shared by Jordan on fb:
may 2014 – Interview (with Larry Michel)
on moving problems (symptoms) around – we have to address the interconnectedness
when we create a system where individual advantage is pitted against advantage of the whole…. damage caused mostly by moral people… just that this structure requires it
20 min – economics is a made up system… ecology is not – problem is that economics interfaces with ecology.. this made up system is to the point of self-terminating.. so we need a new system..
24 min – this system of governance is beholden to the economic system.. law by itself is not adequate to the change we need
30 min – on economic structure – we have to look at how we address all of it systemically.. the question isn’t what’s most important… it’s how do we do it all optimally
what the critical path institute has been doing
? – don’t see him on there.. right one?
Jordan listed as one of the partners here
32 min – we are a global people affecting each other… focusing on one part of it is part of the problem..
manhattan project – $100000 people.. mounds of money.. to figure out how to kill the most amount of people we can kill… imagine using that for very wide value systems…. the complexity of the problems we face – how to feed/educate everybody – are fairly simple… but they are based in separate competitive interest…
39 min – not only do we each have a drill.. none of us have a drill that is the best drill… ie: since not sharing best drill parts, intellectual property..
the competitive system based on scarcity is actually a self-fulfilling prophecy for scarcity
41 min – competitive motivation is one motive.. we can compete – against time.. problems…
even the term natural resource is an inherently violent concept.. living is economical invaluable to anybody… we kill to commodify.. these things are worth something to us dead but not alive
45 min – as long as other living things.. have no rights.. and economic system sees whole commons as something to extract/steal from…
47 min – coal cheaper than solar.. unless we account for taking external cost from commons… coal is 4 times magnitude..
51 min – easy to look at greed as a few fat cats at the top.. but greed is a part of a competitive system. all of us in it. but this is not in human nature.
in a culture where you don’t have mine/our.. you don’t have greed/selfish/jealousy.
greed is not fundamental to our nature.. it’s built into this manmade system of scarcity – that teaches us that empathy isn’t viable..
if there’s not enough for everybody.. compassion is not viable..
behavior modification via internal change in value system
57 min – one of the really critical thing that has to change: responsibility.. we have a system that defers responsibility everywhere.. so nowhere
most violent cultures have language that describes deferring responsibility… ours is not to question why.. ours is but to do or die
1:00 – when we look at the scope of all the challenges.. between the mnemonic (mindset) and the artifact (tech) are the economics
ie: why is gold worth something?.. perceived scarcity; oxygen… has no value.. because it’s abundant; so we dig up forest to get to gold.. to put gold in a safe.. in the separatist system.. this competition/scarcity comes into play. an interconnected system – value comes in use.
when the value of a commodity comes from scarcity.. we artificially scarcity.. ie: increased price.. we drive poverty by our systems incentives..
1:05 – economics is the codification of values, how are values become infrastructure.. what we ascribe value to, ie: the dead whale over the alive one.. this fundamental structure has to shift.. from separate/competitive to interconnected/simbeotic
1:06 – restructuring… one of first things that has to occur – there’s so much well-intended work being done.. but without deep enough analysis for fundamentally adequate solutions… ie: moving problems around.. a problem well enough understood is half solved..
so we have to do a deep analysis of economics and power structures.. any solution that doesn’t address these things won’t be adequate.. redesigns of new systems of resource allocation and incentive and collective decision making that are free of those flaws.. prototyping..
1:08 – our work with critical institute is exactly this… the underlying things that drive these problems are what has to be focused on… what would adequate systems look like in a public education phase…. awakening in education to know what to work on… the problems aren’t a few bad people, or isolated problems…
1:10 – responsibility is very different than fault.. what can i do to change it now
1:12 – seeing others as separate but interconnected
i know you ness
until we get that sentience is sovereignty we are still slave owners
2 needs ness
imagine words in the realm Daniel so fluently describes money’s scarcity edge. common words are nice and i trust they will come when needed.. but perhaps we’re limiting systemic change by assuming certain words. what if we don’t need to educate first.. what if we just need to set people free, help facilitate their curiosities.. and trust that words/solutions/betterness will come. the game seems more equitable from the get go if we don’t need to prep or train first.
a global systemic change
via rt by @matthewjosef – matthew schutte
aug 2016 – emergence
emergence .. essential to understanding world we live and essential to understanding what it means to be human.. and the basis for meaning.. what that portends for future of civilization..
this is an ode.. love talk to emergence itself..
emergence: something new arises that wasn’t here before.. so.. where did the new properties come from.. closest thing to magic that’s kind of an admissible term in science..
how do you have a cell that respirates made up of molecules.. that none of them respirate
2 min – synergy (whole that’s greater than sum of its parts) and emergence (what is that greater) two sides of same phenom
synergy: fundamentally unpredicted/unpredictable.. result of relationship (result of attractive forces).. emergence result of synergy
3 min – bucky fuller called love metaphysical gravity (on attraction ness)
4 min – principle of allurement.. by which things have reason to come together.. that offers advantage .. that being separate doesn’t have
imagine if that wasn’t the case.. imagine if we had a universe where allure wasn’t a fundamental principle of it.. and the whole thing would have stopped at quantum foam.. because nothing attracts to have synergetic and emergent properties..
5 min – evolution: more elegantly ordered complexity.. sante fe institute..ie: ..bringing things together doesn’t give you emergent properties.. bringing them together in particularly elegant ordered way does..
even though complexity.. not enough order in complexity for emergent relationship.. not just heaps.. coming together..
why key that we see key data as self talk.. let each individual decide.. everyday.. what their attraction/allure/curiosity is.. then facil that..
perhaps.. just temp facil.. so we can get back to natural emergence.. or maybe with so many people.. will keep needing mech to facil the elegance..
6 min – the diff between a whole and a heap is order.. this means that not every relationship is synergistic.. some relationships are entropic.. they actually create the opposite direction of new emergent properties.. they *destroy some properties that were already there..
so not just relationship but diff kinds of relationship that max synergy
so.. perhaps entropy maxes synergy as well.. no?
7 min – also important .. get synergy when bring diff (not same) properties together.. so we’re very interested in having deep synergistic relationships with differences.. that lead to fundamentally new emerging properties
prejudice decreases as discrimination increases.. ness
so .. not just net complexity.. ordered complexity.. elegantly ordered complexity.. then when you get a new property.. universe selects for that.. some property that offers some evolutionary advantage to that system..
isn’t the evolutionary advantage that we’re alive/awake.. and open to change.. dancing with change..? thinking that we trip ourselves up thinking one thing or another is an advantage..
8 min – universe is actually selecting for more differences/diversity.. and more synergistic combos across those differences.. more diversity and more unification across the diversity.. more agency and symbioses at the same time is what defines the era of evolution
9 min – so fundamental thing is emergence.. how much new arises.. and that’s what evolution selects for..
10 min – new best story: we have an evolutionary universe that doesn’t require a creator but is also not just random.. highly improbable set of movements that get us here.. but there’s a set of properties that give us a self-organizing.. rather than agent creative principle universe … with that story on the physical.. also have the evolution of consciousness structures themselves.. move from reptilian nervous to increased complexity of a mammalian.. and then a neocortical and then a prefrontal system.. you move from the kinds of sentience that map to that.. pain/pleasure at reptilian to emotional to cognition to abstraction.. so we have a universe that’s moving in the direction of not only more elegance.. but greater depths of consciousness itself..
11 min – this reifies meaning in a very interesting way… with our capacity for abstraction.. we can not just think about our experiential self at the moment but we can think about ourselves in abstract terms.. we can think about time abstractly.. *allows us to understand evolution itself.. how we got here.. and then how to envision a future.. **more beautiful/interesting..and then ***be part of that creative process..
*what if that doesn’t matter so much..? what if that binds us too much..? gets us to miss.. truly **emergent ***emergence..?
worth noting.. our prefontal cortex and process of abstraction is a pretty new phenom..
?. is it new..? or is the tech making us able to see it clearer (if we were really living) what’s new..
and also very powerful.. and when you have a new phenom that’s very powerful.. you’re not going to know how to use it that well.. and its applications will be destructive until you figure it out
hmm.. i don’t know.. thinking holmgren indigenous law.. thinking we already know.. just needs to listen deeper
so we can think about the future as worry.. the past as regret.. the self abstractly… in terms of negative self comparison.. then we have spiritual ideals emerge that basically say that this is all bad.. mind and ability for abstraction is bad.. we should not think about the future at all..
i kind of agree.. but not for that reason.. more worried that we’re missing us by overthinking the future.. predictions/stats.. et al.. thinking we even know us now..
12 min – or past.. and just be in moment.. and be like animals and children.. see how happy they are…. but it’s a regressive spirituality..
oh my.. missing rev of everyday life.. sounds like an oppressive spirituality.. no train man.. no train..
that is actually rejecting the fundamental novel human capability that emerged.. learn how to use it well.. for its evolutionary purposes.. in a fundamentally evolving universe..
if we learn how to use it well.. then we say.. how can we learn from the past.. *how the universe works..
ability to see *that falls apart if we’ve been sleeping cogs.. et al
to be able to *imagine a future in an omni considerate way.. that has fundamentally **less suffering and ***higher quality of life across all meaningful/quality of life metrics for all life
i think you mean *predict.. because i’m thinking most of the **suffering has come from this predictive/oppressive/consensus/way ness.. ie: us not letting go of defining ***higher quality ness for others/self.. turning it all into supposed to ness.. (not intentionally and not consciously)
how can we apply all that learning now to help create that world..
and in doing so we stop just being a part of the whole.. but in our ability to think about the whole and the direction of the whole we can actually become an agent for the whole..
now.. you’re negating what (you earlier said) synergy and emergence are.. ie: cell is living.. made up of non livings.. et al.. you’re saying (sounds like anyway) parts know on own.. rather than like before.. new thing..emergence.. happens when parts don’t know/have it
i think this is huge.. because us thinking we’re agents of whole.. in the way you are describing.. keeps us thinking we have to direct this.. keeps us from letting go of control.. i think this is why we have not yet gotten to equity.. huge
ie: from earlier: emergence: something new arises that wasn’t here before.. how do you have a cell that respirates made up of molecules.. that none of them respirate..2 min – synergy (whole that’s greater than sum of its parts) and emergence (what is that greater) .. how would we possibly give agency to this..? knowledge to this..? if we think we can.. we oppress our potential.. no..? we have to let go.. and just not know..
13 min – this is huge.. the bee is serving this huge role in evolution by pollinating the plants that make the atmosphere.. that make us.. but they don’t know they’re doing that.. they can’t consciously *figure out how to do it better..
oy.. that’s huge.. perhaps our .. trying to do it better ness.. is what’s getting in the way of our letting go.. ie: enough.. enough ness is what betterness is..
all these years of production.. et al.. we have gotten worse at being alive.. ie: suicide rate.. no…?
13 min – but *we actually have the capability at looking at what the whole story is and identifying .. the whole evolutionary universe brought me about and then woke up to itself in me..
i don’t know.. and i certainly don’t think .. (say we could.. ).. *the story we’re seeing now is really us.. and it seems.. the only way to cure that is for 7 bn plus of us .. to wake up.. not to train/learn to get better for evolution sake.. but to wake up and live life everyday..
let’s not work on a way to figure things out.. let’s work on a nother way that allows 7 bn plus to listen deep enough (to self and others) so they can ongoingly figure things/curiosities/allures out..grok what matters..
so in a meaningful way .. i am actually the evolutionary/impulsive universe awoke to itself in a form that has adequate order of complexity to contemplate that and then get to consciously choose how to participate with it to be in a … not just aboard spaceship earth but crew.. to help steer the direction of evolution and cosmos
i think you lost the magic man..
and so we move from evolution as a mostly unconscious algo process that selects for dominance now to a process that can be mediated by conscious agents.. that can actually *forecast a more beautiful future.. and **select to help create that..
**? select or listen..(fitting via Mary Ann today: ‘I once told time by the moon. Now I listen to it.’ holmgren indigenous law)
14 min – when we don’t id as evolutionaries.. then we id as nouns rather than *verbs
*verbs..? or rulers..?
absence of creation of beauty.. causes all kinds of addiction.. when we all id as evolutionaries.. we obsolete the need of pain for a driver..
15 min – ourselves as emergent property
agreed.. why we have to embrace that.. rather than figure out how to do evolution better
17 min – you have something to offer that no one else has to offer
exactly.. and if we focus on steering the ship.. we miss our own art.. we put our art on hold.. which causes.. addiction.. and a ship.. that’s not us.. maybe it’s efficient for something.. but it’s not us..
18 min – right now we don’t have humanity/civilization.. we have humans bumping..
i’d call that civilization.. and not humanity.. that’s why i don’t think we need to figure the ship out day to day.. we need to disengage from supposed to’s and trust
we are bumping.. but i don’t think it’s because we aren’t civilized.. ie: we’re civilized so much that we kill ourselves more than others..
if we cherry pick from the huge data sets about where humanity is going right now ..we can see that things are exponentially changing.. which means.. you can cherry pick things getting better and worse.. which means.. those things that curves predict aren’t happening.. can’t be getting better and worse
19 min – doesn’t mean things are getting better or worse it means the current system is de stabilizing.. and that means self terminating.. so we then either have a discrete phase shift to a *lower order.. entropic system.. **or the emergence of the higher order system.. that is foundationally diff than the current system we have
? i think we miss it if we 1\ have *higher/lower ness.. and if we 2\ assume*or rather than and entropy and emergence..
20 min – we now have tech capacity to allocate resources
matters little if we aren’t all awake first.. so i would suggest.. we use the tech capacity we now have to facil curiosities first.. ie: other wise have 7 bn people asking for heroin (meaning.. things they don’t really want/need/desire..because we haven’t first created/allowed rat park ness)
phase shift characterized by 3 things:
1\level of social (structure) systems primarily economics (governance).. key shift is moving from differential advantage econ.. defined by private ownership.. valuation based in scarcity.. and differential advantage.. to an econ system that is defined by making sure that the incentive of every agent and well being of every agent in the commons is perfectly aligned with no externality.. understand interconnected ness.. system defined by systemic *advantage for the whole.. not communism/socialism/capitalism.. it’s **something that was not possible before to even anticipate.. but it is ***how your body works.. where doing ****what’s best for whole..
**eudaimoniative surplus ness
perhaps what’s clogging this.. is this idea of *advantage..? i don’t know.. makes me think of how we only know doing not being..
****but.. w/o defining what that is..agent of self.. but not of whole.. rather.. listening to whole..
2\ level of infrastructure.. from a linear materials econ where we extract from the earth.. then turn to trash.. to a closed loop econ.. where the trash is the new stuff.. stop extracting from earth and stop producing waste.. have a closed growth.. negative entropy
3\ level of superstructure (memetic shift) – awareness of all of us as facets of one integrated self evolving reality.. where the well being of everyone/commons are *not meaningfully calculable separate from each other..
*nice.. but i’d love to say.. not meaningfully calculable period.. (ie: no measuring/validating transactions/people)
what’s so interesting.. there used to be such a thing as local problems.. now .. they’re all global issues.. and can’t solve them w/o ie: china..india..
24 min – if we want to not be psycho paths.. there is no defn of success for ourselves that is not defn of success for everything.. when we really take that seriously.. everything changes..
mar 2017 – discussing complex problems
7 min – expo tech gives individual agents and small groups agents capacities they’ve never had before..
9 min – how do we take our new emergent techs and do something with them that is radically diff than we’ve ever done before..
10 min – you can’t have a system that incentivizes speed on things that have to go slowly (just after saying our fiscal ness incentivizes who gets there first.. so don’t take time to think thru)
that brings up incentive in general in complex systems .. of how do you get a bunch of individual cells/algae/whatever to work together to a super org rather than compete with each other.. you have to change the behavioral dynamics from competitive coop .. you have to change all the things that affect behavioral dynamics..
11 min – as long as we have any systems of incentive
14 min – cannot legislate against incentives long term.. if you make a law that says.. illegal to do this but still profitable to do this.. the companies can always move hq to another country
15 min – any solving thru regulation where incentives are mis aligned.. has never and will never work.. temp blip.. that’s it
ie: if we want a world w/o war.. we can’t have any incentive for war.. and we have to have incentive for .. collab/coop/etc
which we already have in our hearts.. buried deep down.. so .. question becomes.. how to uncover.. and keep on uncovering.. that
16 min – can you have freedom from war as long as we have zero sum game dynamics (ie: property ownership incentivizes competition) .. no.. so not only have to get rid of for profit military industrial complex.. you have to get rid of zero sum game..
17 min – which means you put all the resources into the exact wrong things
any system of differential advantage.. finite games that are zero sum.. which means any private balance sheets.. scarce resources.. competing for scarce resources and you possess them rather than have access to them.. that leads to ongoing progression to clusterfuck
18 min – so basically.. since private balance sheets we’ve had.. basically.. wars over resources..
stop measuring transactions..
19 min – so we’ve been on a trajectory toward this (global destruction by any means) as long as we’ve been on private balance sheets.. which means.. we’d been individual agents that had not yet cohered into any super org.. at point where we have to cohere or die.. so..
how do you get all the agents to align their agency
how do you make sure that the incentive of every agent is as close to perfectly aligned with the well being of every other agent of the commons as possible..
20 min – economics sets right at the intersection of world view (what do we value) and infrastructure (how do we meet our physical needs in relation to the physical planet.. the extension of ourselves that lead to the adaptive capacity of the group)..
because it’s how we codify value systems in a value equation.. what are we actually going to ascribe value and infer power to
21 min – ie: air.. enough of it.. everyone can have access to it.. so worth nothing.. so no econ incentive to not ..pollute it.. if there’s a resource there’s not much of.. then i want to own it.. even if that only provides symbolic advantage
what does it mean.. the commons has no balance sheet that is respected..
22 min – so we have to move our world view.. social systems.. and infrastructure holistically the next self-stabilizing complex up.. so what we’re interested in is .. what are the necessary/sufficient activities/transforms that have to happen in each of those areas to lead to a new self stabilizing dynamic that is antifragile in the presence of all the dynamics we’ll be facing
23 min – so in order to move up.. we can define the high level criteria of what has to transform in each of those categories and how they inter-affect each other.. and we can define all of them in terms of closing causal feedback loops that have been opened
feedback loop ness
ie: infrastructure.. have linear materials econ .. converting living ecosystem into dead zones and trash
24 min – so have to close that loop – where trash becomes basis to make new stuff.. continuous closed loop cycles..
up cycle ness
..that is post growth.. meaning.. it doesn’t require growth.. stable w/o more net add ins.. so doesn’t require input of new atoms.. new energy and new patterns happen
25 min – complex adaptive systems are defined by closed causal feedback loops (every organism is defined by capacity to sense environment and self.. sense making.. actuator capacity) ..and massive parallel processing
26 min – a lot of evolutionary disadvantage to sense stuff.. that we couldn’t act on.. we’d be freaked out
or if we acted and couldn’t in turn sense the effect.. we’d have no way of knowing if action was adaptive
27 min – as humans.. creating tools that extended our capacities.. as our tools grew we started to break open that feedback loop.. so to now.. fist is extended to entire military complex.. capacity to go pick something.. extended to entire industrial complex.. yet.. can no longer sense (too much info et al) how it is effecting rest of system.. so .. our sensory input we can’t actually make sense of
28 min – and to the degree we can make sense of things (because we’ve also extended our capacity of computation to make sense of stuff).. if we get ie: climate change is real.. we don’t have enough to act upon it.. so basically..
we have broken open our info processing systems.. and that is core to why we’re unadaptive..
so we have to close the incentive loop.. so that we sense how we effect each other..
when our capacity to affect each other was not existential (relating to existence).. the idea of winning a win/lose game makes sense.. ie: let’s make sure our military is better than theirs and we can actually win this thing
29 min – win/lose games at our level of power are all lose/lose games.. so basically win/lose has become an obsolete game theoretic model.. now we either have win/win or we have lose/lose and we have no space inbetween..
it’s not that they weren’t true before.. it’s that they were true at a certain level of power that’s not true anymore.. and so..
we have to figure out the win/win games..
let’s try this: a nother way
where any one’s incentive/advantage is tied to collective advantage
30 min – close loop:
1\ infra – materials econ
2\ human incentive – incentive of all well-being of other in commons perfectly aligned
3\ world view – defn of self and of everything else on the biosphere are not definable outside of relationship with each other..
31 min – win/lose games require sense of separate selves.. as soon as we have the idea of self as an emergent property of everything.. then i can’t get ahead at the expense of that which my life is fundamentally interconnected to
but we could just say.. if you succeed at any of those you succeeded.. because you can only succeed at any of those by all of them succeeding..
if we align the incentive of every agent with the well-being of every other agent in the commons.. and we succeed at that..
can’t do that w/o right infra
infra that can actually measure the balance sheet of the commons
no.. no measuring of transactions.. no
garden of eden – the transition – complex dynamics – july 2017
jordan – from dave snowden 10 yrs ago (1\ simple 2\ complicated 3\ complex 4\ chaos)
..simple enough for kid to get
becoming experts and managing complicated systems.. that no single person could.. frames what we do.. what we are good at doingcomplicated vs complex.. complicated: although phase space very large it doesn’t change.. in complex system.. things do change.. all the stuff we really care about are complex..and a big part of the game we’ve been playing last 15000 yrs.. has been trying to use complicated stuff to manage complex stuff.. impossible..in a complex system.. things that are causation.. are almost impossible to figure out.. can’t make prediction with precisionone of big problems.. when you have a complicated system.. trying to manage the complex system.. as the complex system changes.. the complicated system has to become more complicated..
till it becomes so complicated you can’t manage it.. till it does something dave snowden calls: takes a journey thru chaos..
and chaos is the 4th kind of system.. and we don’t like chaos.. but how it works.. have to break down and go thru chaos to come back into authentic complexity
perhaps our job right now is twofold:1\ figure out how to position ourselves so that we can in fact endure the chaos.. possibly even be antifragile to the chaos and use the chaos to build something very positive..
2\ do what we can now to envision what a future looks like that embraces complexity authentically..
daniel: more complicated blueprints are not going to get us there.. our motivational tool kit has to change.. as long as homeless ness is ok.. and killing is ok.. is it fair to call that civilization yet.. maybe not aspired to it yet.. maybe birth of civilization is what is on the other side if we navigate towards that..
via michel fb share – 1 hr audio oct 2018 – Meta Existential Risk – Creating a Humanist Blockchain Future
7 min – importance of adding to your goal – and not cause harm.. ie: poverty.. but in doing that cause climate damage – worse for everyone long term
10 min – limits of goals.. because always embedded
16 min – when you define a complex system as something that has an emergent property beyond the modeling of it
29 min – take tech that already exists and sucks.. and use if for good.. lower risk for weaponization.. may still have externalities.. but
37 min – not that problems are diff in kind but in magnitude and speed.. we’ve only ever built civilization that have collapsed.. but not whole world
41 min – we have to focus on the meta level.. trying to keep addressing symptoms w/o understanding what’s causing them isn’t very helpful..t
50 min – in nature.. pre humans.. we see micro rivalry ie: lion and gazelle.. yet whole species depend upon each other.. how does micro rivalry lead to macro interdependence
51 min – capitalism – competition for the bigger good is jibberish.. as soon as we developed tech we changed the fundamental systems dynamics..
53 min – tool evolving.. and the abstract ness of ie: sharpness.. that abstraction capacity seems to have emerged..changing environ radically.. (this is heart of whole thing).. evolution is a kind of creative process.. mutation and selection.. we find that process happens slowly (not by design – it’s an unconscious process) which can include neg evolution.. at least in nature.. there is a symmetrical coupling of rates of power change.. ie: lions better at killing and gazelles faster .. so don’t get asymmetries of power.. this is the essential criteria that makes micro rivalry lead to macro symbiosis.. the symmetrical power binding
57 min – ie: virus so lethal that it kills the host.. evolution itself has this evolution power binding.. nature doesn’t select for individuals of a species or even species.. it seems to over the short term but as you zoom out for the long term it selects for self stabilizing ecological niches..t
meadows undisturbed ecosystem
58 min – things that make it thru long term are these radical antifragile symbiotic systems..t
as soon as we developed tech.. we broke the power symmetry.. ie: human to human: how much more destructive power does a putin or a trump have over you; human to nature: forest destruction .. faster than nature can regen
1:00 – evolution leads to radical interdependent complexities.. tech allows selection over short term of something that’s independent of its relationship with the rest of the whole.. as soon as we get that those are fundamentally.. mathematically diff..
1\ design gives us complicated systems that are all fragile.. finite number of parameters..
2\ complexity.. antifragility.. happens by self org..
we don’t really know how to do that but we do know how to debase it.. t.. we know how to have the complicated debase the complex.. the substrate on which it depends.. that’s how we get increasing fragility until we have collapse
perhaps self org comes thru listening.. which 1\ we’ve gotten worse at (holmgren indigenous law) and 2\ now there’s so much noise.. that perhaps.. we could use tech (as it could be: to listen to all the voices.. in order to augment (back our) interconnectedness)
1:01 – why this matters.. tech itself is a fundamentally new creative process.. breaks power symmetry.. makes micro rivalry turn into macro rivalry (rather than macro symbiosis).. as a result.. instead of increasing antifragility.. we get increasing fragility toward inevitiable collapse
what that means is relationship between creative process.. tech creating complicated system.. and relationship between evolutionary.. complex.. is what we need to focus/work on..
1:02 – we need a new process by which new stuff comes into existence that is not by design or evolution .. it’s a 3rd thing.. we’re not designing parts.. individual pieces of techs.. and we’re not waiting for anti rivalry to macro level thru evolutionary process.. t.. we are actually designing.. self stabilizing complex ecological niches.. and designing in the relationship between the complicated and the complex
yeah.. that.. ie: a nother way
1:03 – that.. evolution by design.. is a diff math process.. than evolution or design.. design is all about the understanding of causation.. science is understanding of causation and tech is tool for that.. but our basis for choice is still coming from (complicated).. we need a theory of choice beyond..t ie: game theory..
spinach or rock ness
mitigating existential risks: https://neurohacker.com/mitigating-existential-risks/
an underlying problem behind many of man-made existential risks is our collective loss of ability to make sense of the world
44 min – the lure of becoming.. we id as part of the evolutionary impulse.. alleviate the need for pain as a driver.. human nature has the capacity to transcend much of what human behavior has been so far
53 min – the coming not characterized by competitions.. the metric we are optimizing is love which requires all the complex metrics.. unabstracting things.. what brings anything together are attractive forces.. that leads to synergies..
54 min – (actually) not a metric .. can’t put a number on it.. anything attracted.. the evolutionary impulse.. the eros/agape energy.. participating w the energy of the universe.. there is no destination.. unconditional caring for.. for me to love you i have to seek to understand you.. seeing your uniqueness i want everything for you..
56 min – the becoming and the being impulses become the deepest drivers of the inner states and macro systems of the future..
interviewer: how to wake those running things up to this
57 min – if don’t have ability to shut empathy off.. can’t go up ladder of success.. esp if into financial services.. when you have a system that rewards.. being w complicit w system.. is power w/in a win/lose structure..
58 min – if understand can’t win.. realize need to learn a new game..
59 min – we don’t eve research best things in meds because not profitable
the world we can create is better for even the ones at the top now.. we can build a world that is better for everyone.. all they’s lose is the differential of how much better they have it now than others.. but they’ll lose that anyone
and.. at best.. the diff is only amt of money/things.. which aren’t filling the right holes..
@dthorson: I predict we will soon see the rise of emergent self-governing collectives organized around shared problems or purpose. To participate in these collectives will require a high degree of sovereignty.
am thinking that would save a ton of energy.. by creating diff collectives..
Sovereignty relates to the capacity for and demonstration of good (omni-positive) choice-making.
We can define sovereignty more formally as the product of sentience (one’s ability to sense the world), intelligence (one’s ability to make sense of the world), and agency (one’s ability to act on and in the world).
so.. what if with that definition.. curiosity is what creates/sustains sovereignty.. what if that’s why we’re missing it.. by not trusting/facilitating individual daily curiosity..
@dthorson: Ah! I think I’m getting you now. Yes, I think curiosity is a big part of what leads to sovereignty. I personally prefer ‘eros’ as a term for what I imagine you’re pointing to.
In that sense sovereignty is an emergent property of our deep love affair with life.
april 2020 – 90 min video – Daniel Schmachtenberger on Sense-making with additional footage – via jordan fb share – with amanda joy ravenhill (@amandaravenhill) – exec director of buckminster institute [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xecdaZhH4Nw]
5 min – science exists in the domain of the measurable and replicable.. there are a lot of things that are real and unmeasurable.. so formally outside domain of science.. but that doesn’t mean that any claim about them isn’t true.. there are still methods of sense making that are going to be more reliable than others
reliability would happen most if we were all free..
6 min – and then replicable.. things we can measure but can’t replicate.. not a controlled situation
so science exists in 1 of 4 quadrants (measurable,replicable) in which real includes all ..so when talk about sense making we’re including all of them.. so science is necessary but not sufficient.. and bad epistemology when collapse real to objective
7 min – real and objectives are not synonyms.. bad to use reductionism w/o sensemaking and bad to reject reductionism in overly sweeping sense
when looking at social situations..and trying to make sense of politics/econ.. there’s a lot of things can’t measure ie: co’s trademarks/patents, kept obscured
red flag we’re doing it wrong
8 min – so sensemaking of what’s actually going on .. and how do we know .. and how do we get enough confidence to inform right action.. and our basis for action based on the consequentiality.. this is how we start to think about what the topics of sensemaking are
major red flags we’re doing it wrong – all over those words.. dang..
9 min – the essence of good sensemaking is earnest ness and the desire to understand what’s happening
we’ve got to let go of thinking we need to know things.. we’re missing out on living..
so far.. your sensemaking described here is the same song.. just w diff accent
earnest ness that wants to know what is rather than believe something in particular.. and wants to do work it takes to actually come to understand rather than jump to premature beliefs
host: on the importance of humility and curiosity.. of not being attached.. being committed to something but not attached..
10 min – so curiosity and humility and earnestness .. these words all go together here
sir arthur eddington: ‘science is the ernest endeavor to put into order the facts and experiences’ (daniel quoted it as ‘facts of experience’)
so what are the facts of experience.. how do we know.. what am i experiencing .. what are others experiencing.. can i trust that the they’re recording the facts of their experience in adequate way and how do we put into order some sensibility of that
if earnestness and depth of curiosity are essence of science/epistemology then bias would be the enemy of it.. from: wanting to be part of in group; if want to be seen as in the know – ego; financial probably main thing that messes science up.. because someone is funding the science;..
13 min – we have less real science in the world than i would like to see
science of whales in sea world
14 min – a lot of people seeking security conflate that they way to get security is certainty about the nature of reality.. fundamentalist religion is a classic ie
so is this.. no?
security: gershenfeld something else law
15 min – if someone is not friends w the unknown/uncertainty.. want to have faith even if not grounded.. very easy to have a bias toward certainty.. so people quoting science.. but they don’t see it as a process of knowing but as a body of facts.. plugging in science rather than religious set of certainty
18 min – other end.. people hold onto too much uncertainty.. ie: there is no truth.. this is jibberish.. recognizing social science is subject to bias is very diff than chemistry
20 min – host: where are we exhibiting colonialism.. but also not throwing out baby w bath water.. that science as methodology rather than truth.. ie: design thinking at fuller institute
21 min – i can measure a chemical pretty well.. & physical properties will conform really well. i can’t measure what people feel et al.. then i have to infer a whole lot.. so total complexity of social science is way more complex.. can’t measure.. so that was overstepping of what could be in domain of science
so while true there’s a lot of stuff we have excessive certainty of where we shouldn’t .. it’s also true there’s a lot that we pretend we don’t have certainty on some things than we should.. ie: better epistemic purposes for coming to confidence in something.. so for particular topic.. what is appropriate epistemic process to come to confidence.. to inform certain kinds of action
wrong focus .. we’ll just keep on spinning our wheels..
mufleh humanity law: we have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity– Luma Mufleh
23 min – a mature relationship to certainty is that we’re comfortable having certainty where it’s warranted knowing it’s never 100%.. also comfortable in uncertainty.. otherwise won’t think clearly
24 min – we also want to endeavor to gain certainty that can inform *right action.. responsibility to affect the things we care about in the world
we have lost the purpose of living.. not about right actions.. responding to data.. it’s about listening deeper to our gut.. and trusting that..
i don’t want to be attached to what i think is right.. but i do want to be attached to understanding reality as clear as i can so that i can act effectively in the service of the good
then let go.. understanding (here) is a roadblock.. let go
25 min – ie: if i’m working toward ending hunger.. i want to be able to say i’m failing.. so i can do something diff.. because i am result oriented here.. not just process.. i actually care about the people being fed or virus getting solved.. so want to make sure my understanding is being effective
missing the center of the problem.. it’s not about hunger.. we have the means to go deeper.. ie: maté basic needs.. so that we know enough ness et al.. and quit creating conditions of scarcity/ineq et al in the first place
26 min – so best.. look at what are places most mess up.. ie: probably sensemaking badly if..
host: yeah.. esp in this crisis.. part of it is making the tragedy worse
bias to risk at large.. (virus, climate, et al).. i’m going to oversimplify.. easy to have bias that we could call positivity.. that doesn’t want things to be really bad.. so call out as alarmist.. and see there will be some innovation to solve it.. positivity worth having: committed to understanding so we could make things better.. applying sensemaking in empowered/constructive way.. but not going to be making things better if not seeing clearly..
29 min – any bias that wants us to be in no pain.. because don’t feel like can hold it all.. so any idea that makes us not feel bad.. so when people gasping for air.. i’m sad for them.. mad.. at people making choices that could have prevented it.. and wouldn’t want to feel any other way.. i see this rampantly.. before good sensemaking.. because they want things to work.. be better.. so.. won’t be part of making things better..
32 min – goes w/o saying.. the opposite bias as bad.. et al.. but typically want to do worst case scenario to stop it.. but know it’s a scenario.. so want positivity geared toward action.. not sensemaking
34 min – host: a lot of people want to make sense of things (virus) what’s happening and what order..
35 min – deeper hunger that does the hard work that endeavors toward.. ie: not just scrolling fb feed.. there’s an input/output equation that has to happen.. being able to understand a topic means have to do work it takes
36 min – so then another bias.. cause can’t know it all.. offload complexity to authorities.. some people 1\ think most in authority are trustworthy 2\ untrustworthy.. both silly.. and keep us from sensemaking
37 min – can find people who are experts and saying opposite things.. you actually can .. you have the benefit of seeing where experts are converging/diverging and what the basis of divergence is.. and possibly less bias than them.. no ego/money tie.. could see nature of bias
makes little diff if all about whales in sea world
so i’d say.. we have the benefit of trying something diff
38 min – most common bias.. attention sucks.. memes.. et al.. that’s what political/military theory is all about.. how to conspire with some to convince others
41 min – we should not wrongly assume that we are more civilized than we are.. we also shouldn’t assume that every time something doesn’t make sense that it’s malice.. assuming either of those.. you probably aren’t thinking
42 min – so notice in your bias.. what things tend to bother you
(this whole section on pharmacology.. to emergency authorizations.. to borders/quarantine.. masks.. et al)
1:00 – tools to use: all of them for the things they’re good at.. ie: network/graph theory, stats, math, deep learning, 1st principles, analytics, crowdsourcing, induction, .. have to know which for which situation.. if that seems like too much.. should just accept you won’t be able to understand nature of reality and won’t be able to make good choices
dang man.. that’s just for whales in sea world
nobody has to train.. if we get out of sea world.. ‘good choices’ becomes irrelevant
1:01 – this becomes the thinking of a child.. wanting to be able to depend on a parent
how people were as children.. they way they related to parents as kids.. often reflects somewhat in bias they have toward authority later.. so people that did better w school/parents.. think current authorities trustworthy and vice versa.. those are interesting things to look at
1:03 – now need to do therapy to inner child trauma and hijack adult mindset..
effective choice making.. psychological work becomes part of good sensemaking
choice making is not living..
let go man.. ie: curiosity over decision making
1:06 – where child psych process.. wanting to be taken care of.. anything they do from there won’t help.. only thing they can do is address their own psychology.. in order to then act from their own sensemaking.. i really want to see people showing up in an adult way.. there’s work that it takes..
yeah.. all of us.. but i think you have it backwards.. we need to get back to the not yet scrambled ness
1:08 – i want people to show up as adults.. ie: skype therapy sessions, journaling, …
same w ed crisis.. no ed for some time.. or re invent schooling.. same w healthcare, et al.. have to be in right place to be recapsitated
1:10 – the people who can come calm and clear.. are the people who will lead.. but you can’t pretend (wisdom in seeking counsel)
it needs to be all of us.. not leaders and followers..
sorry .. just seems you’re setting yourself up to be the calm leader.. i wonder if you could hear me if we had a convo
unconditionality is key to waking us all up
1:13 – communities of practice and their bias.. biasing towards analysis over synthesis .. wants to reject wrong ideas.. there’s a need for synthetic/creative as well as analytic
1:15 – the simple econ models are always wrong.. then suggests to do rabbit hole studying on wikipedia..
not the point of humanity
1:16 – look up all the words you’re wanting to say again.. look it up first.. (in regard to covid)
1:18 – we are creating the info ecology for each other.. not good to throw trash on ground.. before you share.. at least do enough research to see if something is not grounded..
1:26 – desire to understand more of reality is a cognitive intimacy.. something profoundly beautiful in that.. but when wanting also to help others.. so basis of where energy to do the work comes from is actually love
1:28 – fear is not opposite of love.. fear is a reaction to love.. it is sourced in it.. can only be afraid of something i don’t want to be harmed.. no fear means no love/care binding them.. ie: suicide.. fear is a response to something i love and care about
1:29 – derives energy from the depths of what it cares about
anger.. sadness.. also comes from love.. so don’t think of any of these emotions as bad.. think of it as something i care about.. trace it back to that