Why is expanding from a polycrisis frame to metacrisis and second renaissance frame important? Why is it hard and what paths there might be to support people in making that shift?
This is an SCQA/SCQH around this topic and the motivation for the upcoming whitepaper on “Polycrisis and Metacrisis” due April 2025. (PS: let me know if you want to be a reviewer on the drat).
Short version
- Situation: we are in metacrisis. People see polycrisis but not yet metacrisis
- Complication: most people don’t see metacrisis element which is essential to accurate diagnosis of cause and hence strategy for cures. And seeing metacrisis is hard for various reasons.
- Question: how do we have more people see the metacrisis … and have the capacities to not only see but act on that insight and take action
Longer version
Situation
We are in a polycrisis that is a metacrisis, however whilst more and more people are aware of the polycrisis very few see the metacrisis. Correct diagnosis of an issue is normally important for finding good strategies for healing.
E.g. WEF are talking about polycrisis but don’t talk about metacrisis.
Complication
Most people aren’t (yet) seeing metacrisis element which is essential to accurate diagnosis of cause and hence strategy for cures … Seeing the metacrisis and second renaissance is harder (than seeing polycrisis) for various reasons – e.g. less visible, creates cognitive dissonance, “water we swim in issue” ie. needs awareness of culture and cultural evolution – and may require a combination of ‘head’ and ‘heart’ experiences, especially if the insight is to be embodied.
Harder to see because …
- Relates to our ways of being and knowing exacerbated/driven by the socio-cultural paradigm of modernity.
- Physical evidence e.g. extreme weather can help us see a polycrisis but metacrisis is more hidden. Climate deniers has kind of disappeared as we saw evidence in daily life … [but hard to see evidence in metacrisis].
- People see polycrisis and then say “oh well this is human nature, we are power-hungry and greedy” without seeing deeper cultural and ontological roots – and seeing that those can change.
- Buy-in to modernity is so strong that there is a big shift to see it. This is whether on the capitalist side or the activist side e.g. people who work in justice world may find it hard get over the pure activist stance (i.e. not just condemning modernity but transcending and including it) just as billionaire may find it hard to question source of their wealth.
- Hard to break out to a broader perspective from just seeing what is happening right now. Step up meta-cognitive domain. It is a step-up in the evolutionary spiral …
May require head and heart experiences because …
- Knowing stuff often doesn’t lead to a change of beliefs and action especially if these are core beliefs. e.g. people come to cancer programs and get info and evidence of friends and still don’t shift view or behaviour. More at Open-mindedness and Non-attachment to Views
- Some of this information is very confronting at multiple levels e.g. a) seeing major crises that threaten life as we know it b) seeing our role in cause that
Fig 1: Crude diagrammatic model of how understanding/insight lead to enacting cure(s) including an example of a diverging path.
See crises => Insight => See metacrisis => Embodied Insight => See (credible) cure => Enacting cure …
\
=> can lead to despair if you just see breakdown
Question
How do more people and especially the next generation ‘see’ the metacrisis & second renaissance at increasing levels of depth e.g. head or heart first, then both and then deeply embodied (i.e. shaping being and behavior) and then finally to ‘be in action’ (head, heart and hands) with and on that insight – i.e. seeing paths to action and following them.
Sub-question:
- What is the relationship of waking up and growing up …? Suggest: a) waking up does not guarantee growing up … and it can help [correlation] b) you can grow up without waking up [at least to some extent] … and to embody growing up some amount of waking up is likely crucial …
Hypothesis
There are many dharma doors to seeing cultural evolution and the metacrisis … and for it to be seen, especially more deeply, likely requires evolution along multiple developmental lines e.g. both shifting worldview (‘growing up’) and expanding consciousness (‘waking up’). And for states to turn into traits and for this to become an active part of someone’s life likely requires sustained engagement with others on a similar path – aka they are part of a conscious community / DDS (deliberately developmental space)!
Many dharma doors
- [Head] Some people read Ken Wilber or Hanzi Freinacht or Second Renaissance or … and see cultural and ontological evolution
- [Heart] Some people do psychedelics and see our inter-connection with the world and others
- [Heart] Some people do meditation and transcend the little self
General point: often for it (metacrisis, second renaissance) to really touch people they need an experience of the ‘waking up’ side … beyond just intellectually getting it … E.g. really seeing how interconnected with nature we are.
- Turning states into traits … i.e. turning an insight into an ongoing change in view and behaviour is hard and likely requires Conscious Communities (aka Deliberately Development Spaces)
- ‘Acting on it’: need to have the capacities to act together on the insight
‘Seeing it’: people need to see it at the various levels (3 crude levels: understanding, comprehension, in their bones)