Three wise men talk about wisdom and power.
An audio reflection on a conversation between Daniel Schmachtenberger, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke.
In my weekly Audio Dispatch for Paid Subscribers, I made a passing reference to watching the video conversation between Daniel Schmachtenberger, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke called The Psychological Drivers of the Metacrisis, and three people have asked me to reflect further, so I took that as a signal to do so.
It’s just a twenty-two-minute stream of consciousness (below) and the short written version of the TLDL and TLDR is that the key question arising from the conversation for me, in my own words, is this:
“If our capacity for wisdom arises from influences and practices at a relatively small scale, but our biggest problems arise from underlying delusions within system dynamics at a planetary scale, what follows for how we should educate ourselves?”
I reflect on knowing each of the speakers. With the greatest of respect to all of them I wonder out loud whether it matters that again it is three white men who are driving ‘the conversation’ - is that an entirely facile point, or in some way an important caveat? How much does perspectival knowing matter when discussing the state of the world?
I share what I noticed, which is that Daniel tends to orient to world issues in terms of geopolitical, technological, and macroeconomic logic first, and cultural, educational, and spiritual questions later. Iain and John tend to go the opposite way (and therefore sometimes appear almost competitive with each other in their differing ways of making similar points).
In Perspectiva’s language, while Daniel invariably speaks from system to society to soul, Iain and John are more likely to speak from soul to society to system. There is a deep philosophical debate underlying this difference of emphasis about what is most likely to effect seismic changes in the world.
Some say we have to change ourselves first, some say technology will always be the main driver of whatever changes we make, some say it’s all a matter of language and culture, and so it goes on. A lot hangs on how you relate to that question. Most thoughtful people will recognize that all three ‘worlds’ (which have their realities, ways of knowing and valuing; ontologies, epistemologies, and axiologies) influence all the other three things and that they all matter. However, in terms of prioritizing time, attention, and money, it does matter where you choose to place your biggest bet, and what follows for alignment with other kinds of changes in the other two ‘worlds’ that are thereby implicated.
I have come to the view that while everything influences everything else, our most generative point of change is ultimately through the soul, but it is, as the say, a whole conversation.
**
PS: If you are interested in the relationship between wisdom and power, I’ll be musing on a Christmas dharma talk about their relationship soon, in a Christmas message for/from Perspectiva shortly.
This was good, thanks. I think you hit the nail on the head when you made the distinction between the felt-sense that there were different mental models operating - either from souls > society > system or system > societies > souls . and * this * is, it seems to me, the central question of our time. This distinction is what fractured game b group (on basecamp at the time) -- between those who thought that souls had to change in order to change society/systems; and those that thought society had to change in order to change systems/souls; and those that thought systems had to change in order to change souls/society (or society/souls). This of course is a question of causality embedded in a theory of change.
It is frustrating (to me) but also salient (to me), that this is * the* question lurking in the background of all these conversations, even in the "highest" most "prestigious" group of "intellectuals" -- whether they be men or women, white/western/modern or otherwise. We might be able to correlate different cultural codes with different preferences, for example, correlating the emphasis on souls first as individualistic and hence, American-ish) or the emphasis on society as postmodern-ish, or the emphasis on system as male/galaxy brainiac-ish ... but the question still lurks.
Sooooo... we should be doing some creative induction on this very question, no?
The questions as it stands forms a vicious circle. Which means it is a flawed view, an epistemic mistake or metaphysical oversight. We need new, powerful, robust ways to describe these relationships and their causal properties vis-a-vis global scale change in "record-breaking" time.
We need people who can disembedd from their native view and work seriously on alternatives. A new Manhattan project, perhaps AI could help if it is creative enough. Just finished reading Alicia Juarraro's new book "Context Changes Everything" and although she doesn't get it right, the ways in which she gets it wrong -- because she is so damned articulate about the details -- points in a promising direction.
Anyhoo... that is what the video stirred in me -- a familiar irritation and impatience.
Thanks for the reflection. Hope you don't feel this comment is spamming your post!
I greatly appreciate this reflection - thank you Jonathan! An important insight is to realize that an evolution of consciousness is needed to make the transition that is needed in order to adequately address the metacrisis. As Peter Pogany (economist and Jean Gebser scholar) pointed out, "The collision between our civilization and its ecological constraints, along with a likely historic crisis of epic proportions, may be regarded as the struggle of integral-arational consciousness (Gebser’s “fifth structure”) to deprive overblown rationality (the deficient phase of mental consciousness) from its current preeminence. "
Pogany framed the stages of recent world history as Global System 0 (GS0), Global System 1
(GS1), Global System 2 (GS2), each of which can be considered sub-epochs within modernity, and then a future Global System 3 (GS3). His vision of Global System 3 could only be accomplished in the context of Gebser's "integral" structure of consciousness. He summarized it as two-level economy/strong multilateralism/mostly government money (maximum reserve banking). This is a potential answer to where the conversation between Daniel, Iain, and John left off - a kind of cosmo-localism (e.g. Michel Bauwens) that encompasses the need for organizing at the small and local scale, as well as appropriate world governance.
His "two-level economy" refers to one level where production in specific sectors will have to be controlled among multinational producers or nations; and at the second level, private enterprise would flourish under careful quantitative constraints. We might need to make that a three level economy, as Pogany also acknowledges the importance of local cantons meeting local needs in creative ways. Pogany states, "The business firm (the typical association of producers under GS1 and GS2) will have to reinvent itself under hard material and energy constraints."
"Strong multilateralism" is in contrast to the current "weak multilateralism" of the UN/IMF, etc. Strong multilateralism means democratically controlled world governance.
"Mostly government money, maximum reserve banking" - The monetary system would be based on a global currency issued by the global central bank. Maximum bank reserves would restrict the ability of banks to extend loans. This would not totally eliminate the creation of money through debt, but it would change its nature. It would make financial loans a modest help for bona fide entrepreneurs, and remove the current emphasis on financial speculation.
I've created a helpful 14 page document summarizing Pogany's view of "World History as the synoptic narrative of a thermodynamic unfolding."
http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=5301756%3AUploadedFile%3A78202