Today I’m in a sort of “liminal” life space - getting close to fully retired, not really obligated to do much of anything, reading through a substantial stack of books, but to what end? I have a generalized sense that the world is askew, but also the growing awareness that this problem space is not mine alone to address, and in any case, even if my action ideas were 100% inspired on every level, a generational hand off will soon be required. So what to do? (The Hormuz blockade having settled into a quasi-equilibrium, the doom scrolling is not quite as titillating as in recent days, and deconstructing the theological guidance of J. D. Vance directed to His Holiness can only occupy an inquisitive mind for so long … )
So I second the emotion that at least one of the 2R sub-circles should be “agentic” in nature. I’d like to be working on artifacts and deliverables. I’d like those to be aimed at cultural transformation, including cultural transmission of valuable understandings already gained, but needing to be passed along. I do not, however, feel like wasting time on anything that will lack impact. So again, what to do? How to do it?
My sub-circle proposal (scheduled to really launch in April 24, based on the 2R white papers, summarized here: Proposed Second Renaissance Research Subgroup ) is a step in the direction of getting to the agentic production model that seems most called for. For one thing, I am allergic to the reinvention of existing wheels. Secondly, I don’t what to launch a Substack, YouTube channel, etc. I’d rather support someone else as the face of the franchise, whatever the franchise is.
As a personal exercise, I’m looking over the 10 bullet points Gemini gave me about the 2R white papers and I’m wondering if there is a coherent sequence, doctrine, or theoretical framework lurking here? (FYI, I asked Gemini specifically for 10 bullet points, so blame me if you don’t like that format). OK, so looking these over I did a rearrangement (below) to suggest a scope or sequence that might spawn one or more research initiatives.
**The Problem Space:
Polycrisis vs. Metacrisis: Why is it critical to distinguish between the interconnected symptoms of the “polycrisis” and the underlying “metacrisis” that generates them?
The Root of the Crisis: How do the “views and values of modernity” act as the foundational cause for our current global crises, rather than just technical or political failures?
The Authority of Technology: To what extent has modern humanity replaced traditional values with a “god-like authority” invested in technology?
Change Models:
The Dynamics of Change: What specific conditions or drivers are most effective at triggering deep cultural transformation at scale?
Inner Development Domains: Which domain of inner growth—spiritual, cognitive, psychological, or ethical—do you believe is most vital for driving cultural change?
The Role of Collective Consciousness: How can a shift in collective consciousness provide solutions that technical or policy-based interventions cannot?
Developmental Spaces: What would a dedicated “cultural incubator” look like in practice, and how can communities engage in sustained inner development?
Solutions and Applications:
Choosing Our Future Wisely: How can society develop the inner capacity and wiser worldview needed to responsibly manage the powerful technologies we unleash?
Moving Toward a Regenerative Future: What practical steps can individuals or organizations take today to transition from the current paradigm toward a wiser, regenerative culture?
Defining a Second Renaissance: In what ways would a “cultural paradigm shift” differ from previous historical movements, and why is it considered necessary now?
Personally, I’m feeling more or less theoretically “topped off” on the sections about “the Problem Space” and “Change Models”. but I would understand if a lot of group energy needs to focus on either or both of these areas. I think the agentic, production-oriented subgroup idea fits best with the “Solutions and Applications” section. But “wisdom”, “regeneration”, and Second Renaissance” are pretty loose specifications and by themselves, not enough for an action model. For that reason, I’d say solutions and applications need to be informed by a sense of “what the world needs” (i. e. the problem space section) and by the set of techniques and action models recommended by the second section (change models section). In my experience, action tends to hit the rocks in groups like this, because too many participants are too unsettled about the problem space, the change models, or both. So I’m willing to dig into those in so far as we need to to get to meaningful action. But if a sub–circle can go straightaway to action, better yet!