johannes on metamodern science
Johannes Jager on metamodern science via michel bauwens tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/1826190107348754527]:
I strongly recommended this introduction to
* What is metamodern science ?
https://whatisemerging.com/opinions/toward-a-metamodern-science
Really worth reading and pondering: “The future lies in diversity, in pluralism. There are many ways to know the world. But some of those are better than others in our particular situation. Only some of them do the job. Our pluralism must be justified, not flabby. We only retain what works and discard the rest of our experiments — in theory as in practice.
which is flabbier.. oi.. unjustifiable strategy ness et al
This is how metamodern science reconstructs our knowledge of the world in a maximally robust way. This is how we regain our grip to face the oncoming storm.”
but the article is all about letting go of control ness.. so ..? regain grip?
notes/quotes:
TOWARD A METAMODERN SCIENCE – The Machine View is Blocking Our Vision – 2024
I’M A FREELANCE ACADEMIC. Not because I failed to become a tenured professor, but because I prefer to work this way. The traditional academic career trajectory simply cannot give me the freedom I need to pursue my peculiar research interests and ideas, which revolve around the vision of a new metamodern science for the 21st century.
for that.. need to try tech as nonjudgmental expo labeling to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs
intellectness as cancerous distraction
ie: imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling)
Our first and foremost task as metamodern scientists is to ground ourselves again in a proper relationship with the world, to regain our grip on reality, to restore a wholesome and harmonious agent-arena relation. This requires deep change, not only in the kind of science we engage in, but in how we see science itself. Metamodern science is a profoundly philosophical project: there is no good science, and no good application of science, without the proper metaphysical backing.
oi
I was originally trained as an experimental biologist, and ran a laboratory that studied the evolution of embryonic development in insects, while also learning to be a mathematical modeler and a philosopher of science. I’ve always been curious about the basic nature of life, and how it differs from nonliving matter..t: the dynamic organization of cells and organisms, how far we can capture it with formal models, and what this all means for open-ended evolutionary innovation.
that is key – need organism as fractal ness.. which is in accord with graeber unpredictability/surprise law and graeber can’t know law.. et al.. need to let go of proper/regaining-grip ness.. of fear of flabby ness
rowson mechanical law et al
These are big questions — *among the biggest we can possibly ask — and they are absolutely central to our understanding of ourselves and our relationship as human beings to the world..t And yet they remain curiously understudied and undervalued. Or maybe I should say: we are trying to study them using the wrong kinds of tools, and therefore fail to make **proper sense of them. That’s why we tend to either declare them solved (although they clearly are not), or to ignore them altogether.
*deeper need to facil itch-in-8b-souls for the dance to dance
**let go
The reason is straightforward: these questions challenge one of modern science’s (and society’s) fundamental assumptions: that the world is one big mechanism — some kind of machine. *This assumption is crucial if we are to maintain the illusion of a world we can predict, manipulate, and control at our discretion. However, it is **not needed (nor actually desirable) for doing good science.
*aka: for sea world
**rather .. cancerous distraction
The machine view of the world is a double-edged sword if there ever was one. *On the one hand, the mechanistic science it enables lays the foundation for our comfort, health, and safety by providing us with the best knowledge a limited human being could hope for. On the other hand, it is a view that is **turning toxic as we now face the end of our brief historical interlude of carefree abundance.
*oi.. who is legit comfortable, healthy, safe?.. none of us
**always been toxic
The underlying problem is simple: the world is not a machine. It is not even like a machine.
again.. rowson mechanical law et al..
In reality, we interfere with intricate and interwoven processes whose complex nature we do not even begin to understand. Whatever we do, we inevitably run into unanticipated and unwanted consequences of our actions. Take the uncontrolled release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, or the unbridled imposition of artificial “intelligence” on our society.
nothing compared to the ongoing spiritual violence of socrates supposed to law et al
And yet, we continue to interfere like there is no tomorrow. In fact, our pace is accelerating exponentially, spiraling out of control, and many modernist thinkers applaud this as a good thing. Beating the competition is everything, even as we are engaged in a global race to the bottom.
By now, the side effects of modernity are threatening to overwhelm and overturn the progress we have worked so hard to achieve. *Our illusion of safety and comfort is crumbling, our health and life expectancies declining, our future in jeopardy. Those who want to see can clearly see it.
*always been crumbling.. need gershenfeld something else law.. bachelard oikos law.. et al
The only response that modernism has to this dire state of affairs is to accelerate and push its way through the coming global crisis. Technology will save us all … somehow. We’ll conquer the galaxy, upload and immortalize our brains, and take charge of our own evolution. Or so the story goes.
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us.. ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition
ie: imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us
We urgently have to recognize that reality as a whole is beyond our grasp and control, and we can only get limited access to it in a way that is framed by our minds, shaped by our biases, molded by our habits of thought. Hubris has obscured our limitations. It is time for some humility again.
Science and the knowledge it generates are human social constructs. They are situated in a particular historical and cultural context. There can be no longer any doubt about that.
To find this way, we urgently need to reorient ourselves, to (re)construct a science beyond the age of machines. This reconstruction will be radical, from the philosophical ground up. Nothing right now is quite the way it seems — or as it should be, for that matter.
black science of people/whales law
We impose our concepts on the world. We realize what is relevant for us. No other understanding is possible. This is not a bug, but a feature of how we get to know the world: scientific knowledge is what robustly enables us to act in coherent ways, to be at home in our universe.
oi
*And science is still by far the best guide we have to find our way around. But the world is a large and confusing place. Few of our problems are well-defined. And, unfortunately, cues to solve these problems are scarce, ambiguous, and often misleading. This is the true meaning of complexity.
Metamodern science focuses on dynamic organization: now things interact, not just what they are made of. It pushes its own boundaries, seeks out new differences that make a difference. What it does not do is impose artificial limits on our freedom to investigate. It welcomes the unknown, focuses on the question, not the answer.
if only
At the same time, it despises relativism, whateverism, and woo. We need our new science to be more rigorous and solid than our old one!..t Our guide to reality must be firmly grounded, our maps useful guides through a territory that can be treacherous, even lethal, at times.
this is an ie of not letting go enough to get to the unconditional ness of left to own devices ness
The future lies in diversity, in pluralism. There are many ways to know the world. But some of those are better than others in our particular situation. Only some of them do the job. Our pluralism must be justified, not flabby. We only retain what works and discard the rest of our experiments — in theory as in practice.
oi oi oi..
______
______
______
______
_______
______-
be you. 