schmachtenberger meta law
we have to focus on the meta level.. trying to keep addressing symptoms w/o understanding what’s causing them isn’t very helpful
from Daniel Schmachtenberger here:
1 hr audio oct 2018 – Meta Existential Risk – Creating a Humanist Blockchain Future
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
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
simone on fractal ness
via seth.. on organism as fractal ness
What kind of org?
Maybe you work with an organization. They have systems and charts and boxes.
But the very nature of an organization is that someone developed it, figured it out and has to approve its changes. After all, it’s organized.
Perhaps you work with an organism instead. An organism constantly changes. The cells develop, die and are replaced. It adapts to the current environment or goes away.
If you engage with a culture, if you’re part of an organism, you’ll do better understanding the system that it lives in. The org chart is insufficient.
And of course, organisms tend to be more resilient than organizations.
not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake..
a nother way