From polycrisis to metacrisis and a second renaissance (SCQH)

[rufuspollock]

@GeoffDann

OK…general point. I think the majority of people coming to this will not start by seeing a metacrisis or polycrisis. What they will see is collapse – both in terms of their own diminishing life prospects and the increasing level of chaos and suffering in the world.

In terms of terminology isn’t this just “crisis” albeit a very serious one - that’s at least how i use the term crisis (broadly). For me, if you are are seeing collapse as a real possibility then you are getting the polycrisis.

Getting the metacrisis is identifying core drivers of that, specifically the cultural foundations of our civilization and how they have created/exacerbated certain tendencies.

@GeoffDann

At the moment those people are just lost. They are the people you can find on Collapse of Civilization.

First, i think it would be interesting (at least for me) to try and go post there and see what happens.

More generally, the interesting question is how do people think through that i.e. how do they work from observable symptoms (e.g. ecological breakdown) back to source causes and then think about what we can do.

See this post for a simple taxonomy around this Isn't it all going to be fine? A simple map of how we react to significant social issues

@GeoffDann

What does “acting on it” mean? In terms of society in general the situation is basically hopeless. Literally nothing they can do is going to make any difference to the general trajectory of world events or make the final net outcome any less bad. So “acting on it” means prepping at the level of their own lives or the communities they live in – and the degree to which that is even possible will depend on their specific situation (in all sorts of ways).

I would agree that Dark Renaissance (ie. some degree of collapse is likely) but i would … not say it was certain. Put positively: there is some non-zero probability we may avoid collapse. That possibility is there as well as the possibility that our actions could contribute to increasing that probability.

More nuanced: the collapse can be more or less bad - see middle pathways in 3 pathways / dark renaissance outline

@GeoffDann

What is missing is a mechanism by which society in general can be changed so that it no longer feels completely hopeless. And the only way to do that is to have a coherent movement growing – a movement which is unlike anything that currently exists because it is ground in the realities of collapse rather than the delusional nonsense of pre-collapse politics.

Yes … and see points above … and see that IME you may need to lead people to this point gently and provide them with hope.

One of the reasons we like (and chose) second renaissance as a generic term is that it has a positive sense – whilst acknowledging the breakdown (it’s rebirth, i.e. birth out of a death). This contrasts with a term like metacrisis which just focuses on the problem.

@GeoffDann

The key insight is that there is a great deal of overlap between what we need to do to prepare and adapt (surviving the collapse) and what we need to do to build a very different sort of civilisation – one that actually works.

Big . That is exactly our thinking too. and in fact, if the collapse is not too severe, it may even be the essential catalyst for renewal – people don’t change until they have to.

@GeoffDann

I have spent the last two weeks trying to explain to people what I think the answer is, and it is epistemological. We need to fix our broken relationship with the truth, and that starts by admitting that it is broken. As a society, we’re terrified of the very idea of objective truth. Dealing with reality is the last thing we’re collectively able to do. Almost nobody is even trying. We’re encouraged to wallow in delusion, and it isn’t just the right who are guilty. The left is every bit as bad – it is just a different sort of delusion. Which means we have to figure out the correct way to collectively approach realism. What exactly does “realism” mean? And this is the point where 2R is directly relevant, since that is not a new question for most people here.

I’d agree to a great extent - and it’s why i liked integral / wilber (and other key thinkers of 2R like McGilchrist and Christopher Alexander, Bhaskar etc). We recover truth but in a much more nuanced way than modernity.

Also have patience my friend It will take time – and it can happen.

I can well imagine this feels frustrating. i’ve felt that in the past - especially when things are in the state they are and it seems so urgent. For me, i have to constantly come back to “aimlessness”, one of three doors of liberation in buddhist teaching.