It's landing well with me! Thanks for the clear articulation of the dynamics involved. I'm walking away from this post with a richer appreciation for the 3 Horizon model and how to make ideas in H3 more palatable to those stuck in H1 gossip.🙏🏼
I'd like to briefly add my own experience of this dynamic... I often see people who engage in H1 gossip as cultivating moods of cynicism and resignation which they defend as part of their identity - often with an air of superiority. Our moods predispose us to certain actions which then exercise a powerful influence on what we see as possible or impossible. What I so often encounter when presenting H3 ideas is something along the lines of: your H3 idea won't work because it is: utopian, idealistic, not grounded in the real world, etc., therefore, there's no point in entertaining such possibilities because they will never come to pass. Oh, by the way, you are a dreamer and maybe an idiot and blah blah blah. Rather than be in a mood of wonder and curiosity, which would allow them to step into an imaginative state to dream and ideate and ponder possibilities, they keep themselves small and shoot down anything that threatens the certainty of their H1 world. Helping people to get out of the trap of H1 gossip is a tall order - would you be willing to share your thoughts on how to shift H1 gossipers into H2 and H3 curiosity curators? Thanks!
This is interesting and I think the ‘gossip’ idea is helpful, but I think the problem goes deeper than this. H1 is theoretically supposed to be fit-ish for the present, but our current socio-political H1 has been screamingly unfit for the *present* since 2016, never mind the future, with no signs of imminent change at all. As a futurist I spend a lot of time now helping people notice that they are trapped in ‘zombie tacit futures’, basically assumptions and expectations about the world that were fit for 2015’s H1… but now are not even that, they are H0, sometimes even H-1 (if that’s not too confusing!)
Frankly the whole mainstream is in this state, trapped in a strange spiritual Groundhog Day, and even when people do notice it they try to reach backwards for ‘new’ ideas. Companies everywhere are still completely trapped in ideas of incremental change, still transfixed by the illusion of growth even though we sit in its rotting carcass now and the spirit of the scavenger is very strong now, pervading AI especially. We are not even in H1. We have not even come to terms with the present. I am thinking of changing my professional title to ‘present-ist’
This is a beautifully conceived and expressed idea. It shows up vividly how hard it will be to get away from the illusion of the fishpond as the way forward (as per Dugald Hine borrowed from Paul Kingsnorth). Many well-meaning people, me (I hope) included, end up in desperation doing what Rory Stewart did with Doughnut Economics - because they want to be “practical”. But it’s not good enough. I hope there will be a session on this at the Realisation Festival and how as individuals we don’t resort to gesture and stop there.
This is brilliant - both the H1 Gossip and H2- vortex really resonate. I see this playing out in housing crisis dialogues that repeat the same notions again and again, whilst ‘vortexing’ any actually generative ideas, or even allowing space for these ideas to be explored. A great example recently on a panel of 5 politicians and 1 economist, with the host dismissing valid arguments so as to spend more time in the gossip (Q&A Australia). Similarly I agree re. Greenwashing and Green growth!
What interests me about this is that it frames H1 as having its own sort of gravitational pull to the existing gossip, and H2 as directional (minus pulls back to H1).
Does this imply that H2+ pull us towards H3, and is H3 simply a different flavour of gossip with its own gravitational pull? Because I feel this dynamic is also true - often Doughnut economics, and other paradigmatic shifts (I’m in Australia, and there are a lot of amazing dialogue focussed groups working around doughnut economics, and reframing eco-centric and indigenous work) whereby there are a small group of individuals effectively gossiping over creating the new H3 “over here” and what often feels missed is the H2 component of the transformation that has legs (I.e. sounds really great, but it’s missing the in-between transformation and velocity of the H2+ vortex).
Could there be a way to harness that directional vortex somehow, so that the H3 Gossip is also useful, and not just, gossip.
In my interview with Rory he does qualify his remarks helpfully.
"When I say 'we need a new democracy' I mean, for instance, electoral reform and citizens assemblies. And when I say "we need a new capitalism" I mean (I forget what he says here!)..."
I think he'd also say it's difficult to argue with success, and people love and admire their podcast. He's conservative by temperament and background, and as a rule, conservatives don't feel the beat of the third horizon, or perhaps they just don' trust it.
Jordan Peterson speaks against calls for major social transformation (roughly speaking). Is that the sort of thing you mean by 'don't feel the beat... or perhaps... don't trust it'?
I guess I was wondering if you thought he'd recognise the 3 horizon model and vortex and gossip, and his part in it. It sounds like he'd think the vortex was a good thing, assimilating innovations to extant systems, which is how society would gradually adapt to current challenges.
How does one speak to the conservatively minded about the need for deep transformation? Or what if not speech could 'go in'?
On another tack, I think I've always suspected Money is largely the problem (perhaps because of the danger of falling in love with money), and wonder therefore whether H2+ stuff needs to sits outside the financial spaces.
This is a generous 'like' from (you) Jonathan, as I don't really say anything he doesn't say in the Pespectiva piece on the vortex, barring perhaps the suggestion H2+ activity steer away from Money...
To which I want therefore to add, what is Money? I've only thought about it, not properly studied the question, so this is naive I expect, but it seems to come down to Work, to human labour, to activity. (There are other dimensions of course but this seems the vital one.) So how about voluntarism as a thread in the path forwards...
And one more tiny piece therefore: it struck me a couple of years ago that the call 'workers of the world unite', could be heard perhaps more fruitfully as a call not to 'extensionally-conceived' workers, those who so-happen to be labouring for a wage, but to 'INTENSIONALLY-conceived' workers... A call to those who choose work, who want to do the jobs, who voluntarily self-identity in such or related ways. The hope for mobilising a group identified in the terms in which the members self-identity must be greater.
It's landing well with me! Thanks for the clear articulation of the dynamics involved. I'm walking away from this post with a richer appreciation for the 3 Horizon model and how to make ideas in H3 more palatable to those stuck in H1 gossip.🙏🏼
I'd like to briefly add my own experience of this dynamic... I often see people who engage in H1 gossip as cultivating moods of cynicism and resignation which they defend as part of their identity - often with an air of superiority. Our moods predispose us to certain actions which then exercise a powerful influence on what we see as possible or impossible. What I so often encounter when presenting H3 ideas is something along the lines of: your H3 idea won't work because it is: utopian, idealistic, not grounded in the real world, etc., therefore, there's no point in entertaining such possibilities because they will never come to pass. Oh, by the way, you are a dreamer and maybe an idiot and blah blah blah. Rather than be in a mood of wonder and curiosity, which would allow them to step into an imaginative state to dream and ideate and ponder possibilities, they keep themselves small and shoot down anything that threatens the certainty of their H1 world. Helping people to get out of the trap of H1 gossip is a tall order - would you be willing to share your thoughts on how to shift H1 gossipers into H2 and H3 curiosity curators? Thanks!
This is interesting and I think the ‘gossip’ idea is helpful, but I think the problem goes deeper than this. H1 is theoretically supposed to be fit-ish for the present, but our current socio-political H1 has been screamingly unfit for the *present* since 2016, never mind the future, with no signs of imminent change at all. As a futurist I spend a lot of time now helping people notice that they are trapped in ‘zombie tacit futures’, basically assumptions and expectations about the world that were fit for 2015’s H1… but now are not even that, they are H0, sometimes even H-1 (if that’s not too confusing!)
Frankly the whole mainstream is in this state, trapped in a strange spiritual Groundhog Day, and even when people do notice it they try to reach backwards for ‘new’ ideas. Companies everywhere are still completely trapped in ideas of incremental change, still transfixed by the illusion of growth even though we sit in its rotting carcass now and the spirit of the scavenger is very strong now, pervading AI especially. We are not even in H1. We have not even come to terms with the present. I am thinking of changing my professional title to ‘present-ist’
Interesting! Thank you
This is a beautifully conceived and expressed idea. It shows up vividly how hard it will be to get away from the illusion of the fishpond as the way forward (as per Dugald Hine borrowed from Paul Kingsnorth). Many well-meaning people, me (I hope) included, end up in desperation doing what Rory Stewart did with Doughnut Economics - because they want to be “practical”. But it’s not good enough. I hope there will be a session on this at the Realisation Festival and how as individuals we don’t resort to gesture and stop there.
What matters most cannot be talked about; only to. ?
This is brilliant - both the H1 Gossip and H2- vortex really resonate. I see this playing out in housing crisis dialogues that repeat the same notions again and again, whilst ‘vortexing’ any actually generative ideas, or even allowing space for these ideas to be explored. A great example recently on a panel of 5 politicians and 1 economist, with the host dismissing valid arguments so as to spend more time in the gossip (Q&A Australia). Similarly I agree re. Greenwashing and Green growth!
What interests me about this is that it frames H1 as having its own sort of gravitational pull to the existing gossip, and H2 as directional (minus pulls back to H1).
Does this imply that H2+ pull us towards H3, and is H3 simply a different flavour of gossip with its own gravitational pull? Because I feel this dynamic is also true - often Doughnut economics, and other paradigmatic shifts (I’m in Australia, and there are a lot of amazing dialogue focussed groups working around doughnut economics, and reframing eco-centric and indigenous work) whereby there are a small group of individuals effectively gossiping over creating the new H3 “over here” and what often feels missed is the H2 component of the transformation that has legs (I.e. sounds really great, but it’s missing the in-between transformation and velocity of the H2+ vortex).
Could there be a way to harness that directional vortex somehow, so that the H3 Gossip is also useful, and not just, gossip.
And, does H2 have its own gossip, or is it largely a double vortex?
What would Rory say, do you think?
I allude to that in the piece, I think.
In my interview with Rory he does qualify his remarks helpfully.
"When I say 'we need a new democracy' I mean, for instance, electoral reform and citizens assemblies. And when I say "we need a new capitalism" I mean (I forget what he says here!)..."
I think he'd also say it's difficult to argue with success, and people love and admire their podcast. He's conservative by temperament and background, and as a rule, conservatives don't feel the beat of the third horizon, or perhaps they just don' trust it.
Jordan Peterson speaks against calls for major social transformation (roughly speaking). Is that the sort of thing you mean by 'don't feel the beat... or perhaps... don't trust it'?
I guess I was wondering if you thought he'd recognise the 3 horizon model and vortex and gossip, and his part in it. It sounds like he'd think the vortex was a good thing, assimilating innovations to extant systems, which is how society would gradually adapt to current challenges.
How does one speak to the conservatively minded about the need for deep transformation? Or what if not speech could 'go in'?
On another tack, I think I've always suspected Money is largely the problem (perhaps because of the danger of falling in love with money), and wonder therefore whether H2+ stuff needs to sits outside the financial spaces.
This is a generous 'like' from (you) Jonathan, as I don't really say anything he doesn't say in the Pespectiva piece on the vortex, barring perhaps the suggestion H2+ activity steer away from Money...
To which I want therefore to add, what is Money? I've only thought about it, not properly studied the question, so this is naive I expect, but it seems to come down to Work, to human labour, to activity. (There are other dimensions of course but this seems the vital one.) So how about voluntarism as a thread in the path forwards...
And one more tiny piece therefore: it struck me a couple of years ago that the call 'workers of the world unite', could be heard perhaps more fruitfully as a call not to 'extensionally-conceived' workers, those who so-happen to be labouring for a wage, but to 'INTENSIONALLY-conceived' workers... A call to those who choose work, who want to do the jobs, who voluntarily self-identity in such or related ways. The hope for mobilising a group identified in the terms in which the members self-identity must be greater.