This Friday in the Research Tent at 5pm CET, I’ll briefly present and host a dialogue on the topic of ‘Doing Good under Radical Uncertainty’ - which is essentially the way I’m approaching the idea of Effective Altruism, and how it relates to Second Renaissance themes.
I’ll discuss the notion of ‘radical uncertainty’ in the book by that name by Kay and King, and how to relates to meditative practice in the work of John Vervaeke and others.
I’ve just published a piece on this here.
Meeting link copied below for convenience:
Zoom: Join here
Meeting ID: 891 1441 1437
Passcode: 649056
Very helpful piece, thank you @JonahW — and I have added a comment in place. I’ll be very disappointed to miss your session on Friday … I will probably still go to VUB but not 100% certain … I have radical uncertainty about which choice will be most beneficial overall Working with my intuition, and trying to dampen my learned hesitancy, I feel that anything that prepares the ground for development of “ontological commoning” is something that is mine to do, over and above FOMO on other great things. But I could really benefit from collective discernment on this
There’s a quiet courage in proposing “wise altruism” not as a retreat from ambition, but as a deeper commitment to staying attuned amidst complexity. The framing of radical uncertainty not as a problem to solve but as a condition to inhabit resonates strongly, especially when paired with the embodied knowing emphasized in meditative practice and Vervaeke’s work.
It feels like an invitation to move from control to responsiveness, to cultivate discernment not through prediction, but through presence. I’m especially struck by how this approach opens up space for humility without passivity, and for care that is agile rather than brittle.
Looking forward to exploring this more in the discussion on Friday, especially how this might shape our strategies for action, and how we stay resourced in the process.
and cross-posting my Substack comment here, for ease of reference…
Excellent and insightful analysis, thank you Jonah! You haven’t mentioned Dave Snowden and his influential “Cynefin” approach, which to me seems to lead to something similar, but I’ll leave you or others to do the comparison.
At the risk of being predictable to those who know my own tendencies, what I’d add to this (and I don’t see it as taking away anything) is the collective dimension. From what I experience as well as what I read, decisions made collectively in the context of a well-functioning group tend to be of better quality than those taken by individuals alone — whatever the depth of their private analysis, reflection and meditation. And this is what I would bring into the conversation. Yes, by all means, work with your own individual “lived experience, emotion and intuition”, and then bring that back to the trusted group for collective discernment. That’s how Quaker concerns are supposed to work, however seldom it actually happens. And that’s similar to what many people have expressed over the ages, from traditional and indigenous circle practices to several contemporary writers.
What I’m most keen on here is to bring to awareness the residual latent individualism carried over from the “modern” paradigm, and to address that, alongside the very helpful questioning you have set out above.
Thanks and cross-posting my response too as I think it’s an important theme.
“Thanks Simon, I think that’s a great point and I’d suggest complements what I wrote. I guess I might question whether ‘lived experience, emotion and intuition’ has to be understood in an individualistic way. I’m thinking here of the way Heidegger thinks of the pre-propositional, practical structure of ‘being-in-the-world’ as being structured by ‘being-with’. Vervaeke also speaks of relationship and community in meaning-making, though you may be right that this deserves to be foregrounded more.”
Thanks to both you and @Naeema for the other comments too - its very inspiring and pleasantly thought-provoking to see these thoughts reflected in your words.
What a great point to question! Well yes… lived experience as collective: the importance of many practices like check-in; reflective listening; etc. help us to feel the commonality of lived experience in its expression; — emotion, shared through empathy can be contagious and hop over to the collective realm (with care!); — and then there’s intuition. I guess this is the one where people have least experience of it being collective. Collective Presencing is one practice. Quaker Meeting is another. Maybe the “in” in “intuition” is what can be too easily seen as within an individual? And when I experience a collective sense in that kind of mode, I’m not used to calling it intuition. Quakers call it “ministry”. In Collective Presencing it’s often called speaking from the middle (not just to the middle, common in circle practices).
Working with my intuition, and trying to dampen my learned hesitancy, I feel that anything that prepares the ground for development of “ontological commoning” is something that is mine to do, over and above FOMO on other great things. But I could really benefit from collective discernment on this 