Problems and Possible Responses Within Our Influence

Research and Sense-Making
, ,
1

An Experiment in Collective Sensemaking

Over the years that I have been involved with movements that might broadly be described as metamodern, my impression has been that considerably more attention is given to understanding problems than to developing and testing solutions.

This isn’t necessarily a problem in itself; acting on a superficial diagnosis can make a problem worse, and many of the crises under discussion are too complex for simple solutions. Understanding the problem is more than half the work, as the saying goes. But diagnosis can also become an endpoint.

Realistic optimism does not require us to believe that every problem can be solved. It asks us to distinguish between the conditions we can influence, even partially, and those we have little or no influence over. Where influence is possible, we can place tentative responses alongside our diagnoses, expose their assumptions and risks, and devise small experiments through which we can learn.

I’m creating this thread as a place to bring together problems, possible explanations, proposed responses, and practical experiments that lie within the Second Renaissance community’s sphere of influence. I’m also creating it as an experiment/trial run of a potential solution I’ve been developing alongside @rufuspollock. Participating in this thread is participating in this experiment.

A contribution does not need to offer a complete analysis or solution. It might identify:

  • a problem or undesirable condition;
  • a possible cause;
  • evidence or a counterexample;
  • a conflict making the problem difficult to resolve;
  • an assumption behind that conflict;
  • a tentative intervention;
  • a risk introduced by an intervention;
  • or a small experiment or next action.
  • anything else you consider relevant to this endeavor.

(Please include a label that categorizes your contribution, as I’ve done below, if you’re inclined to do so).

To start us off, I asked GPT the following question:

Create an impartial and honest SWOT analysis of the Second Renaissance forum:
https://forum.secondrenaissance.net/

Based on this analysis, provide a concise explanation of the Second Renaissance’s most significant obstacle in its mission to foster “a radically wiser, weller world” in response to the systemic crises and decay of modern civilization.

The abridged response (authored by gpt 5.6):

PROBLEM

The most significant obstacle

The central obstacle is not a shortage of ideas. It is the conversion of radical pluralistic sense-making into coordinated, credible and cumulative action.

That problem contains a difficult paradox.

The Second Renaissance wants a sufficiently open framework to unite people from many intellectual, spiritual and political traditions. That openness is one of its greatest strengths. But changing a cultural paradigm requires enough shared definition, epistemic standards, priorities, decision-making and coordinated practice for participants actually to act together.

The forum repeatedly demonstrates the tension. When the definition is broad, discussion proliferates and disagreements recur. When people attempt to make it more definite, disagreement immediately arises over which worldview, epistemology or strategy should become authoritative. Meanwhile, the project itself acknowledges that practical solution/action work remains less developed than diagnosis and sense-making. (Second Renaissance Forum)

So I would state the obstacle this way:

Second Renaissance must discover how to remain a pluralistic “big tent” while becoming sufficiently coherent to act.

Until that happens, there is a risk of mistaking intellectual activity for cultural transformation: producing sophisticated conversations about a new paradigm without building enough institutions, practices, experiments and demonstrable successes capable of transmitting that paradigm beyond the people already predisposed to it.

Conversely, if it can solve that problem—turning diversity into collective intelligence and collective intelligence into reproducible practice—the forum could become one of its most useful assets. The encouraging point is that participants are already diagnosing essentially this problem themselves. (Second Renaissance Forum)

2 Likes
2

Responding to the problem, Identified by gpt 5.6 in the above post, with my a description of a solution I’ve worked on with @rufuspollock:

The diagnosis above suggests an apparent conflict.

Second Renaissance needs to remain open enough for people with substantially different intellectual, spiritual, and political perspectives to participate without first submitting to a common worldview. At the same time, meaningful collective action requires some way for conclusions, disagreements, priorities, experiments, and commitments to accumulate.

One assumption behind this conflict may be that shared action requires a shared worldview, or that creating an explicit shared model requires reducing a pluralistic conversation to a single authorized interpretation.

Imagine instead that ordinary conversations remain open and pluralistic, while relevant contributions can also be translated into attributed proposals for updating a separate, inspectable model of the group’s reasoning.

In such a process:

  • the contributor’s original words and their source would be preserved;
  • a person or AI could propose a more explicit formulation;
  • the contributor could confirm or correct that interpretation;
  • other participants could challenge its evidence, assumptions, or relationships;
  • the proposal could remain unresolved without disappearing;
  • and only proposals accepted through the group’s governance process would become part of its shared model.

Accepted conclusions could then be connected to experiments, actions, owners, and observable outcomes. Disagreement would not have to be eliminated for reasoning to accumulate.

This would not automate consensus, give AI authority over the group, or guarantee that the resulting model was correct. It would attempt to create a governed bridge between pluralistic conversation and cumulative collective action.

I should disclose that this is the design hypothesis behind a prototype we are developing called Reason Commons. I plan to use this thread in a presentation on Friday, September 4, as a participatory test of that hypothesis.

The existence of the software is not evidence that the idea works. The relevant questions are whether the process:

  • represents contributions faithfully;
  • makes disagreement more intelligible rather than suppressing it;
  • improves the group’s understanding of the problem;
  • and produces a useful experiment, decision, or next action.

Responses to this proposal—including objections, alternative interventions, and warnings about its possible unintended consequences—would be especially valuable!

1 Like
3

This may seem off topic (but I’m prepared to argue it’s very on topic - central even!) For decades, I avoided Hegel as much as possible because of his well-deserved reputation for obscurity. Lately, I’ve been reading Habermas on Hegel, which is also quite obscure, but luckily pulling the curtain back just enough that I began to gain some insight. Then I really decided to go for it and started Googling things like “Hegel for Beginners” to see if I could connect any of this to common sense, intuition, or the more transparent sorts of system theory I generally prefer. Bingo! See the AI summary below about subjective and objective spirit.

Yes, in G.W.F. Hegel’s system, the subjective spirit can and does affect the objective spirit , because they are deeply intertwined moments of a single, unfolding process of Spirit (Geist) .

The Dynamic Relationship

  • Interdependence: Subjective spirit (individual mind, consciousness, and psychology) and objective spirit (social institutions, law, morality, and the state) are not sealed off from each other.
  • Creation and Sustenance: Objective spirit is built, maintained, and transformed by the practical actions, labor, and mutual recognition of individual subjective wills.
  • Historical Change: When individuals (acting through subjective will and insight) challenge existing norms or introduce new ethical dimensions, they actively reshape the collective institutions of objective spirit.

Limits and Reciprocity

  • Shaped in Return: Hegel insists this is a two-way street; while subjective spirit affects objective spirit, individual minds are simultaneously formed, educated, and given actual freedom by the social and legal structures they inhabit.
  • Rejection of Pure Subjectivity: Hegel rejects isolated, capricious subjectivity that tries to ignore objective institutions entirely, viewing absolute individual whim disconnected from ethical reality as empty or destructive. [5]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387315057_Subjective_and_Objective_Consciousness_in_Hegel’s_Philosophy\_-\_an_Excourse_on_the_Significance_of_Digital_Media_Social_Platforms_and_AI_for_the_Development_of_the_Absolute_Spirit

[2] https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/hegel-habitus.htm

[3] https://brill.com/display/book/9789004395848/BP000017.xml

[4] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hegel-bulletin/article/rival-versions-of-objective-spirit/308B7D8023BB39185D04E14254134C46

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b0f1B9L8Mo

4

What’s the problem, and what’s the solution within our influence?

5

Given the Hegelian terms posted above, I will now apply all that to the problem space posited by the OP.

The vast plurality of opinion posted here is a function of disparate subjective spirits. However, that turmoil and mutual incomprehension between subjective spirits is a function of the objective spirit of the age, which is reflected in cultural and social fragmentation of institutions. However, the subjective spirit of each of us in not powerless in the face of the decline of existing institutions and can align itself with the synthesis of an emergent new phase of the objective spirit. This process of situated engagement with current historical circumstances is the substance of the dialectic.

Basically, a forum like this really exists for dialectical action. To go full Hegelian on this, we would also need to posit absolute spirit (i.e. God) guiding each of our subjective spirits and the different stages of objective spirit to full Self-Realization. Can LLMs spot the dialectal movement toward the Absolute? Love to see what they have to say about that!

1 Like
6

Depends quite a bit on who “we” are and how “we” are situated. From the POV of my subjective spirit, the problem space was well defined by this Nate Hagens “Frankly” video that dropped this morning.

I’d say Hagens characterizes the objective spirit of the age and points to a variety of possible realizations. The one my subjective spirit is drawn towards is what Hagens calls “the Long Repair”. However, there are objective and subjective forces at play in the world today towards the other options: Mordor, Fortress, Breakdown. My personal dialectical action is towards the realization of the Long Repair and toward defensive action against the others.

In the first instance, the problem space for this forum is a lot people are generally confused on subjective or objective levels or both. Dialectical action in the form of forum exchanges can assist with subjective value discovery or objective institutional analysis. Once people gain sufficient clarity on both subjective and objective levels, then the problem migrates to forming effective action networks to gain more leverage over the objective. Note there is no unified forum “goal” that applies equally to each forum participant. I showed up here over a year ago, mostly in a quest to gain more subjective and objective clarity. Lately, I’m feeling clear enough on those fronts and am working more on social networking for effective institutional level action (while continuing various studies and practices at the subjective level). IMO, to objectivize the forum’s goal in a one size fits all sort of way misses the mark. The forum’s “goal” is more dialectical participation in the wider world process. Different participants here will likewise need to engage from their own situations in dialectical action with that world process.

7

I see this as a very good and timely contribution, @dvdjsph ! I just wanted to put in a first response here, rather than digging into your self-reply.

Where I do want to dig in is into the assumptions here, as I sense that they need to be surfaced and questioned. What is “changing a cultural paradigm” and is this what 2R is actually aiming at? It’s a tricky question. There has been a lot of talk in 2R about what is imagined as the cultural paradigm(s) of “modernity”, and if treating that as true helps people cohere in positive action, all well and good … except if people treat it as in some way an exclusively true view.

I’d suggest that at the level of conversation we are having, what is needed for (a group of) participants to act together is more like an inspiring story. And different stories inspire different people. There is a coherent and reasonable story about “modernity” and what is needed to change the associated paradigms. My key question here would be, is 2R best focused around that particular story? Clearly that would be one way of having more coherence.

My point is that “shared definition, epistemic standards, priorities, decision-making and coordinated practice” only goes so far. I agree that these are necessary for acting together; what I’m questioning is whether they are sufficient.

My view is still rather hazy – and I’d welcome the kind of dialogue that would clarify it – but it’s something along the lines of: if we want a “big tent”, then there’s an asymmetry to take into account. I reckon that at some level we agree that we need small tents inside the big tent. It’s in the small tents that action is formulated, encouraged, and brought into reality. That’s where I’d say we need not only the quoted features but also convincing, engaging shared narrative. The small tents need to be separate and diverse because no narrative convinces or engages everyone (and that’s for several reasons including personal psychology and life history.)

So, within each small tent, we need a lot of coherence along those lines, but in the big tent we don’t need that same depth of mutual understanding. What we do need is enough common communicative ground to be able to affirm that the small tents are all striving towards something good, even if it is a different good. We could see this as mutual respect. Mutual respect doesn’t necessarily mean sharing definitions — it does mean recognising the good in the other. It means taking care that one initiative, from one tent, doesn’t undermine the other ones.

Thus, the way forward I discern is that we stop trying to share definitions across the big tent; we stop trying to share those other things, and focus, in the context of the big tent, on recognising the good in the other, and caring for not working at cross-purposes. It’s in the small tents, where we share narrative as well as the other things, that we can act, freed from the burden of having to justify and explain any move to other small tents.

Or is 2R really a small tent? I don’t judge that either way, but it would be good to at least be clear about that.

2 Likes
8

+1 to ordinary conversations remaining open and pluralistic. But as I see it, tacking on the rest risks trying to enforce an unnecessary degree of coherence across the big tent. I feel a sense in 2R that small tents are “on the cards”, but not yet fully understood or worked out.

Thus: a small tent process could well involve the steps you suggest. But within the big tent context, what we need is mutual respect, with no expectation of coherence — life is too short, and the world (even our world) is too complex. As I said in my main reply, what I see here as beneficial (or even necessary) is some test that the different initiatives do not undermine each other.

I see it as vital to understand what undermining is and what it isn’t. Disagreement around narrative, even around ontology, should not be taken as undermining. What undermines is when the actual effects of one initiative set back the efforts of another. Thus, we need the humility not to see that a unified worldview is not necessary, and that worldviews don’t undermine each other. They are just different.

There’s the danger, as I see it: imagining that one worldview is “best”. What matters are the consequences in action when a worldview is acted upon, or acted out.

Which ties in with my view of religion. Different religions have different worldviews. The right religion for anyone is the one that helps them be a better, (“wiser, weller”?) person. So maybe my focus is more on wiser, “weller” people, more than a “wiser, weller world”, because the idea that the world as a whole can be wiser or more healthy invites conflictual debate around the paradigms that one sees as leading to better things. And conflict around what those paradigms should be seems to me to defeat the whole purpose of our lives.

1 Like
9

Recently I gave @rufuspollock some feedback about one of his drafts (basically an update to the 2R whitepapers) along the same lines. Although I like the great bulk of the “big tent” content around here, I’ve come to believe more and more that making “changing a cultural paradigm” the main target is not the best target. My recent Nate Hagens postings have to do with Hagens having arrived at a narrative structure that I prefer more (I believe I outlined a structure similar to Hagens’ in this forum over a few months ago - but Hagens has a big audience and great production values, so let’s follow him on this!)

The gist of it is, cultural change is a means, not an end. Moreover, I don’t believe every little bit of “modernity” has to be transformed into something else. Trying to be 100% anti-modern leads to all sorts of performative contradictions the minute one gets off the page and into practice. I understand the genealogy of the “modernity is bad” theme, it’s just that after considerable analysis, I find that approach more of a barrier than a bridge.

What Hagens does is start with obvious physical and economic data. Heat waves. Species extinction. Energy price action. Geopolitics around energy. And so on. Then he does root cause analysis and arrives at a global whole systems view (he calls his approach “wide boundary”), which anyone will likewise arrive at if they start with something like the source of local groceries and peel the onion all the way down. Namely, what are the supply chains for the groceries and what happens of any of those supply chains break?

Then, from the experience of having been a voice in the wilderness for decades now on these topics, and seeing in both himself and others the emotional toll that takes, Hagens has lately pivoted to what he calls “step zero”, which generally includes things like personal growth, therapy, grief, and trauma work. He really wants to get to the Gaian systems level, but he has learned the hard way that personal regulation at the micro level is required to maintain any kind of sustained action program at the macro level.

Note that so far in this argument, there is nothing about “modernity” one way of the other. Hagens is very critical about fossil fuels, neo-liberal economics, seeking dopamine highs on social media, and quite a few other things that might be lumped in with the “modern” complex, but what he proposes as the best alternatives are not necessarily anti-modern as such. His “Great Simplification” does not mean abandoning all industrial tools, telecommunications, scientific medicine and so on. His is not a back-to-indigenous program. Hagens is trying to redirect technical civilization, not unwind it entirely!

Would a “Great Simplification” require and involve cultural change? Absolutely! It’s just that we would address those changes item by item as needed and not commit in advance to tossing out all modern babies with all modern bathwater. It’s entirely possible to go substantially off-grid and to focus on spiritual values rather than material acquisition while maintaining a fundamentally modern cultural identity. It sounds rhetorically exciting to revert us all to medieval peasantry or indigenous ways, but try working a garden for a few hours with a digging stick (I did this personally recently) and then let’s have this conversation again! Selective use of “modernity” is required for viable permaculture at scale, IMO.

Anyway, I understand that a lot of people arrive here by way of Spiral Dynamics, Ken Wilber, Hanzi Freinacht, Vanessa Machado de Oliveira, and others who want to make the “modern” either a phase we need to outgrow or an evil detour on the way to whatever “progress” is meant to be. Me - I’m hyper-empirical (a “modern” trait going back to William of Occam) and hyper-theoretical (an equally “modern” trait going back to the Presocratics) and applying those values to cultural history in detail, I can’t for the life of me find an actual time or circumstance in which the “modern” appeared as a totalizing package and overthrew the “pre-modern” as an equallly totalizing package. Call me a nominalist about “cultural paradigms”. The notion of a cultural paradigm is rhetorical and conceptual, it’s not a real a dragon anyone can profit by tilting against! Call me “modern” for saying that, but Occam and Duns Scotus got there first!

10

I asked Gemini the same question that I asked GPT and it gave me the following:

…the single greatest obstacle to the Second Renaissance’s mission of fostering a radically “wiser, weller world” is the Accessibility Paradox (The Translation Gap).

To transform the world, a movement requires widespread cultural penetration, mass adoption, and practical integration into everyday societal structures. However, the forum’s current culture is highly abstract, intensely intellectual, and reliant on esoteric jargon. This creates a bottleneck: the community possesses profound insights into systemic decay, but packages those insights in a way that is virtually impenetrable to the general public, the working class, and traditional policymakers.

If the Second Renaissance cannot translate its high-level “sense-making” into accessible language, pragmatic actions, and relatable everyday solutions, it will remain an isolated echo chamber of philosophers, fundamentally unable to spark the global paradigm shift it seeks.

Gemini’s point isn’t equivalent to yours, but I think they’re complementary: we do have the beginnings of a a story (i.e. there’s a Second Renaissance already happening or in the making that will renew culture) - but perhaps this isn’t something that will appear as such to those whom we’d like to reach. I find the story quite good, but its meaning varies according to who consumes it, as you pointed out.

At any rate, I see what you’re proposing as a sort of root cause analysis – working backwards from undesirable effects to intermediate causes, all the way back to the deepest cause(s). Were we to find an inspiring story to tell and a way to tell it, the effect it may produce would be presumably desirable and significant.

Putting this vision to words has given us the opportunity, over the years, to test its usefulness, and to find where it can be sharpened. Having analyzed this seriously as a goal on its own terms, trying to map out how it might actually be achieved through the Theory of Constraints, I came to the conclusion that a goal focusing more on observable individual transformation would be a better way of facilitating a process of ongoing improvement - which is what a goal is for, as far as I’m concerned.

1 Like
11

On vacation, screwing around with Gemini. First question - “can modernity persist into the future?”

Modernity can persist into the future, but its core characteristics are already undergoing a fundamental shift. Rather than disappearing, modernity is evolving into what scholars often call late modernity, hyper-modernity, or a reflexive modernity.

Whether it persists depends on how its defining features adapt to new global challenges.

Core Pillars of Modernity: Persistence vs. Shifts

Modern Pillar Classical Form Future Trajectory Key Challenge
Technological Progress Mastery over nature, industrial growth Post-industrial & AI-driven automation, biotechnology, and digital networks Managing planetary limits and existential risks (AI, climate)
Rationalization Bureaucracy, scientific inquiry, efficiency Algorithmic optimization and data-driven decision making Mass erosion of trust in expertise and institutional legitimacy
Individualism Personal autonomy, universal human rights Hyper-individualism mediated by digital identity and algorithms Social fragmentation and loneliness epidemics
Globalization Borderless trade, cultural homogenization Multiplying regional blocs and digital borderings (“splinternet”) Geopolitical conflict and supply-chain fragmentation

Three Scenarios for Modernity’s Future

  • Adaptation (Reflexive Modernity): Modernity survives by correcting its own side effects. Science, technology, and rational policy pivot toward ecological sustainability, circular economies, and global risk management (e.g., decarbonization, international AI safety standards).

  • Fragmentation (Post-Modern or Neo-Feudal): The institutional frameworks of modernity weaken under the weight of climate crisis, political polarization, and information warfare. Progress becomes localized, asymmetrical, or restricted to powerful corporate/state entities.

  • Transformation (Transhuman or Post-Human): Accelerating developments in artificial intelligence and biotechnology push humanity beyond classical modern norms, redefining human cognition, labor, and social structures altogether.

Modernity is unlikely to end abruptly; instead, its basic premise—that human agency can continuously reshape the world through knowledge and technology—will keep driving social evolution, even as its institutional forms mutate.

Would you like to explore a specific aspect of this question, such as the impact of AI on modern political systems, ecological limits to growth, or how different philosophical traditions view the future of progress?

12

Follow-up question: “How would a deliberate program of spiritual development affect the answers above?”

Integrating a deliberate program of spiritual development—whether grounded in contemplative traditions, inner alchemy, or systemic mindfulness—fundamentally alters the trajectory of modernity. Instead of relying solely on external technological fixes to solve the crisis of modernity, spiritual development shifts the focus toward the internal evolution of human consciousness.

How Spiritual Development Reshapes Modernity’s Pillars

Modern Pillar Modernity Alone Modernity + Spiritual Program Net Effect
Technological Progress Unchecked acceleration, optimization, and external control Discerning alignment—technology used as a tool rather than an end in itself Shifts focus from mastery over nature to co-existence and ethical restraint.
Rationalization Cold efficiency, data obsession, instrumental logic Transrational wisdom—integrating analytical intellect with intuitive and bodily wisdom Restores meaning, narrative, and sacredness to daily life and science.
Individualism Hyper-individualism, isolation, ego-driven consumerism Interdependence (Interbeing)—recognition of self-in-relation-to-all Replaces isolated ego identity with collective stewardship and community care.
Globalization Extractivist markets, cultural homogenization Global consciousness—de-centralized, local-global solidarity Replaces consumer-driven global networks with values-driven relational networks.

Shift in the Three Scenarios for the Future

  • Adaptation Becomes Deep Ecology: Rather than relying purely on technocratic policies (like carbon markets or AI governance), adaptation becomes driven by an internal shift in human values. Sustainability moves from a burdensome regulation to a natural expression of reverence for life.

  • Fragmentation Evolves into Micro-Communities: If macro-institutional structures destabilize, spiritually grounded populations are far less susceptible to despair, ideological radicalization, or panic. Instead of “neo-feudalism,” localized resilience, intentional communities, and mutual-aid networks emerge.

  • Transformation Becomes Inner Metamorphosis: Rather than relying exclusively on transhumanist external technology (neural implants, genetic editing) to “transcend” human limitations, transformation focuses on spiritual realization, emotional maturity, and expanded awareness.

The Core Impact: Resolving the “Crisis of Meaning”

Classical modernity liberated humanity from dogma, but it often stripped away existential meaning, leaving behind a void filled by hyper-consumption and status dynamics. A deliberate program of spiritual development addresses the root cause of this imbalance:

  • From Extraction to Service: It moves human drive from getting (wealth, efficiency, control) to being and giving (presence, service, alignment).

  • Mitigating AI and Existential Risk: If technological power grows exponentially while spiritual/moral maturity stays flat, collapse is inevitable. A deliberate spiritual practice bridges this “wisdom gap.”

Modernity does not have to be abandoned; rather, spiritual development acts as its necessary counterweight. It transforms a hyper-rational, tech-driven trajectory into a mature, integrated civilization.

Does your interest in this deliberate program stem from a specific spiritual tradition (e.g., Stoicism, Eastern contemplative paths, Indigenous wisdom), or are you looking at it through the lens of individual practice vs. large-scale societal adoption?

13

My immediate reflection here, if it is useful, is that, Bob, you’re trying to get an answer to those questions. Of course, any good answer is useful, and having one answer is almost a necessity to orient an individual life. But how about, as an alternative approach, asking any LLM the kind of open questions which you can answer in several ways, and asking the LLM to generate several substantially different answers?

My discomfort has focused down onto a dilemma: one the one hand, initiators need to have a clear narrative, to communicate something that is comprehensible and transmissible; on the other hand, any one narrative, any one perspective, will inevitably be missing so much of the richness of the real world. Is there a possibility of having a genuinely humble person, open to different perspectives, different narratives, and different foci of action, while at the same time being clear enough about their own “mission” (if you like) to be a coherent attractor?

I’m really not seeing many of those around. The dynamics of personality and audience seem to push people towards a particular recognisable perspective. How do people respond to that pressure? Can they resist a kind of “totalisation” of their perspective, and retain its value?

Reflection … I’d say it is necessary to thoroughly integrate the post-modern attitude, that there are no universally valid grand narratives; while adding the vital caveat that some narratives are more worthy than others — it’s not just a case of everyone’s perspective is equally valid. And (I hope) we judge perspectives and narratives on the grounds of the actions that they stimulate in people who are receptive to those narratives.

So back to the core here: can you ask question that are inherently multi-perspectival? And if you can, who will understand them?

I am feeling a lack, and yearning for communion with those who understand something like this.

14

Briefly, yes, thanks, and I’m happy that “the 2R narrative” is coherent and attractive. Yes, it is true that its reception depends on the receiver; but my point that different narratives work with different people is subtly (?) different.

15

I’d like to take a little distance from this, as I don’t actually want (at the level we are mostly talking at) to discern “a root cause” — and thus I set myself apart from much of the “metacrisis” discourse. What I’m trying to communicate is that there are different, valid, stories (narratives) about the “root cause”, and there isn’t likely (in my mind) to be just one “real” one.

On the other hand, perhaps at a different level I am pointing to a root cause. If so, I’d say it’s something like being stuck in a paradigm of developing and promoting one’s own narrative at the expense of other narratives. As I said clearly elsewhere, not all narratives are equally worthy. Some are bad; even horrific. But I do believe there are diverse good ones; and my “meta-narrative” focuses around the need for genuine respect for others and humility about one’s own. Openness. (The word “open” should open the eyes of several around here! :joy: )

And yes, “causes” not “cause”. If we find inspiring stories (plural) and ways to tell them, then the effect (on people with different receptivities) should be desirable and significant.

At the same time, we do need to work towards good narratives not bad-mouthing or otherwise setting themselves against other good narratives.

16

This is a good thing to focus on. Below is something I read by philosopher Bryan McGee recently, summarizing Karl Popper’s stance:

No one can possibly give us more service than by showing us what

is wrong with what we think or do; and the bigger the fault, the

bigger the improvement made possible by its revelation. The man

who welcomes and acts on criticism will prize it almost above

friendship: the man who fights it out of concern to maintain his

position is clinging to non growth. Anything like a widespread

changeover in our society towards Popperian attitudes to criticism

would constitute a revolution in social and interpersonal relation-

ships — not to mention organisational practice.

17

Yes, strongly agree with this – what I meant by root cause is something provisional and fallible and likely plural. More of a web of causes than a point that gives us all the leverage we need.

And yet, although the root isn’t single or static, it’s still useful to maintain a humble conception of what the root might be (or what the evidence currently warrants).

Suppose a new trend in cultural evolution led to a change in our attitudes toward failure and shame. In a certain sense we’ve seen this happening in the destigmatizing of mental health, bodily imperfections, and so on. In my view, this is much closer to getting to the root of the matter that we must contend with in order to set ourselves on the right course. If we can’t be in a right relationship with our own souls and bodies, we also can’t right our relationships with others. But are there interventions that can shift us in this direction? I believe so - and we’ve spent far too little time, as a species, investigating and implementing them!

18

I’d be curious how you draw that conclusion. The questions were very exploratory, as evidenced by the answers, which presented quite a range of considerations. My motivation and desired answer was evident to you - how exactly?

For context, I was up in the middle of the night in a hotel room killing time, so I was doing all sorts of Gemini searches like “compare modern Western philosophy to classic Chinese philosophy” Or to classic Indian philosophy. Or to classic Islamic philosophy. That showed me a bunch of alternative approaches to “modernity” Then I got the idea, given that a lot of people around here take as starting point that modernity is a hot mess, why not just ask if modernity itself has a future? I honestly had no idea what the LLM would spit back. Total fishing expedition. After seeing response #1, it stuck me the LLM was not factoring in any sort of personal development model, so I decided to try again with that one modification. Big difference!

Anyway, if there is some way to be more more multi-perspectival than all that, I’d love to hear what it is! Does bouncing every philosophy from every civilization off of each other seem narrow to you? How vast must such a perspective be to be vast enough?

19

I’m hesitant to say anything here. it’s a long thread and admit I haven’t read the whole thing (and not planning to), it’s a bit overwhelming.

I would like to respond to this in a simple way, with my thoughts and opinion.

possibly a core problem is disconnection from ourselves?

and something I’ve been doing more consistently over recent years is “practices” for restoring choice. in fact I’ve developed a tool, drawing on some of my favourite resources, including how to measure progress.

there possibly is nothing more tragic than doing something over and over, that’s not producing the benefits we intended.

the longer we put off changing to a new practice (if one is not working), the more accumulated regret we need to process at some point.

20

Would love to hear more about your tool!

1 Like