My name is Jesse Starks. I am speaking on a behalf of Self-Investigation.org. I found my way here after discovering a handful of the Second Renaissance / Life Itself blog articles and further exploring interviews with Rufus. I reached out to him and he steered me here.
It feels as if our respective communities are highly aligned and complementary. Our project is focused on self-understanding, whereas 2R (based on my impression) is focused on cultural paradigms, but if we zoom out even further, I propose we are touching important parts of the same elephant in the proverbial dark room - motivated by the same reasons.
I put together the following short article, that positions Self-Investigation within the larger project of Society. It also positions 2R, and similar projects.
I think we can observe a circular, cyclic trajectory in the evolution of human societies, although on a cognitive level it has been quite singular for close to 4,000 years. Ever since human societies became sedentary, hierarchies have arisen - with those at the top seeking to preserve, consolidate and increase their wealth and power. That then leads to instability and eventual collapse, with other societies rising elsewhere (and falling in the same manner). Unlike these historical examples we now have a more global society (economically, politically, culturally, educationally) and the fall threatens humanity as a whole.
Even if pockets survive thereafter, they need to somehow break free of the dangerous cognitive illusion rooted in separation from the natural world and internal hierarchies, when ultimately humanity is part of nature and the only hierarchies are ones that arise relatively. A web, not a pyramid; cooperation, not competition.
Thanks @RobertBunge. It is heartening to see various communities emerging covering different aspects of societal shift. Seems to me, if scattered communities are able to align around a north star (or a few north stars), it will enrich the conversations and boost the reach of all communities.
The article attempts to plant a stake in the ground for “reasonable society”, as one such north star.
For an extended treatment of this topic, I invite consideration of Luke Kemp’s Goliath’s Curse. This in turn rests on many other high quality sources about the evolution and collapse of complex societies. (For a really, really deep dive reading list on this topic, consider this thread: Macrohistorical Reading List )
There has been a long historical oscillation between social hierarchy (see my reference to Luke Kemp above) and social networks. On the social networks topics, two best-selling historians (with completely opposite political sympathies) have quite a bit to say. Try Niall Ferguson, The Square and the Tower and Yuval Noah Harari, Nexus.
I’m not much into utopias. Pragmatic options interest me quite a bit more. Whether the global society of the future looks more like a hierarchy or more like a network hinges on the question of which of those will be most fit for purpose. I mostly suspect it will be a hybrid model with both hierarchical and peer-to-peer structures both in evidence. Where I agree with @Justin is that some fundamental alignment with and respect for planetary carrying capacity will be a pragmatic requirement for any human future we all might wish to inhabit. This means a recalibration of social processes that have enjoyed pragmatic success since the advent of the Holocene. Not a small order! But what changed is the situation, so my hope (parallel to the famous quote by John Maynard Keynes) is that as facts change, we can change our minds!
My most optimistic thesis for social change and a global future involves collective intelligence rising to the fore. Last year I got on the meta-theory bandwagon and drafted an extended essay that felt like the first draft of a much longer book. But what I realized in the process is me having a Theory of Everything (no matter how compelling that theory might be) is less useful in current circumstances than me forming dialogic relationships all over the place and and essentially spinning up a network. If there is indeed a Theory of Everything book in the works, I’d prefer that it be collected essays from some collective research group. That format would be a better embodiment of the thesis I would prefer to see put forward.
North Stars can certainly be helpful. My true passion is more like constellations, however. I’d prefer not to argue overly much which organization or value system is more like Polaris and which is more like Canopus. My feeling at the moment is we all might better busy ourselves mostly with just connecting the dots!
Agree, “constellation” better fits what I was trying to go after. In our project, we strain to avoid talk about explicit values, aside from what feel like a few bare minimums… (humility, skepticism, and curiosity).
And beyond this, of course, is our implicit suggestion that people ought to understand the biases in their perceptions and worldviews.
I appreciate this. My attempt at supporting your idea: intelligence thrives on a foundation of self-understanding. Certainly, collective intelligence is so much more than that, but self-understanding feels like a part of the picture.
I can relate here as well… reluctance to latch onto a grand theory - and instead looking for a network. Even so, what is the “glue” that holds the network together? In other words, is the minimum viable description of what the network aims for? Whether we describe that in terms of a constellation and/or other values, symbols, etc.
(BTW, if you are willing to share a draft of the theory of everything - I’m happy to read - keeping in mind your reservations about it.)
Here’s the draft. I’ve hung this link in the Forum quite a few months ago, so it’s not really news here. Most of the content is sprayed around the Forum (and in other channels) here and there on a more topical basis. This was a thing that started out as a draft for 3 to 4 Medium essays and then just grew on me because of the need to cross-connect a bunch of ideas that belong to entirely different academic disciplines. (Which is why turning this essay into a real book would make the work impossibly long and likely readable by almost no one). The essay as it is more like a treatment for something that feels like it wants to be a sort of emergent literary production the world has not exactly seen before. This thing just wants out into the world somehow or another. Between coffee and kayaking, last summer it forced its way out of my head and onto paper. (Paper first - digital later).
A few minutes ago - right here in this very Forum! - I proposed a book project. Your quote above sound like a chapter proposal to me. Interested in developing an essay to unpack your sentence above?
