May 8, 2022·edited May 8, 2022Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Great material, as always. You take anarcho-libertarian (anti-corporate-state) thinking more seriously, by critiquing it systematically and rationally, than most of its advocates that I've read (whose framing is frequently distorted by their oppositional-defiant personalities to ridiculous levels).
Kegan stage 5* (post-postmodernism) and the reintegration of the divine feminine?
re: scaling problems in human history, war and the rise of complex civilizations
It would be interesting to find out how much this type of anthropological framing of the empire building theory of civilization was a reaction to the "pathological" (postmodern) forms of feminist theory and cultural-leftism.
Samuel Bowles Ulam lectures, 2008 Santa Fe Institute:
A Cooperative Species: How We Got to Be Both Nasty and Nice
presented by Samuel Bowles, Professor, Santa Fe Institute and University of Siena
September 16, 17, and 18, 2008
Humans are remarkably cooperative animals. We frequently engage in joint projects for the common benefit on a scale extending beyond the family to include total strangers. We do this even when contributions to the project are costly and yield little private benefit. Examples are upholding social norms even when a transgression would not be noticed, warfare, and actions to preserve the natural environment.
Lecture 1. A Cooperative Species (or are we just afraid someone may be looking?)
Since Darwin, the evolutionary origin of these and other examples of altruistic cooperation has puzzled biologists and economists where notions of ‘selfish genes’ and amoral Homo economicus hold sway. Drawing on archaeological, genetic, climatic, and other information about the conditions under which our distant ancestors lived, Bowles will show why standard explanations of human cooperation are inadequate.
[link]
Lecture 2. Altruism, Parochialism, and War: Rambo meets Mother Teresa
Bowles uses
[->] computer simulations to generate artificial histories of humanity
over tens of thousands of years, tracing alternative trajectories that could explain how we got to be both nasty and nice. The disquieting conclusion will be that war and hostility toward outsiders may have been midwives of our more admirable moral predispositions.
[link]
Lecture 3. Machiavelli’s Mistake: Why Policies Designed for “Wicked Men” Fail.
Taking account of our ethical dispositions and the conditions necessary to both enhance and empower cooperative motivations is essential if we are to face the challenges of environmental sustainability, control of epidemic disease, the governance of the information based economy, and political violence.
Thank you, e. for the compliment and the thoughtful response. In my book and in The Story of Money video (that I haven't transcribed for Substack: https://youtu.be/V0Zh8p4zw8c) I quote David Graeber on how religions of altruism sprang up at the same time as coinage, which commodified people as payments for debt. His point was that a system of selfishness and a system of self-sacrifice were two sides of the same coin. When labor was reciprocal, Mother Teresa wasn't needed without Rambo.
That's so excellent, e., I'm so honored! I'm recording a new video now that will mention you, if that's okay, in my admission that I'm a post-modern dropout stuck in rationalism kindergarten. Let me know if you approve.
I checked out this link, which was very interesting. My conclusion is that I'm an old fogey. Of this generation of meta-theorists, I only recognize Charles Eisenstein--whose Substack we may have met on, or was it Matt Taibbi? But the previous generation that influenced them are almost all people I'm familiar with, some of whom are my greatest influences.
When you start my book, you'll see it begins with a quote from Ursula K LeGuin. I once had the opportunity to tell her that I tried to name a daughter after her but the damn sea witch arrogated the name. Bucky Fuller I quote in my Build a New Model episode and Schumacher is the go-to for all of my thinking on small (his ex lives in a house I once rented). Bateson is a local legend and started the Penny University here; his thinking on addiction as a functional response to a dysfunctional society opened my eyes. Whose thinking isn't formed by Campbell, McLuhan and Baldwin? But I was especially pleased to see Donella Meadows on this list, on whose Thinking in Systems book I base my entire fifth section on how to reimagine money.
To me, all these people were talking about real ideas that make a difference. It may be my ignorance of the specialized vocabulary, but the articles you've sent me to in this generation seem to be congratulating themselves on their forward-thinking while talking about nothing. I can never figure out how they're changing the things I care about--understanding the reality in the world and the reality of the world. Am I wrong?
BTW, I did post the YT that mentions you. I'll get the Substack version posted later today:
It is a mixed bag, same as always. There are all sorts of grifter types associated with the "liminal" stuff, post-postmodern snake oil salespersons.
I used to know a scholar that had spent decades researching various scandals in Theosophy (Blavatsky) going back to the WW1 era, maybe earlier. The guru scandals, ego games, grifting, back stabbing and internal power struggles in NRMs (new religious movements) and similar "social change" movements have been the same for a long time.
The authentic paradigm shift to real "meta-narrative", construct-awareness is somewhere between impossible and incredibly difficult.
People promoting or "selling" quick fixes can usually be safely ignored.
Ok, no problem. You thinking is far more clear than a lot of people in the various "liminal" and "integral theory" discussion communities I've seen, and your videos presentations are both very accessible and well produced.
Great material, as always. You take anarcho-libertarian (anti-corporate-state) thinking more seriously, by critiquing it systematically and rationally, than most of its advocates that I've read (whose framing is frequently distorted by their oppositional-defiant personalities to ridiculous levels).
Kegan stage 5* (post-postmodernism) and the reintegration of the divine feminine?
re: scaling problems in human history, war and the rise of complex civilizations
It would be interesting to find out how much this type of anthropological framing of the empire building theory of civilization was a reaction to the "pathological" (postmodern) forms of feminist theory and cultural-leftism.
Samuel Bowles Ulam lectures, 2008 Santa Fe Institute:
"Rambo meets Mother Teresa" (etc.)
--------------
https://sites.santafe.edu/~bowles/index.php/more/lectures/
ULAM LECTURES
2008 Stanislaw Ulam Memorial Lecture Series
A Cooperative Species: How We Got to Be Both Nasty and Nice
presented by Samuel Bowles, Professor, Santa Fe Institute and University of Siena
September 16, 17, and 18, 2008
Humans are remarkably cooperative animals. We frequently engage in joint projects for the common benefit on a scale extending beyond the family to include total strangers. We do this even when contributions to the project are costly and yield little private benefit. Examples are upholding social norms even when a transgression would not be noticed, warfare, and actions to preserve the natural environment.
Lecture 1. A Cooperative Species (or are we just afraid someone may be looking?)
Since Darwin, the evolutionary origin of these and other examples of altruistic cooperation has puzzled biologists and economists where notions of ‘selfish genes’ and amoral Homo economicus hold sway. Drawing on archaeological, genetic, climatic, and other information about the conditions under which our distant ancestors lived, Bowles will show why standard explanations of human cooperation are inadequate.
[link]
Lecture 2. Altruism, Parochialism, and War: Rambo meets Mother Teresa
Bowles uses
[->] computer simulations to generate artificial histories of humanity
over tens of thousands of years, tracing alternative trajectories that could explain how we got to be both nasty and nice. The disquieting conclusion will be that war and hostility toward outsiders may have been midwives of our more admirable moral predispositions.
[link]
Lecture 3. Machiavelli’s Mistake: Why Policies Designed for “Wicked Men” Fail.
Taking account of our ethical dispositions and the conditions necessary to both enhance and empower cooperative motivations is essential if we are to face the challenges of environmental sustainability, control of epidemic disease, the governance of the information based economy, and political violence.
[link]
Thank you, e. for the compliment and the thoughtful response. In my book and in The Story of Money video (that I haven't transcribed for Substack: https://youtu.be/V0Zh8p4zw8c) I quote David Graeber on how religions of altruism sprang up at the same time as coinage, which commodified people as payments for debt. His point was that a system of selfishness and a system of self-sacrifice were two sides of the same coin. When labor was reciprocal, Mother Teresa wasn't needed without Rambo.
I'll check out that video. I got your book, and plan on reading it on my next long camping trip (off grid Highways 95/395 Nevada, eastern Sierra).
That's so excellent, e., I'm so honored! I'm recording a new video now that will mention you, if that's okay, in my admission that I'm a post-modern dropout stuck in rationalism kindergarten. Let me know if you approve.
Here is an attempt to compile a list of "meta", "integral" or "liminal" groups and leaders:
https://www.joelightfoot.org/post/the-liminal-web-mapping-an-emergent-subculture-of-sensemakers-meta-theorists-systems-poets
I checked out this link, which was very interesting. My conclusion is that I'm an old fogey. Of this generation of meta-theorists, I only recognize Charles Eisenstein--whose Substack we may have met on, or was it Matt Taibbi? But the previous generation that influenced them are almost all people I'm familiar with, some of whom are my greatest influences.
When you start my book, you'll see it begins with a quote from Ursula K LeGuin. I once had the opportunity to tell her that I tried to name a daughter after her but the damn sea witch arrogated the name. Bucky Fuller I quote in my Build a New Model episode and Schumacher is the go-to for all of my thinking on small (his ex lives in a house I once rented). Bateson is a local legend and started the Penny University here; his thinking on addiction as a functional response to a dysfunctional society opened my eyes. Whose thinking isn't formed by Campbell, McLuhan and Baldwin? But I was especially pleased to see Donella Meadows on this list, on whose Thinking in Systems book I base my entire fifth section on how to reimagine money.
To me, all these people were talking about real ideas that make a difference. It may be my ignorance of the specialized vocabulary, but the articles you've sent me to in this generation seem to be congratulating themselves on their forward-thinking while talking about nothing. I can never figure out how they're changing the things I care about--understanding the reality in the world and the reality of the world. Am I wrong?
BTW, I did post the YT that mentions you. I'll get the Substack version posted later today:
Roe v Redux: Leak or Squirrel? https://youtu.be/rCkk8yZn9k8
re: old fogey
hahaha.
It is a mixed bag, same as always. There are all sorts of grifter types associated with the "liminal" stuff, post-postmodern snake oil salespersons.
I used to know a scholar that had spent decades researching various scandals in Theosophy (Blavatsky) going back to the WW1 era, maybe earlier. The guru scandals, ego games, grifting, back stabbing and internal power struggles in NRMs (new religious movements) and similar "social change" movements have been the same for a long time.
The authentic paradigm shift to real "meta-narrative", construct-awareness is somewhere between impossible and incredibly difficult.
People promoting or "selling" quick fixes can usually be safely ignored.
Ok, no problem. You thinking is far more clear than a lot of people in the various "liminal" and "integral theory" discussion communities I've seen, and your videos presentations are both very accessible and well produced.
* Kegan stage 5, fluidity, patterned nebulosity / epistemic indeterminacy
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1237474759019036673.html
also see:
https://metarationality.com/stem-fluidity-bridge
Incomprehensible — way too long. A useless goulash