol, float at his sides. At his feet are six apostles (Bartholomew and John visible in the picture), and the Virgin Mary holding a bowl (Stokstad 2005, pp. 488-489; summarized in Hall 2006, p. 19. Columbia Encyclopedia 2000, Amandorla@).

c.1280 Cimabue (Ceni de Pepi) paints his Virgin and Child enthroned. (See the present document p. 39). The Virgin holds the infant Jesus in her lap and points to him as the path to salvation (See Stokstad 2005, p. 570; summarized in Hall 2006, p. 19).

The Anticipation and then the Flowering of the Age of Reason:

1436 Jan van Eyck (c.1395-1441) paints his Annunciation. (See the present document p. 40). The angel Gabriel has interrupted Mary while she was reading B that is, while she was thinking, a pursuit of the ego, reason (See Stokstad 2005. p. 593; summarized in Hall 2006, p. 20).

1460 Rogier van der Weyden (c.1400-1464) pioneers portraiture in his Portrait of a Lady. (See the present document p. 41) (See Stokstad 2005, p. 598; summarized in Hall 2006, p. 20).

1503 Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) paints his Mona Lisa. (See the present document p. 42). It is a portrait with a prominent place for perspective B a perspective which is external, and since it is Mona Lisa=s view, a perspective, a depth which is also hers, that is, internal (See Stokstad 2005, p. 650; summarized in Hall 2006, p. 20).

1565 Peter Bruegel the Elder (c.1525-1569) paints Return of the Hunters. (See the present document p. 43). It has a perspective which could only have been in his imagination, as it could not have been in his direct experience (See Stokstad 2005, p. 712; summarized in Hall 2006, p. 21).

1656 Diego Velazquez (1599-1660) paints Las Meninas (The Maids of Honor). (See the present document p. 44). It incorporates various perspectives at the same time, and shows a recognition that no one perspective has a monopoly on truth. The perceiver (the artist) is part of, and inseparable from, the perceived. The world is not just perception, it is also an interpretation (See Stokstad 2005, p. 754; summarized in Hall 2006, p. 22).

1659 Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669) paints his Self-portrait. (See the present document p. 45). It is a study of individuality (See Stokstad 2005, p. 770; summarized in Hall 2006. p. 22).

1798 Francisco Goya (1746-1828) etches his The Sleep of Reason produces Monsters [ALos Caprichos@ (1796-1798)]. (See the present document p. 46) (See Stokstad 2005, p. 954; summarized in Hall 2006, p. 23. Present document p. 51).

In literature, the Age of Reason gave birth to the novel (Wilber 1995-2000, p. 389; summarized in Hall 2005, p. 37).

The conflict between Conservatives and Progressive is not on an equal footing. Progressives have access to a broader, more encompassing consciousness than Conservatives. The remedy is not to belittle the Conservatives (which will make them all the more defensive) but rather help them broaden their view of the world, and attain the ability to rely not on rules, but on themselves, on their own perspective to determine right from wrong. Within a context of security and reliability, an increased circle in which one can be empathic, and a trust of one=s own autonomy can be learned.

The Cart and the Horse: In a sense, to analyze the arguments made my Conservatives and Progressives on each issue, and then becoming aware that their worldviews arise from different levels of consciousness, is to put the cart before the horse. Temporally, the level of consciousness comes first. The level of consciousness is the particular rung of the ladder in the development of consciousness, on which a person stands at the present time. Each rung of the ladder gives a different view. The general characteristics of that view should be analyzed first. Armed with a knowledge of the general view, one can then predict B and confirm B the opinion of the viewer on (his view of) individual issues.

A Value Judgment: The progressive perspective is better than the conservative because it encompasses a larger segment of life, of the Kosmos. This value judgment is a negation of cultural relativism which considers all perspectives equally valuable. My judgment is made on the basis of the breadth and depth of the consciousness from which the perspective arises.

The scale of adjudication for considering one viewpoint better than the other, is the criterion of embrace. How much of the Kosmos does the viewpoint contain? How much love (Agape) is built into its structure?

In a developmental holarchy (a nestled hierarchy of worldviews), each succeeding stage is higher that the one previous to it because it has more consciousness, and hence, a greater capacity for love, care, compassion, concern, relationship and justice. The higher the place of a viewpoint in the holarchy, the more care and the less oppression it is inclined to possess.

The development of human consciousness from the late Middle Ages to the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, is such a developmental step B an increase in the breadth and depth of consciousness. Hence the judgment B the higher level of consciousness (the Progressive one) is the better one (Wilber 1983/2005, pp. 8 and 36; summarized in Hall 2005, p. 63).

REFERENCES

All page numbers refer to:

Lakoff, George, 2006. Whose freedom B the battle over America=s most important idea. New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux/Picador.

For a detailed description of the AStrict Father@ (Conservative) and ANurturant Parent@ (Progressive) view of the family:

Lakoff, George, 1996/2002. Moral politics B how liberals and conservatives think. 2^nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. (471 pages).

Part I-IV (pp 1-280) summarized in Francoise Hall, AMoral Politics B How Conservatives and Liberals think.@ January 24, 2005 (22 pages, unpublished).

Other references:

Columbia Encyclopedia. 2000. 6^th edition. New York, N.Y.: Columbia Universisty/Gale Group.

Stokstad, Marilyn. 2005. Art history. 2^nd edition, revised. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006. AThe History of Western Art B A pictorial Representation of the Evolution of Consciousness.@ March 25 (103 pages, unpublished).

Wikipedia

AEssentially contested Concept.@

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept. Updated June 29, 2007. Accessed August 4, 2007.

AW. B. Gallie.@

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._B._Gallie. Updated May 25, 2007. Accessed August 4, 2007.

ASean Hannity.@

http://en.wikipeida.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity. Updated August 2, 2007. Accessed August 5, 2007.

AGrover Norquist.@

http://en.wikipedia.org/wwiki/Grover_Norquist. Updated July 22, 2007. Accessed August 5, 2007.

ANancy Reagan.@

http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Reagan. Updated August 4, 2007. Accessed August 4, 2007.

Wilber, Ken.

1981/1996. Up from Eden B a transpersonal view of human evolution. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2005. AA transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness.@ November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).

1983/2005. A sociable God B (1983 subtitles: a brief introduction to a transcendental sociology), 2005 subtitle: toward a new understanding of religion. Boston: Shambhala.

1995/2000. Sex, ecology, spirituality B the spirit of evolution. 2^nd edition, revised. Boston: Shambhala.

***