Close. I want to ensure people are respected, complete with their fallibility. Definitely, that people are more than the sum of their words, their positions. And also, that some of the most fallible folks have channelled some brilliant works.
This does imply, however, a certain intolerance of people claiming they have the only right way, or the only answer, as that doesn’t allow for others to have their moments of brilliant insight.
Beyond positions and words, people do stuff. Sometimes this embodies care and love — even from people who have said horrible words, or whose positions I execrate. Sometimes this embodies discrimination, hate and violence — even from those who have uttered the glossiest words, or whose positions I see as having real value. I don’t see any way around these realities.
I’m struggling a little with the “implicitly”. Can you always judge accurately what may be implicit in someone else’s words? Yes, we all do pick up on what we (variously) see as implicit, but I’d say we absolutely cannot judge with certainty what is meant implicitly, without asking for it to be made explicit.
So I do find it very helpful, if someone sees that one person’s words may lead to others getting the wrong impression, not to “call it out”, but to ask, openly, for what is taken as implicit to be made explicit. Where the guess about the implicit was on target, I would then expect to see the originator squirming rather, not wanting to be explicit about something ugly. But often, it’s more like a plain misinterpretation, easily put right.
I feel this personally from time to time. I hate it when people read in something bad to what I say or write that is not intended, but seen as implicit. Thus I say, don’t judge people by what you imagine is implicit in their words. Ask them.
is simply, by asking the people in question to be explicit. Push for clarity. Don’t prejudge what people mean implicitly. Help them see the implications of what they say. Assume good intent (which is a general guideline in many forums).
If the person in question is not available, I’d say the next best thing would be to ask around: what did you see that person as meaning or implying? And the best people to answer would be people who know the speaker.
Is that a problem? Is that difficult? All I’m asking is to minimise prejudice.
I’m really not talking prophecy here. I totally agree that where there are existential risks (or just major risks to wellbeing) that are being overlooked or ignored, say them! (See it; say it; sadly, not sorted And may you not suffer the fate of Cassandra!) However, to me there is a big difference between on the one hand warning of consequential risks around actions, and on the other hand warning about the risks of saying things. It’s a lot easier to rectify misunderstandings than it is to reverse global warming.
So, I suggest, use words to their greatest effect: to achieve the best communication and understanding. I can imagine that this might be difficult for some people, perhaps if they have trauma related to questioning what others say. And if that’s the case, I’m ready to stand in to do the actual questioning.
I want to add something here that I said before. The way of ensuring this is not to endorse (or vilify) people, but to support or reject ideas. There’s a nice tradition within academia that we speak of published books or papers saying things, not people saying things. It’s particularly useful when people change their mind over time (Wittgenstein comes to mind.)
I’m dumbfounded…arbitary??? I’m talking about Fascism, and the Nazi state, and current gesturing apologia for MAGA, do you realise where this is all heading? The US and the UK are already proto-fascist authoritarian states, we are being lined up for WW3 and Armageddon. We have less than a hundred harvests left from the planets soil. It might be arbitrary to you, it feels world-breaking to me. Have you actually read Deep Adaptation papers?
@Gen I’m sorry, I don’t understand why you quote me in a way that obscures my meaning.
Did you not read “in a private life”? I can understand you being dumbfounded if you didn’t read the whole sentence. Maybe this is why live dialogue is so much better than attempting to communicate through the written word alone. Misunderstandings are hugely better cleared up immediately. I wrote this 12 days ago.
I have also accepted that collapse is coming and the DA presentation is one based on realism. A second renaissance as described herein may be possible through a collective of small communities that go back to tribal origins, though even that I’m unsure of. There is some existential justice in humans not surviving whilst they have brought about the extinction of most other species. Albeit, it is not humanity, per se, that has brought this about.
Text is unavoidably asynchronous, and I don’t always read all threads immediately or have them land, mentally, at once. I do not experience time as linearly as most people. I am writing at the point this lands for me. Does it matter if you wrote 10 days ago?
I do not think I have obscured, nor did I desire to obscure your meaning.
I had been talking quite clearly about the affect on the field by certain influential persons ( who have been highlighted here in 2R) and have raised nothing about their private lives, but their public influence and utterances. Are you suggesting anything other than their books and papers constitute a private life?
I’m not interested in nice academic traditions that prevent me calling out bad actors. Nor to be coached in how to use the “I feel/think”, when I am attempting to address a collective actions/affects where the “I” pronoun would obscure my meaning. I think you have not met my points at all, but tone-policed me.
In this space, on more than one occasion, I do not think my points been met with genuine regard, but sophistry and critique, rather than attempt to understand or reach generative dialogue. I have also witnessed a lot of this type of spiky exchange between other group members.
It’s patriarchal, unpleasant, unwelcoming and un-generative.
It’s no wonder I have observed a reticence amongst “non-research” 2R members in engaging with this research group, it’s a shame to see intellectual competitiveness shut down dialogue. This is an example of egoic behaviour that I suspect feels justified or encouraged by a belief in stage theory frameworks.
I’m not pointing the finger at you particularly, but I offer these observations as information for consideration of the whole group.
I just did, because you mentioned them. It all seems generally consistent with what 2R is trying to do. What is the intellectual genealogy of Deep Adaptation that makes it different than 2R? What books/authors are vital for understanding Deep Adaptation?
If it may be permitted for me to respond briefly to this final question, in the hopes that @Gen and perhaps others can add to it:-
Deep Adaptation
by Jem Bendell and Rupert Read
Breaking Together: A Freedom-loving Response to Collapse
by Jem Bendell
[I would add that I’ve had some disagreement with Bendell on some of his views but where the core of Deep Adaptation is concerned there is only alignment. Also, Bendell is one of many in the DA circle of philosophy - he doesn’t have executive oversight of it; he is only a founding author of the principles.]
I ran an AI check on Deep Adaptation vs Second Renaissance. 2R makes it think of Ervin Laszlo, not anyone posting here. But other than the Akashic field idea, the Laszlo summary is however decently consistent with common themes here. For what it’s worth ..
Comparison Table
Dimension
Deep Adaptation
Second Renaissance
View of Crisis
Collapse is inevitable
Crisis is a catalyst for transformation
Emotional Tone
Grief, realism, reconciliation
Hope, coherence, awakening
Scientific Basis
Climate science, psychology
Systems theory, quantum physics
Spirituality
Existential and relational
Integral and cosmic
Action Orientation
Prepare for collapse, build community
Foster global transformation and new paradigms
Key Figures
Jem Bendell
Ervin Laszlo
Core Framework
Four Rs (Resilience, Relinquishment…)
Holotropic paradigm, Akashic field, systems evolution
Summary
Deep Adaptation invites us to face collapse honestly, grieve, and find meaning in community and inner transformation.
Second Renaissance calls for a conscious evolution of humanity, integrating science, spirituality, and systems thinking to birth a new civilization.
There seems a unresolvable paradox here, can we accept and face inevitable death, or can deny that and design our way out of it? One precludes the other.
This is a deep question. Is there a synthesis, or is this the end of synthesis?
And may you not suffer the fate of Cassandra!) However, to me there is a big difference between on the one hand warning of consequential risks around actions, and on the other hand warning about the risks of saying things. It’s a lot easier to rectify misunderstandings than it is to reverse global warming.
Summary