This Friday in the Research Tent (at 5pm CET), I’ll share my recent research on the intellectual history of the Metacrisis. I’ll discuss different definitions of Metacrisis in recent discourse, the history of that specific term, and the broader history of related ideas, particularly in 19th and 20th century philosophy.
As usual the talk will be approximately 20-30 minutes with another half hour for discussion. Everyone welcome!
Meeting link copied below for convenience:
Zoom: Join here
Meeting ID: 891 1441 1437
Passcode: 649056
@JonahW thanks for the great preso! Sorry I had to leave at half-time. Looking forward to any link to a video.
Meanwhile, just the bare mention of Daniel Schumachtenberger and generator functions got my wheels turning, so this:
It strikes me my recent writing and research covers all this same territory from a variety of different angles.
On 1) the basic generator function in my version is just exponential growth due to unchecked positive feedback. That works equally well for anything living, capital accumulation, as well as technical improvements. Peter Turchin is more explicit, better evidenced, and more nuanced on the rivalry part. The original “perverse incentive” was different hunter-gathers fighting over the same hunting grounds or picking grounds. If we wish to call such Darwinian survival competition “perverse”, fine, but personally I see no reason to moralize about the early Holocene. Once population density hits a certain threshold, competition, warfare, agriculture, and cities kick in.
Number 2) is basically the “limits to growth” argument. (See also planetary boundaries or carbon pulse). I have no quibble with anything Schumachtenberger says here.
On choice and causation, generally agreed as well. Henriques calls this the “Enlightenment Gap”. Vervaeke explores this in the meaning crisis series. McGilchrist comes at it from left-brain over-dominance. We could go on … That territory is pretty thoroughly mapped by now! For five hundred years, Western culture has doubled down on efficient causes and tried to banish final causes. (Descartes, I’m talking to you!). The basic challenge for us now - the one metacrisis solution to empower all the others - is to get values, goals, meaning, ethics, and intentional action back in play. (BTW - I read all that in Huston Smith over 30 years ago as well. The perennial philosophy is - evidently - perennial!)
Very briefly, in the Marxian tradition (called by me the material “push”), I can’t recommend the work of Kojin Karatani enough. If anyone wants living, breathing post-Marxism, that’s a great place to seek it.
In the phenomenological tradition (called by me the spiritual “pull”), I’m hard at work this morning writing a chapter on Vervaeke, McGilchrist, UTOK, and the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC). Vervaeke and McGilchist lean right into Heidegger and company, so 'nuff said! UTOK started with more of a naturalist bent, but lately is delving into the phenomenological, and in any case is strongly aligned with Vervaeke. The MHC is more purely cognitive in orientation, but it forms the backbone of work by metamodern authors like Hanzi Freinacht and Brendan Graham Dempsey. What Dempsey calls “the cultural logics of cultural logic” requires both Karatani’s structural approach as well as the more psychological and phenomenological perspectives.
Thanks for the presentation @JonahW. There was much to add to my reading list.
One thing that stuck with me was crisis as choice. It seems like the metacrisis is here due to a lack of making difficult decisions. The issues are so large and complex and our societies so large and complex that collective decision making has become nearly impossible. Add in powerful special interests, incentivized to keep the status quo, obfuscating the situation and it seems hopeless. Thankfully, works like those you highlighted are bringing clarity so informed choices can be made.