Preface
This text was recently shared in the WhatsApp group for the course “From Metacrisis to Second Renaissance”. It is a response paper to the first four whitepapers as well as the course.
After our third course session I added the section of “Appendix 1: Further comments”, in which I seek to make my arguments more clear, cohesive, and add a little extra. In addition to this, I also included “artifacts” to be included in my description of “culture”.
I welcome all comments.
Introduction
First, a big thanks to Rufus, Sylvie, the other helpers, and Lifeitself for offering this “From Metacrisis to Second Renaissance” course and for showing up with such spirit and commitment. Also a special thanks to Rufus, for welcoming any kind of comments around the course, including even “dissident” voices, time will show if he will regret this.
Prior to starting this course, I have read the first four “whitepapers” available from the Lifeitself website. I can only encourage other people to read these. They contain a lot of information, they make an excellent analysis, they bring things together and it is all written in what I would say is a very accessible language. Now we are in between the 2nd and 3rd session of the course, and all my comments are based upon these whitepapers and the course so far.
Reading through the whitepapers, some let’s say resistance or hesitation did present itself for me. In addition to this, I have been working on something for quite a while, which also cuts into this overall presentation. This has resulted in what I call the three issues. Issue 1 is a more in-depth explanation of the comment I made in our last session, in regards to the overall framework of the course, where I suggested a different approach. Issue 2 is regarding the word “inner”, which comes up quite many times throughout the whitepapers. I will try to explain what I find problematic about this and how an alternative view about this might look like. Issue 3 is regarding my own work and how I think that some new discoveries fundamentally could change the whole scenery about how we go about this and where we could end up.
Issue 1: What approach?
The approach of the whitepapers and the course
Both the whitepapers and the course makes use of this framework, which is analogous to a medical approach, and also close to how the Buddha framed his Four Noble Truths. Below is the four week list:
Week 1: Symptoms of the Crisis: The Polycrisis
Week 2: A Diagnosis: The Metacrisis
Week 3: Prognosis: We Can Evolve and Heal
Week 4: Treatment: The Path to Renaissance
In addition to this, the course also suggests four different layers of depth:
-
Surface, - “symptoms”, manifelt crisis
-
Intermediate, structures and technologies
-
Root - cultural paradigm, modernity
-
Root - human nature, deep tendencies
A different approach
As I said in our last call, I wish to present a different approach, which is:
-
What is the situation now?
-
Where would we like to end up? (Our ideal)
-
What plans and actions are needed to realize this?
These three are of equal importance and interdependent. There is however an order of how you approach it, first 1, then 2, then 3.
There are at least three advantages to this approach as I see it.
Advantage 1
The first advantage is a part of an answer to what Victor was asking about in our last call, which was about if these “problems” that we “identified” were “real or not”.
So let me start somewhere else. I think the way that most lets say school and academic papers today are structured, is that they basically start out with a “problem formulation” (you are describing a problem, that you then spend your text trying to address).
I think it would be much better, if papers instead started with what is essentially a “wish”, something good you want to achieve. “Problems” in this view, would then potentially naturally arise, as you try to achieve your wish. You start with a wish, and what prevents you from realizing this, you could refer to as a problem. So in this sense, problems are not something in themselves, but rather a part of a larger whole, where we humans are actually valuing something, and then from this valuing, a problem can be said to exist.
So coming back to the framework. In step 1 we “describe” and understand present reality as deeply as we can. However, one does not need to hold very firmly on to what they think are “problems” here. Problems exist in a context. Rather, it is more important to see things in terms of “description” which is to say “trying to understand how things are and are related”. Of course, there may be many things that we rather be without or be different, but then identifying what is possible to change and how change most effectively can happen, is what is important.
The second step is asking, where really would we like to end up? Including all values, all institutions, everything happening etc. This has to be realistic in the sense of adhering to physical laws, our human nature, etc.
Finally then, making plans and continuing to realize them.
So, coming back to the course framework, I think this approach ensures that whatever we are doing, this would be linked to valued reasons for doing it.
Advantage 2
The second reason for preferring this approach kinda follows in the wake of the first reason. I would just outright claim that there exists more intrinsic motivation in “trying to achieve what you really would like” rather than “solving a problem”.
Sure, if you are ill, you would normally have a natural motivation to get well again. But then again, isn’t the motivation here coming from the wish to return to a state where you felt better and/or were able to do more? If our motivation in a large part comes from moving towards something we really value, why do we not put what we really value, at the very forefront of our endeavors?
So I think reframing this, giving a larger emphasis on something positive that we would like, rather than to avoid something bad, would give more overall and sustained motivation.
Advantage 3
The third advantage has to do with how I see “action” in general.
Should I try to define “action”, I would define it, in this exact same way. Every “action”, in my understanding of what I mean by action, consists of an understanding of the present situation, some kind of “ideal”, and then having a plan for realizing this ideal and carrying it out.
I would say that “action” is quite an interesting concept. For example, you can think of an action as you sitting in a café and feeling thirsty (situation), would like to drink something (ideal), you reaching for some drink on the table or ordering something if you haven’t yet (a plan and carrying out the plan).
But, how “large” is an “action”? What about “making dinner”? Could we think about making dinner some day, as being one action? Because in making dinner, there could very well be many smaller actions coming together around making a full dinner, for example finding pots and pans, cutting different vegetables, cooking, arranging, etc.
How about attending a three year college program? What about the wish to become a buddhist monk, living in a monastery with the aim of becoming “enlightened”?
I am of the view that in fact we could put anything into the bracket of “an action”. How exactly to understand and discriminate an action then is not entirely clear for me, but I would say that there would have to be an intention along with a specific goal. In a large sense, it is the intention that keeps an “action” “alive”. Of course, intention is one thing, the reality we live in is another. You may have the intention of cooking one evening, but then you end up burning the only food you had available, and you decide to get take-away instead.
Anyways, the reason why I think it is important that the overall framework aligns with (at least how I see) an “action”, is because then this whole process of investigation becomes more organic.
If we get information in a way that aligns with what an action is, then it just becomes more intuitive, more simple and more accessible, rather than receiving information that we would then have to reorder afterwards.
Issue 2: The “Inner” “Outer” Distinction
The use of “Inner” and “Outer” today
Throughout the four whitepapers there is a heavy use of the “inner” “outer” distinction, often just talking about the “inner” side or “inner” development or things like that.
This distinction is also made by Ken Wilber in his AQAL model. I don’t know if he was the originator of this distinction, here is a AI quote about Wilbers model:
“Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (AQAL) maps reality using four quadrants, splitting perspectives into inner (subjective/interior) vs. outer (objective/exterior) and individual vs. collective. This framework ensures a complete view by combining interior intentions/culture with exterior behaviors/systems, acknowledging that all four dimensions exist simultaneously in any human experience.”
Also for example the notion of inner is central for the new initiative of “Inner Developmental Goals” (https://innerdevelopmentgoals.org/).
This is to say that this distinction is very widely used, at least in this “Liminal Web” space.
However, I believe that there are some fundamental problems with this distinction that I would like to go into.
The helpfullness and unhelpfullness of this distinction
So first off, it is not that I am against this distinction per se. It can be useful in some circumstances, highlighting some certain aspect or emphasizing something. The problem arises if you put it as something really fundamental, such as Wilber has done and I think also the whitepapers do. For me, this is definitely not a fundamental distinction, and to see it this way, is really misleading and affects how you view human nature, our ability to act, what culture is, etc.
To put it very simple, this model lends itself to the belief that what we can really do is around this inner aspect, how we see, feel, approach things, and then we are living in this world of “structures”, “institutions”, “buildings” etc., which more or less are the way they are. These “outer” things could of course also be changed, but that is really a process in its own right, and you would probably need to look at something like the “political” to go about that.
An alternative way of seeing these matters
Ok, so is there a more “true” or “close to reality” way of seeing this? Below I would like to present the outskirts of a model that I made roughly 6 years ago. This model is actually the sketch of a full on attempt at making a Theory of Everything (ToE). This model as such attempts to capture all of reality, yet also making divisions, distinctions, and orderings as to how things conceptually could be organized. There are 9 headlines, each representing a major organizing principle. Everything is interconnected. Also, you can view it as being ordered in a grid, where 1, 2, 3 belongs to column 1. 4, 5, 6, belongs to column 2. 7, 8, 9, belongs to column 3. You could also see it the other way, where 1, 4, 7, would be row 1, and etc. Also again, this is really a highly unfinished and flawed sketch, which can only maybe give a basic idea about some things.
Ok, so I would like you to look at the definition of 9. Culture. In addition to what I wrote 6 years ago, I would like to just add some content to this definition. “Culture” also includes shared values, norms, practices. These are again embedded in our actions, what we do. Culture then, is also value-laden actions, which are shared in a group. The results of these actions, buildings, artifacts, etc. could also be seen as part of culture.
Ok, then I would like you to notice how culture is situated among the 8 other headlines. Also notice how culture is in a sense the “last” of these headlines, it is the end of both the column and row way of looking at this. So, in a sense, everything else is leading to culture.
1. Universe
The Universe is all, the universe is everything. All things, planets, people, atoms, are part of the universe.
2. Experience
There is experience. Each one of us experiences the world. Experience constitutes everything that we are aware of. There is also understanding. Understanding is how each of us understands ourself and the world in which we are in. The experience and understanding we have are part of the universe.
A subdivision of this part consists of experience, understanding, and perspective.
3. Symbols
Symbols come into being by referring to something else. There is much focus on written language as symbols but perhaps we should pay more attention to oral language.
4. Unfolding
The Universe is constantly unfolding. There is entropy. There is change. There is complexity.
5. Belief
There is belief. Belief is that which you act upon. Some other animals may have a version of beliefs as well.
A subdivision of this part consists of learning, believing, and practicing.
6. Creating
By creating it means the ability to relate to the world in an abstract way and make things which did not exist before such as symbols, technology or institutions.
What kind of processes did words like “hello” or “thank you” originate from? What meaning were those sounds meant to convey? Symbols are part of the human experience.
7. Propositions
There are propositions. Many of the things written in this model are propositions. A proposition could be: ‘the sun is hot’.
There are also judgements and standards. With judgements a standard is used and something is judged according to this standard.
There is narrative.
8. Communication
Communication in some form can exist between all living organisms. Communication is the exchange of some matter, energy or information between organisms.
9. Culture
The culture in this sense means that there are interpretations, understandings and stories embedded in symbols which are inherited from past generations and given to new generations.
Culture, what we share, and the necessity of abstraction
Ok, so to try to sum up on this. So in a large and simple sense, what we do, which is shared among us, could be called culture. But I guess this is also misleading because, then in what way does culture distinguish itself from let’s say other animals who also “share behavior”? So, when I am talking about this thing that is shared, this can not be based upon instinct or efficiency alone. This has to have an abstract element.
Abstraction is when “something” is taken “out of” a “whole picture” and “looked at” in “isolation” [sorry for the excessive use of quotation marks]. In other words, it is the ability to in principle consider something in-and-of-itself, in relation to whatever it may be.
When I am talking about something which is shared in a culture, there would be an element of abstraction to it. It is exactly because there is an element of abstraction to it, that we can share something among ourselves in a non-idiosyncratic or situation-bound way. On another note, one might also say that to the degree that other animals, can have abstract thought, they can also have culture.
The analogy of the fish in water
Okay, but still how is this directly relevant with the whitepapers etc.? So in the whitepapers, and I believe there will be in the 3rd course session, there is the analogy of the fish in water. If I interpret the analogy correctly, the analogy is that we could perhaps say that “fish don’t know that they are in water, because they have always been there, and know of nothing else”. [I guess flying fish are an exception to this, since they do experience “air”. Perhaps they are in constant deep metaphysical speculation and are constantly frustrated by the fact that other fish do not get their points] This is interesting because we as humans are familiar with let’s say “ground”, “air”, more stuff, and then also “water”. So we, from the “outside”, can say that the “fish is in water” and “how would a fish know what water is, if it knows nothing else?”.
You can then try to transfer the analogy to humans by saying that in a sense, humans are also born somewhere, they are perhaps told the world is such and such a place and they have their own experiences, and it is sort of “ok, this is it, this is what it is”. That in a sense you consider the reality as what it is, and that it is immutable.
To “see the water” or “know you are in water” is then to realize that there is a history to everything, many things are created one way or the other, that things may be some way now but that this was not set, given, by necessity and that things could be different.
And then, if I understand the presentation correctly, the analogy stops. Which I think is not taking this analogy as deep as you could go with it. So there are two things I would like to add on to this analogy.
Two additions to the analogy of the fish
First addition
So for me, realizing we are in water, that it is in some sense created, the real question then is: What kind of water do we want? We are in part creating this water, so let us take ownership and consider this question.
Second addition
The second addition to the analogy going away from considering “all of reality” to simply considering “culture”. So, let us again imagine being the fish, and all we are experiencing now is “culture”. What actually does this look like? Ok, so first of all, we could say we see other fish. How every other fish moves. Second we could also see the results of these fishes movement, the artifacts being created. So there are other fish moving and the results of this movement over time.
Concluding thoughts on why the “inner” “outer” is problematic
I hope with this fish example, that I have made it clear what I find problematic about the “inner”, “outer”, distinction as a central thing. What we do is the culture. There is no layer in between our actions and our culture. And of course, you and what you do, is part of culture.
So for example, I have seen some examples where some people would say that “institutions” are “not part of culture” (I do not know if the white papers express this view or not, it’s not explicit at least). But so, buildings are human made, and there are values behind building them. That people would go in and out of these buildings every day is a human practice, it is culture. The institutions we have today are a part of the culture we have today.
So my concluding point here is that not having any intermediate layer between us and culture is absolutely central if we were to have any wishes of shaping our culture. I think the inner, outer framework is lending itself to seeing a layer, and therefore I think it is problematic.
Issue 3: Introducing a new logic
Is a new logic possible?
The 3rd issue is really about omitting something. Nowhere in the whitepapers is there a mention of a possible new logic. This is however not so surprising, as I am not aware of any place in our present day discourse, where there is a mention of a new higher logic.
So here I am, claiming that a new higher logic, possibly could exist. The existence of this logic would not only change what society we might have in the future but also what path we might take to end up in such a society.
Brief description of the logic
I will just briefly describe the new logic here. The description below is from a session I had at the 2026 Limicon. The description is paired with the title of: “Is it possible for one framework to contain ‘anything’/‘everything’?" Below the description is a link to the actual presentation I gave, which gives an overview of the logic.
“Well, if we use mainstream logic (with one or more premises leading to a conclusion), I would say it is not possible.
However, what if an approach to logic existed which had infinite complexity and at the same time everything being connected? How would that look like?
Secondly, how do you feel about the idea that ‘smaller ideas’ could be contained in ‘larger ideas’ (e.g. golden retriever, dog, mammal, animal, (and finally) the universe)? And that this would go from the ‘very bottom’ to the ‘very top’?
Ok, if you could imagine this, could I then ask you, what would be the 9 ideas at the very top? The 9 ideas that would contain all other ideas?
I make a guess about which 9 ideas this might be.”
Presentation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19rIPduDQhvPLo_0Zd9pFoo8DPA4zLl9G/view?usp=sharing.
It is important to emphasize that what I am sharing here, is not an actual working model for what this logic is or how it works. It is rather work that speaks to the possibility of there existing a logic along these lines. In order to suggest something so abstract such as this, you would also need an actual sketch of how it might look like, which there is in a rather few words.
The overall claims
So what are the claims, in regards to this new logic? The overall claim is that any and all content/information/knowledge//(call it what you want) could be included into this framework. This would mean that all disciplines, traditions/“religions”, could be understood and included in the same framework. This changes quite literally “everything”.
Where do we go from here?
Ok, so where do we go from here? Before anything else, we should first examine whether this new logic exists or not. In the case that it seems to exist, we would then need to get to know it, what is it really? How is it grounded? How does it work? And also trying to apply it in different areas and see what results come.
I believe that everything being equal and there being no resistance, then humans will prefer “truth” over “not truth”. The same thing also applies to “success” over “not success”, everything being equal and no resistances.
The academic system as an early point of cultural change
One way to proceed further from this could be by asking “what function does the academic system have in society?” An answer to this might be something like “To hold and share knowledge and do research”. Central to the academic system is the notion of “science”.
How well understood and defined is “science” today? Is there an agreement in the academic system about what the best understanding of what science is?
Ok, so one claim I would make is that it is possible to create a more rigorous, intuitive, true, useful and fruitful understanding of “science” than what currently exists. With this I also mean that anything that the academic system today is holding or creating, could also exist in this new logical framework I am suggesting. Nothing real would be lost. Then there are things that are, let’s say, “less clear”, and worse than this, that also exist in the academic system today, which could be cleared up.
My basic claim here is that this new logic is equal to or better than the existing academic system in every possible way. So, then we can go back to the idea that “humans like success”. I believe that if we could show/demonstrate this new logic, how it works, what it is capable of, basically this could persuade some people to look more into it. As soon as some people look into it, and a conversation arises from it, you could view this as a “self-propagating dynamic”. This is to say that, as long as it could be shown that the new is better than the old, everything being equal, then more and more would come to use the new logical system, rather than the old understanding.
Cultural change with this new logic
So, this is also to say, that if we ask the question of: “How do we make a large cultural change happen?” The answer here might be very simple. Only if we actually could prove that something more fruitful is possible, could a large change happen, but then if we could, this larger change would also be self-evident (everything being equal).
So, the potential of this new logic existing, fundamentally changes how I view and approach the question of cultural change and the best way forward.
And so, like I said in the beginning of this issue, the whitepapers do not consider the existence of such a logic, and are therefore suggesting an approach forward, which is different from how I would go about it.
Appendix 1: Further comments
Just to be clear, the critique I made about the “inner” “outer” distinction in issue 2, is really a critique of the inner, outer distinction that Ken Wilber makes in his AQAL model. Out of everything Wilber had made, I believe you could say, this is the most fundamental. It splits “reality” into four quadrants. And as I see it, these whitepapers are in part based upon these views by Wilber.
What I am saying then is that if you believe in this AQAL model of Wilbers, then you will see things differently. It will affect your perception. How we perceive things is not some minor detail, it is at the very core of everything.
What I am saying is, that there is a very large difference between seeing “laws”, “institutions”, and “technology” as either “part of culture” or “outside of culture”.
I think that the most accurate headline for our third session could be: “Is cultural transformation possible?” As someone who sees institutions, technology, laws, etc. as part of culture, this question makes little sense. For me, this question only makes sense, if you see certain human made things as “outside” culture, then, how do you deal with that? How do you handle that? Can you change this or not? While if you see it as part of culture you would say, yes it is something we do, yes we can change what we do.
I think something very relevant for this area is the question of “How do we see ourselves, others and the world?” Much could be said about this in different times and places, but let me just jump straight into medieval Europe. So quite clearly there was a “god”, who was also “the lord”. This being had created everything, including us, knew everything that was going on, and it was by his graces, that something good might happen to us. There was a very clear hierarchy here, where this god was above humans. This was directly correlated with the word of this god, the Bible. Knowledge was in the Bible and you could read the Bible and gain knowledge. This also meant that there was a certain view of how we learn.
I will just claim it outright and make no further arguments for it, but my basic view is that this basic view of what knowledge is and what learning is, carried into the universities and more properly into what we could call the academic system later. Today, there are a variety of views about knowledge and learning in the academic system, but I would say that the root, the core, is the same.
I am claiming that this view of us humans having someone “above us”, has carried through to our present day and it is just what is taken for granted. For me, the most obvious example for this is perhaps in journalism, where I really feel that the vast majority of journalists are either ignoring their own role (as humans, journalists, people with influence, etc) as participants in creating our culture. Or they see their role as something very superficial and not fundamental. [I guess this is more true in places like Denmark/Europe, where many journalists see themselves as “neutral” (or maybe “not here”), while in the US they tend to take a more active, participatory role.]
I will also say that it does not make much sense to say to for example a journalist: “Hey, journalist, why are you not more self-conscious about your own influence and thereby more reflected on what responsibilities this might imply?” Because, we as humans believe stuff, we believe in different stories. A change like this could not happen from critiquing. Instead, what we would need to do is to present a new coherent story, where our role of us creating the culture we live in, is so.
Coming back to the whitepapers, I guess I do also wanna say that if I were to have made an “Issue 4”, and an “Issue 5”, these would possibly have been: “What about intention?” and “What about learning?” Intention is maybe even more important than learning, but still for me, if we are talking about personal development and cultural change, intention and learning are absolut central ideas. In the whitepapers I think these two ideas are mentioned a few times in passing, but they are not central. So I am suspicious of this.
Finally then, if we change our view of culture to include laws, institutions, technology, etc. I think this also opens up something else, which I briefly mentioned in issue 3. This is the matter of what “role” or “function” does in the culture has? So for me, the most relevant area of our culture to look at, is the academic system. The academic system is the most deciding factor in determining whether something is “true” or “not true”, in our culture. This is just so much at the heart of everything we have been writing and I could not imagine talking about larger cultural changes in the positive direction, without meeting the academic system.
