Life Itself
2nd Renaissance Study Group - Jan 2024 - Metacrisis Conversations #1022
Replies: 8 comments 11 replies
-
2024-01-29 - Session 1AgendaPresent: Elisa, Simon, Nicholas, Ben, Rufus, Lauren, Matthew, Alex, Jonas, Christopher, Isabela, Matt, Kyle, Bella NotesCheck-ins
Themes, theories & conceptsUnstructured discussionMatthew
Simon
Isabela
Christopher
Alex
Christopher
Rufus
Simon
Nicholas
Alex
Jonas
Matt
Christopher
Matthew
Simon
Elisa
Isabela
Lauren:
Christopher
Check-out
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for taking notes and sharing them @elisapaka 🙏. I like the point @rufuspollock draws attention to in check-out: that both the material/content of the study group and the form/experience of the study group (as an experience of collective sensemaking) offer something to reflect on and learn from. It sounds as though this is already happening a bit: from other parts of the notes it seems as though people were reflecting in some way on what the form/experience of sensemaking in the study group was like. I would find it interesting perhaps at the end of this study group series to hear more reflections specifically on people's experience of the sensemaking process in these sessions! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
definitely, thanks! And maybe not surprisingly, I see this as yet again echoing the left/right distinction, with the content associated more with left hemisphere and reflection on the process more with right |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
WhatsApp messages between this meeting and the next one2024-01-29 15:42 - Christopher: One of the late comments was around escaping LH dominance by encouraging a culture of living with and accepting a plurality of viewpoints. I think a return to living in community has an aspect of this. 2024-01-29 15:51 - Matt: Is LH dominance related to individualistic ways of living? Is it a symptom of it, a cause of it or both? 2024-01-29 15:57 - Simon: Nice question Matt! 2024-01-29 16:05 - Christopher: During the call I mentioned the possibility of LH dominance being baked into our language and conventions, like how gender is. Thinking about this there is an example in the conversation: tension (connotation bad e.g. differing viewpoints, polarisation) vs tonos (an emergent synthesis, the tone of a taught string) 2024-01-29 16:37 - Elisa: Hi all, thank you for coming to the first session today, it was great to see so many of you! We didn't talk about the next session, so here is the plan: Same time (15:00-16:30 CET) next Monday, 5th February. Please listen to or read the next section, "Moving into Dialogue" [timestamp 00:39:33 - 01:08:15] (~30 minutes), and bring your questions / reflections to the group. 🪴✨ 2024-01-29 16:43 - P-A: When you say LH, is it a matter of neurophysiology or more of a saying (rational thinking, concepts, language) ? Heart🫀is also lateralized left and I doubt its conventions that produced that effect. Hence my question 🌝 2024-01-29 16:43 - Elisa: The notes from the call can be found in this GitHub discussion thread (where I'll be collating notes from future sessions as well): (that is actually here, now) I've also created a discussion thread for any themes, concepts, theories and questions that come up in the calls (or offline!), as per people's suggestion. You are welcome to comment directly in the thread, and I will try to keep an eye on this chat to add anything that comes up here as well. Here is the link: https://github.com/orgs/life-itself/discussions/1023 2024-01-30 15:21 - Simon: Hi everyone! It just occurred to me that we could use this list to (briefly) share commentary as we work through the next section of the conversation. I thought that might serve to keep the topics alive; to help motivation and depth when listening to or reading the section; and priming the actual conversation… so if you feel moved, please do that here. Putting them here is complementary to and more informal than the other good idea that Elisa mentioned just above, of going straight into the GitHub threads. So choose whichever you feel is more suited. I'm going to put some thoughts here. And, by the way, I've just made a few more corrections, another note, and links from my copy of the transcript. Enjoy! 2024-01-30 15:25 - Simon: Two more quick notes: I've added an extra subheading, which to me flags a fair bit of the content in this upcoming section: “Clarifying the term ‘value’”. And I'd like to offer commiserations for those of us for whom WhatsApp is not their favourite messaging service! Mine neither... 😉 2024-01-31 20:23 - Christopher: An attempt at some sensemaking of us, these calls, and the material we are studying ... Reading though the transcript, it seems many themes are revisited many times and it cycles through context, analysis and proposals. I think it would be more useful for me to discuss it through a series of thematic lenses, rather than moving through it temporally. If you like this idea, I've listed some possible thematic lenses below. 2024-01-31 20:24 - Christopher: Context: antecedents and symptoms
Individual Experience: what living in the metacrisis feels like
Analytic Models: ways of understanding what is happening
Propositions: possible directions to move
2024-01-31 20:26 - Christopher: I imagine on one side our objective goal is around pragmatic solutions to the metacrisis, but on the other side we all have personal story with all this. If people are open to it I'd would also be interested to hear about our relationship to the themes and whether the material presented resonates with our experience. 2024-01-31 20:38 - Christopher: Also I think one of the central concepts is "meaning" and I think it's useful to see if see if we share a common interpretation of what this is. I think meaning is an internal, subjective experience. Iain says "You only know it in the experiencing of it". We can evaluate a context as meaningful if someone is experiencing meaningfulness. 2024-02-01 08:58 - Nicholas: All this meta discussion seems really helpful. Especially good to know that there's somewhere to keep notes beyond the chat in the actual call as I found myself responding to chats rather than listening to speakers. 2024-02-01 09:43 - Rufus: I believe that the more persistent location is this thread in the forum https://github.com/orgs/life-itself/discussions/1023 - but here on whatsapp also works. 2024-02-01 12:02 - Simon: that's essentially the point I was making, @rufuspollock that this is a great place for ephemeral commentary, and GitHub (for those able and willing) is great for anything we might want to refer back to 2024-02-01 14:53 - Simon: I thought it might be helpful to the group study to add paragraph numbers to the text, so I've done that. I think Daniel asks a great question at https://www.simongrant.org/philosophy/2023_metacrisis-conversation.html#p081 and I was a bit dissatisfied with Iain's brush-off that follows, https://www.simongrant.org/philosophy/2023_metacrisis-conversation.html#p082 2024-02-01 15:41 - Nicholas: Wonder if that's a brush-off or a warning that his framing can't provide a good answer for that one. 2024-02-01 19:01 - Simon: Whose framing? 2024-02-01 19:03 - Nicholas: McGilchrist's own. Because he's saying no framing can do everything. 2024-02-01 19:06 - Nicholas: I dunno. 2024-02-01 19:07 - Simon: But he doesn't say that he can't answer, or is unwilling to answer the questions — my reading of “and we can come to those as you've announced, and then we will come to them, I’m sure.” is that he regards the questions as reasonable, but he wants to deal with other matters first. Which seems like a good idea, as his short-term memory seems not to be at its peak (nor is mine any more 😉) 2024-02-01 19:09 - Simon: My disappointment is more to do with my feeling that I share (with Daniel) a keenness to address Daniel's questions, and I would prefer them not to be delayed in favour of other niceties. 2024-02-01 19:14 - Simon: On the other hand, I can see something like your point Nicholas that maybe Iain's modus operandi is not really tuned to addressing (and let's leave aside answering) that kind of question. 2024-02-02 07:42 - Christopher: I agree the question "how does the interior and the exterior relate" is an interesting and important one. Although Iain and John don't directly answer they do give arguments related to it, e.g., we have a biological RH pre-disposition to forming relations based on value and meaning (but for various reasons our relations have become dominated by utilitarian LH relations) and that historically there have been moments where the dominance shifted one way (e.g., Christianity and Roman empire) or the other (nominalism, protestant reformation, scientific revolution etc). I'm not familiar with John's work but he also mentions "hyper-technologies" as a driver. I think the discussion on sociopathy and perspective taking suggests that we have a degree of plasticity which is affected by our context and John's comments about the exodus into the virtual is vaguely comforting in that the desire for meaning and self-transcendence are not totally suppressed. 2024-02-02 07:43 - Christopher: This message was deleted 2024-02-02 07:49 - Christopher: (If I may enter into some of my thoughts on the question, I think another characteristic of the polycrisis is overproduction. I find the the Prosocial.world ideas around multi-level evolution useful here. One part of this is that that group behaviour and culture is affected by the same selection and retention pressures as genetics and another part is the idea that inside a group a selfish individual will have an advantage over altruistic individuals, but under conditions of pressure groups a group composed on altruistic individuals will out-compete groups containing selfish individuals. Obviously to some degree the second part isn't really happening, fair-trade coops don't out-complete exploitative capitalism, but there are historical examples where it did, say the success of the Quaker businesses like Cadbury during the Vicorian-era where customers and suppliers trusted the values of the organisation, or the flourishing and resilience of various family/cultural trading networks (I'm not an expert in this). There was a paper recently, Rice Farming and the Origins of Cooperative Behaviour, which suggested causation of cooperative cultural behaviour from a mode of production which requires trust and cooperation. I know this is not exactly the RH dominance, but the general thread of my argument is that we've passed though an era of resource abundance and conditions which rewarded LH dominance and this shifted the evolutionary pressures on our group behaviour and culture. Another possible thread is that technology and systems have replaced the need for trust and interpersonal values coherence. So, yes external behaviour is affected by the internal, but there are strong exterior forces too). 2024-02-02 10:08 - Martin: While reading and listening to Iain exploring the idea of the Master / Emissary (L/R hemisphere) - I couldn’t help transposing it to a wider context of the society and finding (for me) an even deeper meaning. In the modernity we saw an emergence of a “domain expert” - particularly in the context of scientific and technological advancements. This specialisation was seen as the inevitable path towards solving all problems and challenges. The rise of domain experts was the result of reductionist thinking that saw all problems as complicated systems. Now we know that a lot of them are actually complex systems that cannot be (easily? yet? never?) understood using the narrow beam of reductionism and scientific enquiry. The oversimplification of reality leads to the loss of emergent properties and the failure to properly appreciate interconnectedness of all the other systems in the play. This idea then leads towards the notion of the “Master” - who is someone that can appreciate all the detail (scientific, left brain) stuff, but can easily (intuitively) decide what should be included or excluded - effectively orchestrating the emissaries into holistic perspectives. Now, this again feeds into something that I saw mentioned in the Github discussions - “holding 2 things at once”. This is, IMO, what is called Systems Thinking - and post modernity we’ll see a strong move into this paradigm. The leaders will no longer be frustrated deep dive specialists who simply don’t have capacity to go deeper into the rabbit hole of scientific research, but a capacity in itself - unique talents that go beyond the tunnel vision. This shouldn’t be confused with introverted vs extroverted (in extreme cases - autistic spectrum vs ADHD) even though L/R might as well be related to that. If you find this idea interesting - it would maybe interesting to explore it further because examples of the lack of holistic vision (Master component) are painfully obvious everywhere - I’d say within all the meta-crisis cracks. 2024-02-02 18:16 - Ben: Martin, this is what the French sociologist Edgar Morin has wrote about. I don't think he is very well known or translated outside France unfortunately but he did work for UNESCO years ago - https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000117740. He actually just published an opinion column in Le Monde last week titled "progress in knowledge has led to a regression in thinking". Translated extract:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
2024-02-05 - Session 2Agenda
Present: Simon, Elisa, Lauren, Martin, Dustin, Christopher, Nicholas, Rufus, Alex (briefly) From WhatsApp prior to meeting2024-02-05 09:14 - Dustin: Hi all. Joined a bit late but curious to participate, as this stuff has been on my personal radar for a while. Are the meetings intended to be a weekly thing (ie today at 15:00) or still TBD? 2024-02-05 09:23 - Elisa: Hi Dustin - welcome! The meetings are weekly, so we’re meeting today for the second session at 15:00-16:30 CET. 2024-02-05 09:57 - Gavin: Sending apologies again for today. Mondays are tricky for me, but hope to plug in at some point. Have a good meet. 2024-02-05 10:28 - Elisa: No worries Gavin. Hope to see you in one of the future sessions 😊 2024-02-05 12:07 - Matthew: Also not able to make it today, but wishing everyone a good session 😊 2024-02-05 12:55 - Simon: Thanks @matthewmccarthy11 , it would be good to read your reflections on the second portion of the conversation either at GitHub #1022 or here. 2024-02-05 13:19 - Isabela: Sorry. I too am out only for today. I’m at a Summit this week. Will miss you all! 2024-02-05 13:42 - Nicholas: I was looking forward to it but sadly I might have to drop out too. I will be there next week but I just have too much stuff to catch up on. Or it feels that way anyway 2024-02-05 15:36 - Nicholas: Don't suppose anyone is near enough to Cambridge to come to McGilchrist's talk at Darwin College at 5:30 this Friday? 2024-02-05 15:40 - Lauren: You could also post this in the Life Itself events group to see if anyone in the wider community might fancy it 2024-02-05 15:40 - Nicholas: Also, on the call just now, I promised to send a link to this conversation https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmxv5aZKVOQ 2024-02-05 15:42 - Nicholas: There was something in it about the problems of using sacred values as a strategy to achieve an aim. 2024-02-05 15:48 - Dustin: Open question I'm left with as we logged off... To what do I bind myself in order to create greater positive agency in the world? 2024-02-05 15:51 - Elisa: Great to see those of you who were on the call today! The discussion felt really alive, and I'm left with lots to chew on. For the next session (same time next Monday), please listen to / read the first two sub-sections of Section 3 ("Power, Games and Wisdom") on the transcript: "Bringing in the sacred and empathy", and "More around hemispheres" [timestamp 01:08:15 - 01:57:49] 🙏 2024-02-05 15:54 - Simon: I find this whole area most interestingly challenging. Disclaimer: I identify as a Quaker, and a Christian on terms that make sense to me, which sadly are distinctly not the terms of a lot of evangelism, and certainly not fundamentalist evangelism. How to express these nuances in words? Hard. But happy to talk through with people NotesCheck-ins
Discussion
Check-outsWhat are the alive questions / issues to take forward here? Either next sessions, or as offline research.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Enjoying reading through the notes from these sessions.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
WhatsApp messages between this meeting and the next one2024-02-05 18:03 - Simon: Next session, paragraphs 150 to 221 2024-02-05 18:12 - Catherine: Ah, sounds interesting ! Thanks for sharing 2024-02-05 18:40 - Dustin: Had to think of an entertaining essay related to today's discussion. If we believe that what Schmachtenberger, McGilchrist and Vervaeke are pointing to overlaps substantially with classical "enlightenment" (ignoring the loaded nature of that term / that we may need better psychotechnologies or results than before), and that they buy into the tipping point theory aka "a small % of people make it and we have a chance" McGilchrist (~1:13 / ¶162 in transcript) Then here's an interesting back-of-the-napkin-math article from Vinay Gupta on what it might look like to pay for and scale those efforts in the modern world. 2024-02-05 19:05 - Simon: Have you had any direct contact with Vinay? He is, to say the least, quite a character! 2024-02-05 19:27 - Simon: Just focusing on what Vinay writes about "The Community"… while I do see the point of much of his critique, I would say he dismisses the potential without sufficient care. Many Intentional Communities / Ecovillages people are still living together and thriving. Sure, many don't find their way, but let's take a much more informed look at why the ones that fail do fail. I don't believe it's all about sex, and I suspect that banning sex is a good way for a few, but not many. And bringing "sacred" to the foreground, as much of the rest of the conversation does, what do we all understand, or feel, or sense, around the sacred? Is classifying activities as "sacred" or "profane"/"secular" part of a LH tendency to analyse and reduce? I'm looking for the collective potential in well-connected community life, to act with more wisdom than any single person's Right Hemisphere. Question: what are the individual skills that allow people to be together collectively in a way that this collective wisdom and guidance – mastery if you like – can emerge? 2024-02-05 19:42 - Catherine: Elisa and I are currently writing up a report on a research question very close to the question you articulate at the end there, Simon! Really looking forward to sharing it soon and hearing reflections and comments from anyone who wishes to share 2024-02-05 19:44 - Catherine: Also s/o to Matthew, who was also involved in this earlier on, especially in carrying out some of the interviews 2024-02-05 19:47 - Dustin: I haven’t personally but yea… have heard accounts from friends. What I appreciate about his approach is a certain kind of “so how do we get it done” pragmatism. Not endorsing / agreeing with his views by any means, just remembered the essay and thought it’d be an interesting share. 2024-02-05 19:59 - Dustin: I think you make a very good point re: collective wisdom and what’s needed to get there. Looking forward to the report @catherinet1 2024-02-05 20:30 - Martin: And I’d rephrase the question - what is it that stops otherwise “enlightened” people from seeking to actively work on creating meaningful connections with people in order to reach the wisdom (and tap into new perspectives and power) 2024-02-07 13:32 - Gavin: To quickly add this type of arc (presencing) into the conversation around Individual skill / collective emergence. https://patrickkinzler.com/leadership/presencing/ 2024-02-07 14:08 - Martin: Could this also be defined as a need to be open and curious about what wants to be born (what’s emerging) as opposed to having pre-conceived ideas as to where the change is heading? 2024-02-07 14:15 - Gavin: Yes that is my understanding Martin. This is another framing: https://medium.com/presencing-institute-blog/theory-u-presencing-crossing-the-threshold-into-the-field-of-the-future-26acf37c44e8 2024-02-07 14:25 - Martin: I find this very interesting - I’m also imagining it as one’s self transferred into the future (without the boundaries of the present and the baggage of the past) and from that future vantage point getting a new awareness of the present and crystallising the journey, like backcasting or working backwards from the future? 2024-02-07 15:18 - Martin: @asimong Would it be useful to start discussing the next week’s transcript here - in order to better align ourselves and save the meeting for a deeper convo on the selected topics? 2024-02-07 15:57 - Simon: you're welcome to do just that. Just to say, though, I would expect some participants not having time to follow closely. So, yes let's bring stuff up here, but also not assume everyone is reading it - the only thing I would expect and really hope is that people have read and/or listened to the next section, as posted 2024-02-07 16:25 - Lauren: I think this is a great point Simon and also supports welcoming newer members to the conversation as we go 2024-02-07 16:25 - You pinned a message 2024-02-07 16:49 - Dustin: 2024-02-09 17:39 - Nicholas: 2024-02-09 17:55 - Rufus: Ask him about second renaissance 😊 2024-02-10 11:52 - Martin: Tomas Bjorkman on the creation of deliberately developmental spaces in Scandinavia in the 19th Century - https://youtu.be/b4dFsHgd1rQ?t=339. (cued up) 2024-02-10 12:21 - Martin: In paragraph 196 Daniel says that a small percentage of individuals who are psychologically different from the majority hold a significant amount of power and influence in society. It implies that these individuals create environments or systems that condition and shape the behaviour and beliefs of the rest of the population. Following on from here - is it fair to assume that all ideologies (whether within the metacrisis domain or not) are competing for this very segment? Then in paragraph 189 - John says that corporate structures tend to favour people with sociopathic tendencies. But, all types of organisations possessing certain aspects of corporate culture, such as competition and focus on individual success may operate within an environment where sociopathic behaviour is rewarded. Many questions: 2024-02-10 12:29 - Martin: This message was deleted 2024-02-10 12:41 - Martin: In paragraph 192 - John says “And I don't think the game-theoretic motivations are metaphysically necessary. I think there are other ones that have an equal power to motivate.” In paragraph 1990 - “their suffering’s a connectedness-scarcity in a profound way. “ Does he imply here that these people (characterised by high motivation and capacity) are actually unhappy and are craving to be more emphatic and less competitive, thus negating their psychological advantages? 2024-02-10 19:41 - Simon: re ¶196 to begin with... I think that different ideologies are suited to different sectors of humanity, and worse, those "at the top" may even be generating ideologies which they don't actually believe in, but serve to keep those below down. Do you think that's possible? Personally I don't see ideologies competing for those people, but that's just my different perspective. 2024-02-10 19:42 - Simon: Re “Is sociopathy the result of a particular balance of the hemispheres? 2024-02-10 19:43 - Simon: I would suggest that the McGilchrist view would be that it is largely explicable by left-hemisphere over-dominance. 2024-02-10 19:45 - Simon: And I would certainly agree with “the goal to move away from the paradigm where a tiny percentage of the population wields such a huge influence?“ but, of course, the question is how? And Iain doesn't seem to give any clear answers, does he? Do any of them? 2024-02-10 20:18 - Nicholas: I feel his portrayal of the LH as a psychopathic person is so strong that one would expect suppression of the RH to lead predictably to acquired psychopathy. I assume this isn't actually the case (maybe it is?) and perhaps there is some explanation somewhere of why not. Does anyone know? I don't think I am misinterpreting. If anything, having heard him talk last night in Cambridge, I feel I am understating his negative portrayal of the LH. 2024-02-10 20:22 - Simon: Would it be OK to nuance this to "his portrayal of the LH out of balance with and pretending its superiority over the RH"? He says over and over that the LH is not only valuable, but vital! It's the relationship between the two that he thinks (and I agree) that matters. But, what exactly would you mean by suppression of the RH? 2024-02-10 20:30 - Nicholas: Isn't experimental suppression of hemispheres a thing which is discussed? 2024-02-10 20:35 - Simon: I don't recall it being discussed in this conversation, and I'm no expert in these matters... 2024-02-10 20:36 - Nicholas: Anyway, I don't think so. When he talks about 'the left hemisphere', he is talking about some kind of force in society. And when he says the LH is vital, hypothetical LH that, at some point in the past was a proper servant to it's true master but not the 'left hemisphere' we actually have with us now which is described in entirely negative terms. All of which also applies to Satan. 2024-02-10 20:36 - Nicholas: No sorry, in TM&HE. 2024-02-10 20:39 - Martin: I was following the scent of economics - the 3% (or whatever the percentage) are the best at influencing the rest and effecting the change. They are also conveniently homogenous as far as their psychological profile is concerned. 2024-02-10 20:43 - Nicholas: Sorry this might sound nuts and I did not phrase it well. McGilchrist directly made the analogy between the LH and Satan in his talk at Cambridge. I mean there's a difference between talking about 'the left hemisphere' when referring to an individual person's brain and referring to 'LH dominance' in a culture. When referred to in the second sense, I contend that, to McGilchrist, the LH is absolutely the villain of the story and there is no nuance in that portrayal whatever. I hope this is a simplistic view that can be proved wrong. 2024-02-10 20:44 - Martin: Do you think that he meant that the wholesale takeover by the RH is the most desirable outcome or that the pure LH is the Satan? 2024-02-10 20:46 - Martin: I mean, both of these are an option too… 2024-02-10 20:46 - Christopher: My memory is they talked about feedback loops, where the higher up the hierarchy someone is the more isolated they feel and (I think they suggested) the more sociopathic their behaviour. Anyway, I imagine context 2024-02-10 20:49 - Martin: I did lookup sociopathy and the sense of detachment - it’s not clear that sociopaths are particularly affected by it - but they do enjoy proving their superiority and riding the crest of dominance 2024-02-10 21:14 - Martin: Paragraph 173 - John says that when we have a kid, despite the sacrifice (short term reduction in subjective well-being - maybe??) we do it because it makes life more meaningful. We connect to reality beyond ourselves and find a new meaning in life. Well, maybe reality beyond ourselves, but extremely close to ourselves - we do love OUR children much more than other people’s children. We’re not becoming one with the world, but we’re falling in love with our own creation. Paragraph 177 - Contemplation of our relevance to one another and relevance to the world is usually (discreetly) observed in the light of some expected transactionality. We do expect love and goodwill to be returned even though, I accept, it’s possible to get to a state where one wouldn’t automatically feel entitlement. 2024-02-10 21:23 - Nicholas: I am not sure about that. He does not talk much about outcomes. Lucifer/LH cannot do anything that God/RH cannot do. His proper place is as a servant of God/RH but he has rebelled and attempted to usurp that power because he cannot accept his total inferiority and proper place as a servant. He cannot ultimately succeed but will make a terrible mess in trying. I think that is the story and the characters can be perfectly substituted. I don't think that's a coincidence and I don't think McGilchrist does either but there are various interpretations of it not being a coincidence. However I am not sure it's on topic and everyone probably does not want to hear me rant on WhatsApp. Sorry. This has got me unexpectedly shaken up. 2024-02-10 21:29 - Martin: Thanks. It’s a story of rebellion, power dynamics and authority. Maybe it’s been deliberately left inconclusive to leave room for further discussion and interpretation…. 2024-02-11 09:47 - Simon: Hi folks! Just wanted to say that I've had another careful look through this upcoming section and (I hope) corrected a couple more little things in the transcript. Also, My sense of where the change of focus comes has moved a minute back, from ¶222 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6V0qmDZ2gg&t=5639s back to ¶218 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6V0qmDZ2gg&t=5578s so I've moved the section break back. Hope this makes sense. And while I'm talking about corrections, please, if anyone is listening and reading at the same time and finds anything which seems like a misrepresentation in writing of what was said, then please let me know and I'll consider correcting the text. 2024-02-11 09:50 - Simon: So our focus for tomorrow starts at Part 3 and continues up to and including ¶217 2024-02-11 09:53 - Simon: To me it comes across as a very rich section indeed, which will engage our interest amply for the full time. Indeed, maybe overfull, so I suggest self-monitoring and, where appropriate, self-restraint (picking up a strong theme from the section itself!) so that themes for further work can come up from anyone and emerge into the collaborative space. 2024-02-11 11:34 - Gavin: Hi all. Some evocative points in this section. To flag a striking question asked in para 214, which perhaps links in with some of the threads above. How to proliferate the sacred, within the catch 22 of LH activities being sustained / obscuring the RH, since we are nested within dominant systems that are game theory driven. Game theory perpetuated by LH dominant people ending up in the positions of greatest systems influence. And sacred motivating narratives end up losing or distorting, since they can’t sustain themselves in a games theory context. I’m just wondering the degree to which this last point is actually valid now - or is the ground much more fertile than assumed? Especially in an era of diminishing returns, and possible systems collapse. And how to get a clearer picture on this aspect, since such a narrative may well support proliferation and a sense of agency. As I understand, there is good evidence of bio centric values increasing, if not translating to dominant systems change yet. 2024-02-11 11:54 - Gavin: Yes thanks for sharing that Dustin. This looks to be a similar journey - I’ve seen a similar ‘decent into the canyon’ picture in one of his approaches. I’m not sure if they talk about ‘purpose’ being a RH attribute during the conversation, but I think this is another important commensurate value to speak to / seek to harness. 2024-02-11 12:08 - Rufus: Btw if anyone else wants to use hypothesis to annotate it is very easy. Just install browser plugin and away you go. 2024-02-11 12:08 - Rufus: And that way we can collaborate around the text. 2024-02-11 12:13 - Gavin: This message was deleted 2024-02-11 12:16 - Gavin: Very interesting the Devil linking. Just to mention the Internal Family Systems model here, which seems to be spreading widely at the moment. That model talks about being ‘self’ led, of which qualities I imagine would square with the RH - eg. compassion and curiosity. But that our inner ‘parts’ (sub personalities or patterns) usually take charge and obscure this ‘self’, many of which will link with LH activity. In that model, these parts can still play a role - we need the LH to do many tasks, but can become more ‘self’ led. And unburdened from a lot of what they have been carrying (conditioned by complex society), which has them act out in unwholesome ways - this is perhaps the devil side of things. The theory is that the ‘parts’ aren’t bad, and can transform - the book ‘no bad parts’ is an interesting read, positing an emergence into greater wholeness inside and out. 2024-02-11 12:36 - Christopher: I've read some IFS books and experimented a bit with it, definitely not an expert. In particular I'm not clear what what IFS says about adult development, e.g. the development of new parts which have a RH perspective or the evolution of existing parts to have a different LH RH equilibrium. My interpretation would be that parts might be LH or RH dominated and that in our culture the Self energy of people is often fused with parts which are LH dominated. I don't see LH or RH as parts. Given our cultural context I'm not sure that the development of a differentiated Self energy (not fused to a LH dominated parts) would necessarily lead to LH RH equilibrium. My thesis would be that given what is happening in education, the level of social and economic pressure, lack of wisdom institutions, etc people are simply not developing parts with RH perspective. 2024-02-11 13:48 - Simon: I've looked into and appreciated IFS quite a lot. And yes, I agree that it's worth cross fertilizing if not actually cross mapping. 2024-02-11 13:49 - Simon: My reading of No Bad Parts is that the problem isn't with the parts themselves, but when they are "burdened" as Schwartz puts it 2024-02-11 13:52 - Simon: and to me, something like, when a part is burdened, it can take on the heavy load of having to jump in immediately, without waiting for wider (e.g. RH) deliberation. Hence I see the parallels with over-dominant LH activity. The protector part agenda is so strong that it insists on being in control, this usurping the master, the "Self" (Schwartz usefully capitalises this) 2024-02-11 13:57 - Simon: Oh, and just out of interest, my practical introduction to IFS was at the Bergerac hub (Catherine was also there — November '22) 2024-02-11 13:59 - Simon: So IFS is definitely on the Life Itself radar 2024-02-11 14:01 - Simon: and following on here, an unburdened part feels to me quite like some LH activity in the proper, subordinate, Emissary rôle. 2024-02-11 14:07 - Christopher: Or another interpretation could be the protectors are inherently LH goal focused (protecting the exiled parts). The RH perspective could reside in the exiles. 2024-02-11 14:09 - Simon: Maybe exiles are embodied more in the limbic system (and indeed the rest of the body) rather than the frontal lobes, R or L? 2024-02-11 14:10 - Simon: ... where pain, fear, tension, stress, reside? 2024-02-11 14:11 - Simon: (just speculating on something that looks plausible to me) 2024-02-11 14:12 - Simon: and actually, somewhere Iain says that anxiety isn't obviously lateralised, doesn't he? 2024-02-11 14:17 - Christopher: A question I keep returning to is embodied cognition, flow states etc necessarily more RH perspective. They can be quite goal focused too, e.g. sports. 2024-02-11 14:53 - Simon: https://www.simongrant.org/philosophy/2023_metacrisis-conversation.html#p096 “Anxiety, I think, is not lateralized, so I think there is anxiety created by the left and by the right hemisphere, and each of them holds it.” I would guess, more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system 2024-02-11 15:10 - Simon: Iain only mentions flow once in the conversation, near the beginning at https://www.simongrant.org/philosophy/2023_metacrisis-conversation.html#p026 where he is linking it to RH perspective — it's mainly John that talks about flow, and I don't see him as linking it to RH or LH. 2024-02-11 15:22 - Nicholas: re IFS and hemispheres. IFS is based on the idea that it's helpful to see us as consisting of different parts which are like people in their own right. IMcG's hemispheres clearly are 'parts' in this sense. And I think something resembling these two personalities could, and indeed certainly has, come up, in IFS constellations. IFS seems to be more about the way to deal with having different, often conflicting parts, rather than in classifying and describing what they are like. So maybe it's contribution would be more in terms of what to do, rather than how to see the situation. 2024-02-11 17:40 - Isabela: I’ve got a bunch to say about this better left for real-time discussion tomorrow but wanted to simply validate this perspective from two experiences: 1. I’m part of a yearlong book club that’s discussing TMWT sloooooooowly and this is a returning suspicion and quandary and 2. I ran a 1:1 discussion hour with him for Perspectiva where I feel McG very much doubled down on this view. I actually DO think he’s more nuanced in that discussion when I pressed him to apply the insights to real live humans but when asked about the question of groups, and their LH motivations, he’s pretty clear. 2024-02-11 17:49 - Simon: Really interesting Isabela and I look forward to hearing more and dialogue tomorrow. My take is that Iain's huge erudition applies more to real live humans. Not sure I understand (yet) what you mean by LH motivations of groups, though. From a naive perspective, groups don't have hemispheres … so are we talking about social / cultural patterns reinforcing or locking in individual LH dominance, (I may not have good words for that, but I guess you understand I'm talking about some emergent systemic effect) or if not, what? Sure, Iain's erudition extends to a lot of human history and culture (particularly literature, I guess) but it's still not clear to me what the systemic effect is, "how it works", so to speak — or maybe, how can we understand the connection between the individual brain function and societal-level effects? 2024-02-11 17:51 - Simon: Oh, and thanks for your reminder about your conversation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agPnrBRAldk which I'm sorry to say had skipped my attention, I will try watching it when I can. 2024-02-12 10:22 - Martin: Would not groups of people characterised by a certain LH weighting not embody a certain (re-enforcing) LH worldview/ideology/perspective and all the associated paraphernalia? 2024-02-12 10:31 - Martin: Mimetic theory of Rene Girard proposes that humans are fundamentally imitative beings. We learn and adapt desires, aspirations and motivations through imitation of people we admire or perceive as models. Motivations are often driven by the need for a recognition, status and belonging of social groups. Individuals may imitate or adapt the desires and behaviours of others to align themselves better with teh norms and expectations and gain approval (avoid being cut out). 2024-02-12 10:31 - Simon: That's why I ask: it may be so, but I wouldn't like to assume that. Complex systems and all … I'd see that as needing a lot of looking into 2024-02-12 10:32 - Martin: fair enough, i might have jumped the gun 😉 2024-02-12 10:41 - Simon: I see these as fair points, though let me qualify that … "recognition, status and belonging of social groups" I would associate with mostly Kegan 3rd order consciousness. Not so sure about 4th order... maybe people in that order typically choose who to model themselves on, rather than accepting surrounding cultural group norms? But isn't it one of the ends of personal development (under whatever name) to free oneself from imitation, and rather be able to see the more and less desired in any potential role model? That's what I hope to do personally: to look at anyone, try my best to understand and take on what is of value for me, and leave the rest aside. 2024-02-12 10:54 - Martin: I think there are different stages of the 2nd Renaissance journey. The way I see it is that the first transitionary stage will require a lot of “undesirable” and “unpure” elements, tools and pricniples of the old paradigm in order to appeal to people (and I’ve already argued that people with the greatest potential for influencing the change are very important and shouldn’t be viewed as something that needs to be defeated, but rather won over). I’m looking forward to hearing other people’s opinions about that. 2024-02-12 12:25 - Simon: Yes, I'm sure one can see the 2nd Renaissance journey as involving several stages. To me, this moves away from the dialogue we are studying, so perhaps better left aside for today, but I would strongly and definitely support and participate in the mapping out of a 2nd Renaissance journey as one with stages… like, is it clear to us (all) what the stages could be, and do we agree on them? Addressing that question itself, along with a literature survey for related matters, strikes me as potentially publishable. While, at the same time, bearing in mind and taking into account the "stage aversion" of people like Nora Bateson (maybe for others it's just reasonable stage critique…). 2024-02-12 12:29 - Simon: By the way, I would like to recommend watching Isabela's conversation with Iain; and at the same time, Isabela, could you please point us to the place in that video where “when asked about the question of groups, and their LH motivations, he’s pretty clear”? 2024-02-12 13:44 - Dustin: There are some meta questions that keep occupying me… How can I know I’m coming from wisdom? And how can you trust me that I am? Is that even possible? How can you know that my discussions and plans to fix / heal / convince / integrate the sociopaths aren’t themselves LH machinations? 2024-02-12 13:45 - Dustin: And how can that knowing / trust translate into the LH dominant paradigm we are living under. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
2024-02-12 - Session 3AgendaPresent: Elisa, Simon, Lauren, Isabela, Gavin, Nicholas, Matthew, Christopher, Martin, Dustin NotesCheck-ins
Discussion
Check-outsWhat are the alive questions / issues to take forward here? Either next sessions, or as offline research.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
WhatsApp messages between this meeting and the next one2024-02-12 15:38 - Martin: Would be interesting to have a session (chat or zoom) consisting only of questions and have everyone cast the initial questions and then posing further questions that would branch out into a tree. So, no answering, no discussion - just questions and have those displayed as a graph on Github. 2024-02-12 15:52 - Martin: Also, knowing what other people’s particular interests are would allow for collaboration around specific issues. 2024-02-12 16:02 - Rufus: 👏 These are called issue trees and are a great idea. Mermaid on github would be good or i like coggle a lot for this. 2024-02-12 16:14 - Simon: Yes, I agree that would be good, and I've heard this referred to as the "wicked question game", though on searching for that, it seems there are some more specific variant practices. Not necessarily structured as an issue tree, can also be free-floating. 2024-02-12 16:15 - Simon: And Elisa is considering a different idea for next week, so wait on that! We all seem to be in agreement that we won't do the same thing next week, but something different. 2024-02-12 16:15 - Simon: Then perhaps we can resume reading/watching for the week after? 2024-02-12 16:20 - Martin: We could still read and watch and discuss here? 2024-02-12 16:21 - Simon: Sure, unless anyone has some objection, which personally I don't imagine, but just in case... 2024-02-12 16:38 - Elisa: Thanks Martin for the suggestion! As Simon said, we’ll be planning something a bit different for next time. Inviting more of a somatic enquiry around how we personally relate to some of the ideas that we’ve been discussing. A co-created issue tree / diagram of questions and how they interrelate could definitely be interesting too… 2024-02-12 19:23 - Nicholas: I really like both those ideas. 2024-02-13 15:20 - Martin: What I’m increasingly warming up to is the notion of holding two opposing perspectives at the same time. A healthy and integrated mind (according to McGilchrist) is capable of balancing these and not succumbing to the tyranny of one or another. For me these opposing perspectives correspond to the LR hemispheres which I see as processing circuits for understanding the context of the reality (effectively tools). Those 2 circuits are engaged in evaluation of the type of reality (problem) we’re observing - whether what we observe is a complicated or a complex system. LH is great for complicated systems, RH for complex. Since complex systems consist of subsystems that may be complicated - even for complex systems it’s important to utilise LH to some degree and here RH is the master. Historically (this is where spiral dynamics kicks in) we’ve been dealing mainly with complicated systems (and largely ignored complex ones because we couldn’t reliably figure them out). Increasingly, our world is dealing with complex systems - hence the issue of the inertia of predominantly using LH becomes an issue. I think the whole concept of the religion of science is precisely this blind faith in the power and correctness of the LH. 2024-02-15 13:13 - Nicholas: I am increasingly thinking about this concept of a religion of science. So far as I know, it's a concept only used to criticise. However it seems to me that there's a very valid 'religio', if not a complete religion, around science, and that it's core (or only) spiritual value is something like 'not dodging', or 'taking the hit,' when it comes to the stories you let yourself tell. When I feel angry with McGilchrist (for example), and feel I am justified in my anger, it is because I think he is not taking the hit and telling others that they do not have to. It is all a bad dream we can wake up from and has no meaning, the meaning is still what it always was, don't worry. It's when I think I hear that, that I get mad. And talking about holding two opposing truths at the same time can be essential spiritual guidance and it can also be dodging the hit. Ironically. Paradox or Doublethink. 2024-02-15 13:56 - Olga: Nicholas I haven’t participated in the conversation /meetings so far but something about what you wrote resonated with me so I thought I’d chime in and ask for clarifications (i hope that’s okay but feel free to ignore me). When you speak of the core value of science being ‘not dodging/‘taking the hit’ are you speaking of the face that science (and anything that emerges from rational endeavor in general) assumes (or strives to assume) an ‘objective’ stance and so puts itself ‘on the line’, i.e. in a place where it can be criticized for its reasoning/results and then it has to be able to defend/prove itself? Which is something that someone like McGilchrist (and others that speak about holding paradoxes together) doesn’t do and (if I read you correctly) this could be seen as a ‘copout’? 2024-02-15 14:23 - Martin: My initial response would be: Holding paradoxical perspectives is not about tying the brain into a knot, but about the acknowledgment that different perspectives may be valid in different contexts. It’s also about the complex nature of the reality itself where different perspectives can yield new insights. 2024-02-15 17:57 - Nicholas: Hi Olga, well yes and no. I am much less sure of myself than that. I am suspicious, not accusatory. Sometimes I get mad, but I always doubt myself after. I think there's a principle there and 'scientific objectivity' is a strategy for achieving it, if that makes any kind of sense. 2024-02-15 19:32 - Martin: This message was deleted 2024-02-15 19:38 - Martin: I’ve started critically reading the next part of the text - it’s becoming rather interesting :-)
272 “And so there is a reverence the left hemisphere has to have for the right. There is a recognition of the developmental maturity, capacity, and relationship with the environment the right needs to have, right?”
2024-02-16 17:11 - Lauren: Hi everyone, I just wanted to express gratitude for the space and conversation. I have a bit of a wild card to throw out there - how would people feel about pulling together where they are at with this conversation into a piece of expression - a piece of art - drawing, painting, doodle, a photo, a poem, a piece of music or anything else that arises. How does that land for everyone? 2024-02-16 17:12 - Lauren: Here is mine: In the space between my breaths In a constant dance of what is between flow and ecstasy With free will I seek to connect to you all I dream to create When I choose rigidity over containment 2024-02-17 12:11 - Christopher: This lands for me like snowflake in March: unexpected, delightful, drawing my attention to something I was missing. Thank-you. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
2024-02-19 — Session 4WhatsApp messages prior to meeting2024-02-19 12:45 - Gavin: Hi everyone. I can’t make the beginning today, but am hoping to join for the second half, if that is ok. 2024-02-19 12:53 - Nicholas: It looks the same for me. Sorry! 2024-02-19 13:43 - Dustin: I’m traveling and unable to join today but looking forward to next time. AgendaWe decided to have a break from explicit following the studied conversation in order to welcome in the more somatic, feeling aspects of what we have felt to be going on. Somatic inquiry question: How do you experience the perspectives of the left and right hemispheres? When do each of them show up in your life? NotesPresent: Elisa, Simon, Martin, Christopher, Nicholas, Lauren (briefly) Check-ins
DiscussionElisa introducing somatic enquiry practice:
Elisa:
Christopher:
Nicholas:
Martin:
Simon:
Gavin:
Reflections
Check-outsWhat are the alive questions / issues to take forward here? Either next sessions, or as offline research.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
WhatsApp messages between this meeting and the next one2024-02-19 19:00 - Simon: Thanks to all who came for an interestingly different session! Resuming next week, Elisa and I were wondering, as we have got quite deep into the Daniel/John/Iain conversation already, would it make sense to go a little quicker, and cover a whole hour's worth of conversation for next time? If you are OK with that, it would be from Part 3.2 where we left off (¶218) to just before Part 5 (¶360). Any strong feelings either way? 2024-02-19 19:03 - Simon: POLL: 2024-02-22 10:58 - Martin: Continuing our reading - would it be useful to have the sequential flow of the transcript as the skeleton of the conversation? Rather than jumping around and going off topic. For example, identifying concepts we want to delve into deeper and trying to elevate our comprehension of the ideas. Even a short list of most thought provoking paragraphs would be a good place to start. We could simply call paragraph numbers and ask if anyone wants to comment? 2024-02-22 11:00 - Martin: It would be very useful if people could enable Hypothesis plugin and comment publicly. That would also indicate which parts of the transcript are particularly interesting. 2024-02-23 17:51 - Simon: Nice idea thank you Martin. When people have listened or read, it would be great to simply list here in this group either which paragraphs contain ideas you would like to talk about in the session, or your wording of a topic title that arises. 2024-02-23 17:52 - Simon: I'd also like to say, I appreciate us staying together on the sections studied, as I see this as more likely to stimulate a good conversation, as we are focusing on similar source material. That's not a rule, of course! 2024-02-25 20:36 - Martin: p279 touches on how the principle affects groups of people and systems
2024-02-26 07:51 - Simon: And a little earlier: ¶262 “Reason isn't about calculation, it's about being with each other in a way that we are reciprocally responsible to each other, so we are governed by authority rather than by power.” I really like both of these bits from John. Though I still don't see a clear practical route to get there. 2024-02-26 07:54 - Simon: For me, this chimes in with Iain's ¶360 “And what we need to do is create the circumstances in which wisdom can grow, because it can't be made to happen. All you can do is stifle it or permit it.” And this seems to me to point directly at both strands of Life Itself's concerns: that a DDS aims to be the circumstances, and the 2R the wiser society. 2024-02-26 08:00 - Simon: And John's ¶357 “And then the second thing is, you know, Thich Nhat Hanh said, the next Buddha is the Sangha. I think there's a way in which the role model doesn't have to necessarily be an individual; it can be a community in a powerful and new way” — in the page, I've linked to one place which quotes: https://inquiringmind.com/article/1002_41_thich-nhat_hanh/ — words from over 30 years ago 2024-02-26 08:10 - Simon: All in all, I find this last section ¶330 to ¶360 quite appropriate and interesting to the Life Itself agenda. I'd like to develop this theme. 2024-02-26 09:03 - Nicholas: Someone - Martin I think - suggested using Hypothes.is to annotate the transcript. Am taking a look this morning but looks at first glance like it only works with Chrome. Can someone guide me? Or is it better to continue here? 2024-02-26 09:14 - Rufus: What browser are you using? I'm using Opera and i can install chrome extensions no problem. Otherwise see https://web.hypothes.is/help/which-browsers-are-supported-by-hypothesis/ - where they recommend a bookmarklet for firefox ... 2024-02-26 09:36 - Simon: My machines all run on Linux, and (1) there doesn't seem to be an official version of hypothesis on Firefox (2) having installed an extension on Chromium I can see annotations on https://hypothes.is/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.simongrant.org%2Fphilosophy%2F2023_metacrisis-conversation.html but I can't seem to see the annotations when looking at the page itself. Even if I could, personally I don't think that hypothesis would be a very useful tool for this particular kind of work. The piece is too long and the mode of interaction is, to me, less helpful than this list. 2024-02-26 09:42 - Rufus: You need to enable hypothesis on the page - have you turned it on on the page. I find that hypothesis is quite helpful going through the page on a first pass and for discussing certain points. I quite agree that you then want something like threads here or a document 👍 2024-02-26 09:44 - Simon: Basically, if a channel of communication doesn't work for some people, it isn't serving the whole. 2024-02-26 09:48 - Nicholas: Ok. I am trying to install the bookmarklet but no joy as yet. Also I don't think anyone else has been using it. Could we just put it in a Google doc or something? 2024-02-26 09:49 - Rufus: I've been using hypothesis there. 2024-02-26 09:50 - Rufus: 2024-02-26 10:09 - Nicholas: Oh ok. Well I can try again at home. For me, link to install bookmarklet simply opens a blank tab. I think Simon may be right though. 2024-02-26 10:10 - Martin: Another bonus is that hypothesis has a chronological central page where you can find all annotations away from the original text 2024-02-26 10:13 - Nicholas: I found going through this made me pay much more attention to what Vervaeke was saying. Something very 'compelling' (a word that comes up) about McGilchrist's dualism. Line 261, the enlightenment gives us something of value - we don't want to go back to master-slave is very important for me as I think this exactly how some people will take McGilchrist's thought and I wouldn't be too surprised if he's become a Jordan Peterson type figure in 5 years time and is promoting this himself. Hopefully he can resist that... 2024-02-26 10:14 - Nicholas: Line 315: we can't start a religion but the sacred has to break through in a new and very powerful way. This is in context of preventing civilization and biosphere collapse. What if expecting 'the sacred' to save us in this way is exactly like expecting Jesus to defeat the Romans? 2024-02-26 10:15 - Martin: In a way - Hegelian master-slave is also a self correcting system… 2024-02-26 10:18 - Martin: IMO - master-slave dialectic has a lot in common with adversorial / opponent processing 2024-02-26 11:05 - Nicholas: Those two things are contrasted in the text, aren't they? Not concepts I'm familiar with. 2024-02-26 11:08 - Martin: even the differences between an adversory and an opponent are subtle - I’m finding the same between master / slave as opposed to master / emissary. There’s a lot of time in the discourse dediicated to the debate of the right power dynamics between the two (even though it’s not expressed as such) 2024-02-26 11:40 - Nicholas: These are not concepts with a Wikipedia page! Search (DuckDuckGo) for both concepts with quote marks brings up only something by John Vervaeke. Hmm. For me the lack of distinction between master/slave and master/emissary is the worry here. 2024-02-26 13:53 - Isabela: Isn’t master/slave also very Nietzsche? Beyond Good and Evil at least? Please don’t quote me and oh dear I really can’t get into Hegel. Just trying to help search terms. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
2024-02-26 — Session 5Agenda
Present: Elisa, Simon, Gavin, Martin, Isabela, Nicholas NotesCheck-insIsabela: Have been on a writing retreat, now back to normal. Martin: Also arriving a bit scattered Simon: many different threads; where am I going? Looking forward to hearing what people want to talk about Nicholas: happy to have gone through the text Gavin: also scattered. Listened to whole of audio, and remember this section to be quite rich. Feels like meaty stuff Round of sharingWhat struck you from this week's section? Any passages you'd like to specifically talk about, or topics/themes arising from that? Isabela: Listened to it three weeks ago and did not re-listen. But don't have something immediately Gavin: Also in that camp. Question of what it will take to scale wisdom. Had question about what wisdom is. Piece of implications, that if we can't rely on change being crisis-driven, it could be nuclear apocalypse. What do the avenues of scaling look like? Martin: Sensory thinking about ... vagueness might be deliberate. Very metaphorical. We need to move away from dissection to independence of these things. Upper bounds - talking about reverence. LH might not be able to comprehend Nicholas: read through it again this morning. A lot came up. On previous calls I was increasingly swayed by dominant thread from McGhilchris of very clear dualism. But reading in in detail I saw how much more detail there is to it, esp from John and Daniel. What jumped out most is we can't start new religion, but sacred must come through in some way. We have a feeling this is going to happen. Maybe that's like expecting Jesus to defeat Roman empire, but maybe that's not how it's going to go. I liked these questions were raised Elisa: the sangha being the next Buddha… also having the sense fo the sacred must come through but trad religion not the way. Where does that leave us? How about the role of the community? How can we create more that are not traditional religion? Simon: Section builds up, glad we did it in a single chunk. We need to create circumstances in which wisdom can grow. Was thrown back to Life Itself research agenda. Circumstances sounds like DDS - spcaes where wisdom can grow, and that's the 2R stuff. Like Elisa, interested in this idea of how do we - not 'construct', it's too mechanical - how do we allow the container; what do we have to do in order to come together to grow this container that then can grow the wisdom? Everyone welcome to bring somatic into the conversation. Lauren: couple fo things that stood out. Daoism quote on leadership - those who are resisting the role are those who potentially should be listened to. Struck me because there's often individuals I see that have a lot of power and presence, and are avoiding stepping up. But those who are trying to be leaders are bold and aggressive. Empath and sociopath also stood out. What do you say to a sociopath? Loved introduction of vulnerability - that's such a key to this conversation. It really stuck. Sacred etc ok, but vulnerability is the player no one really sees but holds everything todether. Catch-22: reverence - for anything to work, the reverence needs to be in place, but what needs it doesn't have it, and what has it doesn't need it. DiscussionElisa: picking up on vulnerability, without it love is impossible. Containers… how do we open up and admit we need each other. Martin: please explain! Elisa: Isabela: reading Beyond Good and Evil again. Is crisis necessary for revolution? Different organising principle. Vulnerability is opening and inclusion, minimising fear. Crisis tends to close us off. Both organise at the social level. Martin: do we need to feel vulnerable to be aware of the RH? Also the "seduction" thing. The interesting is often mystical and hidden Elisa: a capacity to lean into and trust what feels good/right. Because of traumas and difficulties, tendency to close off to that and lose touch. Vulnerability is learning to open up to that. Gavin: love and wholeness. Needs to include all our vulnerability, shadow, etc. Notice ability to relax! On Friday, admitted to nervousness, should I have said that? Is that leadership? The Tao quote on leadership. Can a structure be developed in which not only the loudest voices are heard. Nicholas: Wanted to get back to Martin's question, was answered precisely. Iain and John saying that to love someone you have to be vulnerable. nested in the story of the Christian myth. God is vulnerable to the world. That is then equated God-RH Satan is LH. Daniel asks did the Master make a mistake. Iain coming back to blaming the Emissary, Master is better. God is perfect, only the beloved can err. If one is perfect that's not a good relationship. How seriously should be take that? Simon: Wanted to put in a little somatic point. I want to echo that relaxing feeling, wow this is lovely - talking about God and Satan a bit less relaxing. Not sure how to square the sense from Nicholas, and my own sense of reading Iain that LH is good as long as it's subservient to RH. Isabela: When we take this extreme logical argument of Iain and how dichotomous it is. I always want to defend his position, but something really interesting about my tendency to want to defend. It dichotomises immediately. I also wanted to read out a passage (from The Tao Te Ching - verse 49): The Master has no mind of her own. The image of motherhood Martin: ... Gavin: it is possible that the Emissary is more skilled to pragmatically live in the context of growing up? Master can't do what is needed; Emissary wants to be fuelled. Our role is Buddhas, will fail but keep on trying. Trying to figure out mechanics of what is happening in the hemispheres. Lauren: I had a thought yesterday - what am I trying to make sense of? What is there that needs to be made sense of? If I'm in this moment, there is no sense to be made. It jolted me into this sense of trying to think our way into something that isn't a doing, it's a bein. The presence and the being is what allows the opening, and the progression; it's what holds the foundation for the doing, the invisible ground that allows the unraeling of the presence. I keep trying to pull this conversation into reality, into my experience. Otherwise it's an interesting conversation but it's of no use. Isabela: really good orienting question, 'what's the use of this?'. We keep focusing on Iain, but I'll be serving food to John (had him over for dinner) and not understanding a word of what he was saying. In how our institutions work etc - knowing the nature of that is less important than the feeling I get when I'm overrun by conceptual frameworks and it doesn't land in any experience. But experience isn't the only place to stay in either, because there's shit to get done! It's the oscillation between these modes of knowing that I'm learning between reading and practicing with you all. It's about oscillation and agility with which we nudge one another, and see what happens in that middle space. Martin: focus on text is about relationship between hemispheres. What I'm wondering about is whether the idea of the sacred that comes through the hemispheres internally is more sacred than sense of sacred that come through other people. Sacred that comes directly to you, or sacred that comes through collectives. Communal sacred speaks more clearly to me. Simon: real tension - tonos - between those two. Linking it back to love - we love because he first loved us. It comes from outside, from the collective. Lots of people have experienced, "I didn't know what I was doing until I came into this, and now I feel this". There are times when it feels like everyone has lost it, and it's down to the invididuals to trust their own sense of sacred, of intuition, of divine - this is the way forward. You get religious people doing this. And how easy it is by individual to get thrown off course without collective around them, bc it's so easy to get captured by ego, to go into "people really appreciate what I say, so I'll keep on saying it". And then how easy it is for collective to devolve into groupthink, and you need individual to say no, to stand up against this, to stand up for the truth. To Martin's point: there is no answer, there is a dance, collective and individual wisdom can feed on each other. Not adversarial. Nicholas: one point out of the way: LH and RH, sacred and rational; also people who advocate for one or the other. Maybe when I talk about the RH may be actually about peoople who say those kinds of things. Some way down the text, among dangers of nuclear, AI, bioengineering, John is saying "we can't start a feligion" but there is something we can be doing, creating the ground from which this can grow. This is the reason; we look to be part of that thing which is not a religion as we understand it. In that context I'm scared of the demonising the LH. Can see pathways to direct violence; don't think I'm just being silly. Former hippies are now seen as far right. Paul Kingsnorth talking of the satanic "machine" of our civilisation. The idea that we need a religious movement to save us (biosphere, etc.), it's not going to tell you what you are expecting. It may be saying something weird and counterintuitive. WOuld like to hear Isabela saying what is the role of the LH. Isabela: extremely important what you're saying. I have impulse to defend the LH is worrying. I notice in niches the creation of language, repurposing Greek, or neologisms. Nietzsche nailed it as an unconscious societal selection process. We forget the origin of the concepts, they detach from experience. Can happen extremely rapidly, when need to organise quick and efficient. They might say "I don't really mean the devil" but people take and use that shorthand. Mind-numbingly boring neuroscience to show how LH does take over and we lose meaning and context. Elisa: want to echo how important the point Nicholas brought in. Gavin: rich thread. A somatic moment! Want to bring in a more intuitive perspective. From different vantage points, it feels like different degrees of hopeless. The IFS training I'm doing - teacher who passed away left video; point he made is it's not about learning to do IFS, it's about your embodied presence, which resonates with other people and the compassion within. I know people that have maturity of beingness - compassion, mindfulness - and this is a genuine pathway to moving towatrds wisdom and compassion. BUt the more of us can give ourselves permission to cultivate and connect with these qualities within us, the more this rubbs off on other people etc. Humans coming together and resonating. Wondering if this is a different vantage point, maybe more of a right brain way of approachign it. Diamond Approach was a few people asking "Why are not more people Enlightened in the Western world?" One example of wisdom scaling (modern day wisdom tradition) Martin: just mentioning something else towards end of section: Neoplatonism. Ties up many schools of thought. The elevation of relations in NP, more through the lens of systems thinking… Elisa: Coming back to Gavin's point. "right on the money" ties in with idea of permission to do what feels right. To do IFS even though it can be difficult at times. Opening up capacity to get in touch with intuitive sense. Not just norms or what guru says. Nicholas: apologise again for not answering Martin. 1. It would be good to sort out annotation problem. 2. Should we focus one session on John V? One thing wanting to say: Thich .. he was looking up and saw a star and speaking to it. "are you sure?" Star is not little, might not be there at all now. Allowed to go deeper, that's been image in the back of mind as a way of LH and RH working together. RH people dismissing intellectual stuff. Danger with saying we are too much LH. Martin: Is it possible to analyse ourselves in this discussion? What changes might we need to make? Simon: that's a good question, and might be related to what I was going to say about scaling. It's very easy to have intellectual conversation, LH to LH, talking concepts, etc. For us (as a study group) it's more of a challenge to get the reality - not just a sense - of communicating together in a RH to RH way. Seems to me the collective of RH being together is much stronger and more different than the collective of LH. When we're talking about that mode - can we appreciate / embody / hold this sense of we are in a space where the concepts - even though we use words - get out of the way; talking behind concepts, at level of the sacred. Elisa: wondering to what extent we are limited by the virtual environment? Presence… some people have a presence beyond words? Is there something essential to being in physical contact? Lauren: resonated: the physical and the transformation when we're together in real life. Felt as true. Gavin: does feel relevant… I'm involved in online meditations every morning though organisation. People feel the shared intention, so something is possible! Not many spaces where there is this cross-pollination. Not sure about the "new religion" thread, because our era we are talking about here, this world should be sacred, not transcendent. Could be completely secular Check-outsWhat are the alive questions / issues to take forward here? Either next sessions, or as offline research. Martin: we've done something much better than in previous sessions. Moved through text well and really engaged with each other's contributions. Key is to connect to what others have said, rather than bringing their own ideas in a vacuum. Supporting each others' directions. Elisa: echo, felt so good and enriching, grounded, with flow. We got into the heart of the matter on a lot of points. How did we get here? Several sessions of collective sensemaking, familiarity and ability to be vulnerable, ability to drop in somatic sense. Very grateful. Lauren: will read out the poem I wrote on leadership. Today's conversation has landed in a beautiful way. Array of individuals also reflective of wider collective and spectrum - beautiful to see this in the expression of individuals. Gavin: 2nd/3rd line of that poem got something moving inside me. Diversity and shared sense of openness and willingness of hear perspectives - so powerful when you ... Will I be extricated from the group forever more? Those are the edges we need to explore. Felt real sense of compassion, and vesiresity - appreciated being part of it. Nicholas: In a group I often end up feeling I'm an outsider and they hate me. I really agree this has been a good session. Suggestion that came from Martin to concentrate on this section rather than general impressions gave it some focus. Some intimations of what may come next. Good we decided to look at long section, but we did not concentrate as much on section about world and crisis. Talked about idea of new religions emerging... what Lauren was saying about connecting ideas to individual lives Simon: totally resonate. There has been a quality here more than previous times. There was a warmth here which I felt. We're actually embodying the DDS! This is what it's like! Great last week to do somatic work, I think this has helped, and bringing in vulnerability earlier today was also great. Feel we are constituting something. Where is this going to go for next couple fo weeks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
WhatsApp messages between sessions 5 and 62024-02-26 16:47 - Nicholas: Wanted to clarify here as you were talking about new terms. "opponent processing" and "adversarial processing" were terms I was searching for. 2024-03-01 15:39 - Elisa: Hi all! In our next study group meeting on Monday, we will cover section 5 "Religion and Scale" [02:39:04 - 03:00:34]. Same format as last time. Looking forward to seeing you then - have a great weekend! 🌟 2024-03-02 19:34 - Simon: I felt odd reading this bit. The title I've given it, "religion and scale" was very tempting, but I wasn't finding relevant things to note down. What is Daniel on about, ¶361 to ¶375? It's only now I have a sense of what might be going on … here it is. Human RH function evolved to cope with the small-scale world. It's remarkable that at a small scale, diverse people get on and are kind to each other. Why not at a large scale? Maybe…because our RH functions are overwhelmed by the complexity of large-scale, and particularly globalised, society. To function at all, we need to analyse, break things down, rationalise, standardise, just so that we can cope. Maybe that's where the LH dominance comes from? 2024-03-02 19:37 - Simon: But then what I see is this: there are actually two routes to coping with the massive complexification of life. One is to to LH and pretend it's simple: rely on the map and forget the territory! Stop thinking of things as living, treat them as mechanistic and predictable (until they aren't!) Work with ideologies instead of realities. BUT the other is to collectivise RH function, and that is where I see things like collective wisdom emerging. Emergence; complex systems; you know what I mean! And to me that's what starts to happen when a group of people come together and develop trust. 2024-03-02 19:39 - Martin: I commented earlier that the difference is complicated vs complex systems - complicated systems of the past were efficiently dealt with using LH and during that prolonged period - LH has cemented almost religious following (culmination is the modernity). 2024-03-02 19:39 - Simon: And this ties in with individualism. Because capitalist economics (and much of politics) works best when people are as divided as possible, it acts to keep us separate, and not to develop those RH links — the ones that actually give meaning to life and make it all worthwhile. 2024-03-02 19:43 - Simon: just to cross-reference that, it's ¶361 to ¶425 2024-03-02 19:44 - Martin: individualism, game theory, zero sum, identity politics… 2024-03-02 19:47 - Simon: And to me it's significant to have an explanation of LH dominance that isn't based on a kind of "these horrible elite people are doing it to us" which casts us in what I see too much as a victim role. But in doing so, I've abandoned the role of religion — what is the connection with religion here? 2024-03-02 19:50 - Simon: … all ways of (over-)simplifying the world, dealing with the abstract rather than engaging with the living realities and bodies, which we are increasingly understanding as amazingly complex. 2024-03-02 19:51 - Martin: I think we’re just victims of what has worked SO WELL and we have tendency to believe that whatever works will perpetuate itself forever. LH has had its heyday and now it’s only natural that a more appropriate system emerges for the new age 2024-03-03 13:47 - Martin: 355 Well, there's two things about that. One is, yes, there's empirical evidence supporting this, that the thing that is singularly most predictive of people aspiring and carrying out an aspirational project — properly aspirational, not utilitarian, but “I should be better than I am,” is the degree to which they have internalized the sage, internalized the role model. That's the thing. The pursuit of mastery? 2024-03-03 14:03 - Martin: ¶373 You know, there's something about the small-scale that has high intimacy, high touch in which I'm not relating to the abstract concept of, “They're Christians. They're on my side. They're not Hindus on the other side,” or whatever. I'm relating to this unique person and this one and this one here that is inherently, I think, hemispherically different. This is really interesting - it’s about the unique quality of small-scale interactions and practices that foster unique connections (meaningful relationships) - it emphasises high intimacy and a very personal (non-transferable) experience 2024-03-03 14:04 - Nicholas: However does this kind of argument not also apply to 'now it is time to return to the RH ways we have forgotten?' It worked in the past, it will work again. 2024-03-03 14:34 - Martin: ¶383 - 387 INTIMACE SCALING ANOMALY 2024-03-03 16:24 - Martin: I prefer to reference this to the Neoplatonist or Hindu, Buddhist beliefs of the transendent ONE, spiritual source we incarnated from and where we’re going back to. I can’t speculate whether RH ways ever worked for us because I find historical evidence insufficiently convincing… 2024-03-03 16:27 - Simon: Bearing in mind that "the RH ways we have forgotten" evolved during times when life was less globally complex, my belief is that it might well work if you want to go back to the kind of society and technology that existed at the time that the old ways evolved. 2024-03-03 16:34 - Simon: And I have no idea how practically we could dismantle cities (which are complex beasts!) and send everyone back to the land to live a life simple enough to fit ancient wisdom. Though many communities have tried this, and even some dictators, if I'm not mistaken. What has been managed by these experiments and what can we learn from them, I wonder? 2024-03-03 17:15 - Simon: Looks to me a highly plausible explanation of LH take-over. The problem being in the Scaling step? So are they (we?) saying that scaling to global (or even national) is inevitably cursed? (not sure if "cursed" is quite right but I like it 🙂 ) I would like to think that it's not inevitably cursed, but redeemable, and that if we counter individualism, nurture RH connection (and 'master'y) and cultivate what emerges, maybe we and the planet can thrive after all … ? 2024-03-03 17:17 - Nicholas: Not finding this part of the conversation terribly reassuring. 2024-03-03 17:21 - Martin: I’m afraid that’s exactly what I thought…. I’m not negative though - I just think it can’t be “scaled” in the way that some people think it can, but needs to be one-on-one awakening process, because it starts with only 2 (or maybe a very small group) people already pre-disposed (having those key capacities as outlined in the capacities for emergence paper) 2024-03-04 09:41 - Simon: Could you say more, Nicholas ? I'd be interested to learn if you would like to be reassured, and what you would find reassuring; or whether you sense that no reassurance is realistically possible — in which case we're doing a good job 😕 2024-03-04 10:02 - Nicholas: I am not sure! I am not demanding reassurance, certainly not at the expense of honesty. But I said last time I am worried these ideas can support very real violence. There's a reason why grand visions for a remade society have a bad name after all. You definitely aren't mistaken about the dictators. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
2024-03-04 — Session 6Agenda
WhatsApp messages prior to meeting2024-03-04 13:10 - Gavin: Interesting comments everyone. Alas, I don’t think I can make it today 😞, but I’ll feed in a few thoughts here: 2024-03-04 13:14 - Martin: ¶372 Yes. And there's something about also at the small scale. Like, we're talking, we’re having a conversation, a lot of people are going to get to see. But we're not necessarily taking people through a practice that is inducing the kinds of states, the right-hemispheric state where the numinous is there, right? Where the sacred is there, where the intimacy is there, and I don't want to violate something I'm intimate with. I like this - it’s analogous to the cognitive/embodied empathy - talking about something is not the same as embodying the transformative experience! 2024-03-04 13:25 - Gavin: WISDOM. I’m not sure I’m clear what type of wisdom they are talking about trying to scale. For me, there is the type of wisdom opened to through things like meditation, which could entail a game changing direct experience of the nature of things - which maybe a shift to the right hemisphere? Then there is more ‘worldly wisdom’, which I suspect the left brain still has a key role in. I think this type of wisdom is scaleable, but if not right brain led ends up non transformative / co-opted by power in the way they discuss. 2024-03-04 13:31 - Gavin: Maybe too simplistic, but the more emergent insight wisdom, I’m not sure that is so scaleable, at least in the usual sense, but rather in the person to person ways we spoke of last week - in groups, resonances with others, Embodied somatic inquiry etc. 2024-03-04 13:42 - Martin: Food for thought - I’m generally fascinated with engagement and the notion of “meaningful relationships”. Sometimes I feel that certain projects are impossible to even contemplate without others for motivational, capacity, synergetic reasons…. What do you think - what are we engaged with more: Project goals or other people on the project? How is it possible to work on increasing cohesion and engagement without turning it into an organisational paradigm? 2024-03-04 13:58 - Nicholas: Links between Martin's comment on 372 above, and his earlier 'just an idea' post and Simon's response leading to the idea of large scales being 'cursed.' Also the way this whole discussion keeps talking about 'game theory' as if -to be simplistic, perhaps- it were something that we could just stop doing if we were more RH. DS mentions the trap of China and the US having to do something because otherwise the other might. 2024-03-04 14:04 - Lauren: I will join for the 2nd half 2024-03-04 14:34 - Nicholas: Guys, I am not sure how much you heard of my rant from the top of the multi storey car park and i am not sure what happened but perhaps the universe is telling me you are all better off without me and my opinions this week,! NotesPresent: Elisa, Simon, Martin, Isabela, Nicholas (briefly), Lauren (last 30 min) Check-insRound of sharingWhat struck you from this week's section? Any passages you'd like to specifically talk about, or topics/themes arising from that? OR What's hanging over from previous meetings? Isabela
Martin
Simon
Elisa
Nicholas
ConversationElisa
Martin
Isabela
Simon
Isabela
Martin
Simon
Elisa
Isabela
Martin
Martin
Elisa:
Simon
Isabela check-out
Martin
Isabela
Lauren
Simon
Lauren
Simon
Elisa
Lauren
Elisa
Martin
Simon
Martin
Lauren
Martin
Lauren
Simon
Elisa
Simon
Lauren
Check-outsMartin
Elisa:
Simon
Lauren
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
WhatsApp messages between sessions 6 and 72024-03-04 15:29 - Catherine: I have not been following the study group material, just occasionally scanning messages here and meeting notes in discussion forum, and am wanting to write only a brief message now, but I think healthy skepticism and cautiousness is important (something that I'm learning personally atm in relation to healing/transformation frameworks). So hearing you express concern that "these ideas can support very real violence" feels to me like an important and valid possibility to consider. 2024-03-04 15:44 - Elisa: To the contrary Nicholas, we were all sad that you dropped off! We appreciated the point you were making re the two kinds of stories about scale, which framed a lot of the subsequent conversation. 2024-03-04 15:49 - Lauren: Even though I was only there for 30mins, I am reminded of the intuitive wisdom we hold and how everything really is as it is meant to be. As an added extra to the sharing I expressed at the end on vulnerability, I wanted to tie it into this, bringing everything together; that vulnerability offers an expression of 'I am touched and I am sharing this but I am also with myself in it' (this together is vulnerability). And in vulnerability exists the seed of allowing, and allowing can only exist truly when love is present and it is this which provides the framework for scaling 2024-03-04 15:51 - Isabela: Literally most of our subsequent conversation picked up on two of the key points you raised, Nicholas I’m grateful we had at least a few minutes of you online! 2024-03-04 15:52 - Nicholas: Ok, wasn't sure you even heard that. Glad it made sense. A woman called me over and I thought she was going to ask me what I was shouting about but she wanted to know if I knew how to open the bonnet on a Mini. Turns out I don't. 2024-03-04 15:53 - Lauren: Without knowing today's expression, but at least from previous conversations I just want to say that all of you is welcome Even the part that can't open bonnets 2024-03-04 16:09 - Lauren: I also want to posit this sense of contraction and expansion in regards to scaling, and to use the example of breathing - that when I inhale and exhale there is a dancing between an expansion and a contraction internally - if everything was expanding or contracting at the same time I would not be able to breathe, and so in relation to scaling we need both to co-exist and work together which to me is the LH (contraction) and the RH (expansion), and also for these not to be static 2024-03-04 16:18 - Gavin: Sorry to miss this today - overrun by 3 x 10 year olds! 🤪 Be interested in any key points if anyone has time to share. 2024-03-04 16:25 - Nicholas: Thanks Lauren. I also forget periodically how to react to WhatsApp posts. 2024-03-04 16:39 - Martin: There’s a lot here but -
2024-03-04 16:55 - Martin: Just noticed my 2) seems to be contradicting 1) 😵💫🤣. Your choice who you’re going to believe. 2024-03-04 17:05 - Lauren: Could this be seen as an example of a LH and RH expression held in tandem? 2024-03-04 17:08 - Martin: You’re being too kind. I’m sure there’s a better explanation 🤣 2024-03-04 17:16 - Nicholas: Well there isn't actually a logical contradiction: this seems to be impossible but it's possible I'm wrong. 2024-03-04 18:03 - Simon: the notes are up on the GitHub discussion thread if you want to skim through that...#1022 (comment) 2024-03-05 13:12 - Simon: Just saw this article this morning https://aeon.co/essays/the-hunter-gatherers-of-the-21st-century-who-live-on-the-move One thing is that it puts in context, and partially seems to refute, what I was guessing about complexity. It's a bit long, but it sure brings up different ideas on strongly related themes... 2024-03-05 13:18 - Simon: It looks like a fascinating model of very small-scale bands, participating in a larger-scale society with many connections. 2024-03-05 13:33 - Nicholas: The book by Graeber and Wengrow: The Dawn of Everything is also good on this. However, I do have a problem with these narratives (you'll all be surprised to hear) in that they confuse Darwinian evolution, social choice and the idea of progress towards a higher state, as if those were all the same thing and disproving one of them meant disproving the others. At the end of the day, the argument of Jared Diamond, taken up by YN Harari, depends on the fact that agriculture allows far higher population densities than hunter gathering, which is not in dispute. Nor is it in dispute that agriculture has replaced hunter gathering over most of the land and threatens to complete the job. So I am unconvinced that Diamond and Harari have been shown to be in any serious way wrong. 2024-03-05 13:40 - Simon: And this is both acknowledged and taken up by the author here. My point lies in parallel with this: can we look at these contemporary Congolese hunter-gatherers, not with the wish to return to that lifestyle, but with an eye on learning from their example about good ways of balancing small-scale society with the (undisputed by me) advantages of wider society, while keeping the LH/RH issue in the frame? 2024-03-05 13:58 - Martin: I so agree - trying to somehow combine evolutionary, cultural and spiritual into a unified co-supporting theory doesn’t sound like the right recipe, at least for me. As a sidenote - didn’t find neither Diamond nor Harari particularly insightful, but that’s not very relevant… 2024-03-05 14:02 - Nicholas: From the article: "Why did foragers, living in an area so prone to agriculture, take 3,000 years to accomplish a 30-year endeavour? Perhaps the inevitable one-way cascade generated by agriculture is neither inevitable nor one-way. Perhaps settled agriculture was not always the more desirable route to ‘progress’" this seems to me to be confused. Later on it says that, when communities settle, infectious diseases increase. Yes, and then people in these high density societies develop some resistance to them and the pandemics can pulse out into the surrounding low density populations of hunter gatherers who - as this article notes - are actually very mobile... 2024-03-05 14:03 - Nicholas: Or, to be more constructive here: it's not why these people resisted settlement that we need to know. It's how 2024-03-05 15:28 - Simon: Hi Everyone! As you can see from the notes, we had a small and beautiful session on Monday We had the feeling that it would be good to have a session rounding things off. I'll do a poll to ask this explicitly: do you want to round off next week (just one more session) or also have a further final session to bring things together the week afterwards (or something else?). But if we are to have that extra session, we are not clear about how best to round things off. So … we're thinking, next Monday let's have the last part of the session to bring ideas around what to do for the final one, and outline a plan for that😉 Agreeable? (emojis acceptable here!) 2024-03-05 15:31 - Simon: POLL: 2024-03-06 08:18 - Gavin: Many thanks Elisa and Simon for offering this space. I’ve very much appreciated the ones I have made - finding them connecting, and rich perspectives. Thanks everyone. The closing off sounds good. I have voted, but it’s a home school day so it is a maybe for me. I can’t visualise it, but what comes to mind is having some time to experiment with a form for a ‘group inquiry’ - seeking to embody some of the key ideas that have emerged out of the conversations, particularly cultivating / accessing shared wisdom within a group. Maybe a mixture of somatic inquiry, but able to flow between people’s inquiries, and hooking into anything that seems to be emerging in the shared space - either relational (more gestalt) or depth (more from the unconscious). Just some ideas! 2024-03-06 10:54 - Martin: If you’re up for it (and maybe valuable for future study groups) - we could try a prescriptive approach to discourse - everyone can only talk for (let’s say) 10 seconds before the next person speaks and there’s an order. If someone wants to pass - they can and when everyone passes their turn - time to move on. This could help form a structured conversation and it’s much more interactive. Maybe it will be more spontaneous too. Maybe alternate between these rapid fire exchanges and longer, more monologue sessions? 2024-03-06 17:54 - Nicholas: Just to throw something else in there: I would be really interested to know where people are coming to this material from/ what they are coming with. I know there's the Research Agenda, but I meant more individually. My own (annoyingly negative) reactions all relate to specific things in my own life. I'm not a neutral observer. 2024-03-06 17:55 - Nicholas: Also want to say that, although I feel I'm always being negative, I've also really appreciated these conversations! 2024-03-06 18:07 - Martin: 3 main reasons for me - looking for meaningful relationships (work collaboration, exchange of perspectives and insights and interpersonal connections), self development and pursuing my personal interest around philosophy, psychology and communities 2024-03-06 18:13 - Martin: Feel free to DM me if you want a differing perspective, my optimism verges on unhealthy 😜 2024-03-07 14:05 - Nicholas: Ok. Just did. 2024-03-07 14:33 - Isabela: Great question! I am coming to this material from several places/with several pieces of "baggage": 1. There's some funky confluence of personal and professional "awakening" (which is too strong of a word, given how much I suffer) that has hit me in waves for last 3.5 years that demands "work"; I can't ignore that humanity needs some work and I was doing nothing much about it and this is as close to a productive rabbit hole as I can go on; 2. I have two 18-year old boys that are leaving my house and (imagined) protection in 6 months and I seem to have transferred that loss to building Liminal Learning for them and their "friends"; the ideas we talk about and those around "us" talk about help with building that DDS with as much integrity as I currently can muster; 3. this "space" is my kind of strange combo of intellectual rigor, heart-led practice, and genuine intention that makes me feel less hopeless (I am completely aware that I may be delusional and that huge systems way out of my perception and certainly my control could just end things tomorrow...). So despite my arguments with McGilchrist, Vervaeke, Daniel, Rowson, etc etc., it feels the best set of lenses for my temperament; and 4. I'm honestly still searching for WTF to do/build/contribute and these set of ideas/practices/artful perceptions feels vita. For now. 2024-03-07 18:58 - Simon: So many subtle reasons, it would take at least a full session to do these justice between us, through dialogue of course 😉 But inspired by Isabela's brave attempt I'll have a go as well
2024-03-10 13:55 - Martin: This conversation would be a great basis for a group study. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Es_WTEgZHE 2024-03-11 08:30 - Nicholas: Feel I need to respond as Isabela and Simon did. Let me try... Left brain/Right brain and similar dichotomies (quant/qual, heart/head, science/art, nature/tech etc) have been a big thing for me for a long time. My work has mainly been on a critically endangered antelope species in Vietnam. I pushed LH approaches to decision making as an antidote to perceived tyranny of experts. At same time, was always aware process is built on having 'Goals' which just have to fall from the sky. It's more obvious in species conservation than in a lot of endeavours where the goals are so taken for granted by our culture (e.g. health, poverty alleviation, even animal welfare). 2024-03-11 11:06 - Martin: ¶437 So we need to reimagine what an education is. That would mean freeing up teachers from a dead weight of bureaucracy. In fact, that's one of the very practical things that could be done tomorrow. We should go around universities, go around hospitals, go around some schools and look very critically at all the superstructure of management and so on. And I reckon about 80 percent of that could go tomorrow and nobody would suffer. In fact, there'd be a lot more money for doing the things that we really want to do. We've become sucked by parasites, if you like, which is the externalization of the left hemisphere's drive for control, which is administration. Again a need to find a formula to “scale up” and in this case “re-purpose” something that’s fundamentally not fit for purpose, in order to “speed up”. Iain identified “bureaucracy” as what needs to be removed. But bureaucracy makes it possible to run things at scale. I’m not sure that these contradictions can be held at the same time. This, in my opinion is pure LH and an example of desperate urgency. Consider this from Jordan Hall:
Right it's the notion of you know James Bond defusing the bomb the clock is ticking he has to actually be acting as nonchalant as if he's in the process of you know swirling his Martini because even the least bit of feeling and urgency guarantees failure. Then earlier in our text Iain says: But at the slightly higher level, but how we do that has got to be through an implicit process, because if we try to — as I’m constantly saying — if we try to instigate the things we think are valuable into people, we have not instigated those things. Instead, we've instigated a kind of chain of thought, which is actually contrary to the way in which we want. 2024-03-11 11:14 - Rufus: And why has that stuff appeared - it isn't just about LH out of control right. It 's about dealing with a very complex society without alternative mechanisms of accountability. It also interesting to see what happens when you actually go and propose removing X or Y regulation. How about removing criminal record bureau checks for people who work with kids for example. ... 2024-03-11 11:21 - Martin: I just feel that we need to crack the “building blocks” first and not walk into neck-deep water. For me the most fascinating paradigm and the most worthy effort is to figure out how to forge these “meaningful” relationships and form a coherence between 2 people first. In line with what Christo Mastropietro says: (sorry, I was doing the notes as I was listening the other day, so not perfect) how do we find the sweet spot - intersection - relating to people and relating to dilemmas and predicaments and central confounding factors of life shared sweet spot of sophia - spirit that emerges between everyone and orientation towards virtue - commitment 2024-03-11 11:27 - Martin: @rufuspollock and important clue as to how (NOT) to get there is that it’s an intuitive and non-definable process that works on the basis coherence of diversity and not sameness. How does one scale it? Possibly through “guru” seeding - but not rolling out schools that would lead to cognitive embodiment only. 2024-03-11 11:29 - Martin: Let’s not forget that the LH hasn’t run out of steam and that it’s carried on the wave of its own (undoubtable) GAME A success that is very measurable… 2024-03-11 12:24 - Gavin: Very Interesting points above 😊 , but to follow on from Nicholas’ thread, and hoping to attend some of the meet today. Life itself came on my radar via friends, and this group from there. I guess I’ve been trying to find my place in all this since a kind of climate crises awakening in 2008. I have tried various things, including studies, and withdrawing!, but have always ran out of energy for them - they felt misaligned. There has remained something missing personally, to do I think with purpose. With some of the meta crisis perspectives overlapping with Buddhist teachings and practices (I am a relatively new teacher in the insight Meditation tradition), even from a non spiritual starting point, I’m finding much more alignment. Hence this type of conversation, although I’m aware this perspective of looking at underlying root causes can also be too simplistic / impractical. It seems to me lifeitself is getting stuck into the sticky stuff of how to move forwards. My own baggage - aside from not being sure if I really have processed what we might be facing - is particularly around groups and being misunderstood - feeling in or out, and can often get co-opted by a ‘protector part’ (to use that language), lose confidence, withdraw, and not say what I want to. I’m more comfortable in break out rooms! So spaces that feel inclusive and compassionate feel important personally, but also relevant to the topic in hand I feel. Where different ideas and possibilities can be explored, without being put in a box. Sensing this is very much a time for collaboration, and perhaps less individual leadership. 2024-03-11 12:53 - Rufus:
exactly. the hard thing about hard things. We are in a moment of moving from "what" to "how". For example, I think McG is amazing and i think he is (maybe) the leading philosopher of the second renaissance. And at the same time, there sometimes seems to be a bit of a gap on "how" - and not just "what practices shall we do to develop the RH" but more deeply in terms of the thinking through why the current paradigm is so sticky etc etc (there's a tendency to be "oh well the LH just hijacked things or some such). And perhaps most of all in what is beyond the thinking: the doing/being of it e.g. what would it actually look like in community, how would we resolve conflicts or tensions etc. One small example, recently I heard him on a podcast saying (very beautifully): we all need to slow down ... And I'm sitting there thinking: yes absolutely right ... AND slowing down is a classic collective action problem. I mean if i personally just slow down i may rapidly end up out of a job etc etc. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Second Renaissance Study Group - Notes2024-03-11 — Session 7Agenda
to the end. WhatsApp messages prior to meeting2024-03-11 13:05 - Isabela: which means i'll be 20 min late for the real time. SORRY! 2024-03-11 13:34 - Lauren: I won't make today, apologies. But I will be there next week for the last session. 2024-03-11 13:36 - Gavin: I’m not sure if I’m fully understanding this, but might this correlate to a movement in the direction of more pleasant ‘feeling tone’ in the individuals involved? I’ve been pondering the significance of this of late. 2024-03-11 13:52 - Martin: In my mind this belongs purely to the RH - it’s about establishing a highly intimate connection between two minds that leads to a higher purpose, huge synergetic power of insight and new perspectives and to being interconnected with another to the point that you care for the other as much as you do for yourself. It’s not becoming the same thought. It’s reaching the mystery and the sacred and then it rains back on you as a positive, life affirming force. This is an alternative to GAME A (game theory) - and I see it as an untapped force that’s more powerful than GAME A paradigm. If I had to compare it something - I’d say it’s similar to nuclear force - but this is all in the spirit of poetry, I don’ t really know about it, I’m just feeling potential. NotesCheck-insWhat does your body want to share with the rest of the group today? Elisa
Martin
Gavin
Simon
Nicholas
Isabela
DiscussionSimon
Martin
Gavin
Martin
Simon
Isabela
Nicholas
Martin
Simon
Elisa
Martin
Nicholas'
Martin
Gavin
Elisa
Gavin
Isabela
Nicholas
Plans for next week's sessionSimon
Gavin
Martin
Isabela
Simon
Isabela (parting message on chat)
Gavin
Nicholas
Elisa
Simon
Nicholas
Elisa
Martin
Gavin
Martin
Nicholas
Simon
Nicholas
Simon
Check-outs
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
WhatsApp messages between this meeting and the next one2024-03-12 11:05 - Martin: I experimented with poetry to convey some of the intuitive clues I’ve been experiencing. It would be interesting to see if we can yield insights this way. Maybe something to add to the next week’s session. A man, of stone The rain, that stains, and just as the observer the sense of imminent something I tried to cover: (direction and limitation) 2024-03-12 11:32 - Martin: I found this (Jordan Hall) that makes distinction between semantic reality mapping and poetry: “I'll call semantic reality mapping this is really good for things like building houses or putting together battle plans it orients coordinated behaviour where the checksum of reality is pretty strong science does a lot of this science is pretty much this kind of thing” “ over here is poetry parable… the trick is we have to actually be able to use language is some way of creating a resonance frequency or protocol match that generates a capacity for communication that is not itself specifically semantic which I would propose both parable and poetry do …” “it orients you in the direction of a feeling in yourself - like, think about poetry, when you read a poem you don't understand the poem but there's something about the way that the poem coordinates language helps you ... orient in yourself to an experience that feels like the feeling that the poet is also feeling. points to possibility of connection at the level of interior feeling - not the connection at the level of understanding” 2024-03-13 11:21 - Nicholas: Hey! I know that guy! 😁 2024-03-13 14:58 - Martin: How do the hemispheres relate to the divine masculine/feminine? Can’t remember if that’s been mentioned in the convo (couldn’t find it in the transcript). 2024-03-13 15:06 - Lauren: Right is feminine, left is masculine but it wasn't mentioned as far as I remember 2024-03-13 15:14 - Nicholas: I am sure Isabela can say more but I have noticed Iain M does not like the masculine/feminine framing at all. However it looks to me a bit because he is thinking of an Edwardian idea of masculine/feminine: masculine is solid and reliable, feminine flighty and fanciful. He says "that is really the opposite of how the hemispheres are." But actually it seems the way he talks about the characters of the hemispheres matches quite well with contemporary stereotypes of what men and women are like. 2024-03-13 15:14 - Martin: This message was deleted 2024-03-13 15:20 - Lauren: It's best to avoid thinking of masculine/feminine as defined by gender because we all have these elements and I feel people often reject this notion if they view it as making them more 'girly' or 'blokey'. Whereas they are energetic qualities, that a certain sex often embodies more of, but they are really qualities of existence (IMO), and they both allow access to the sacred and true expressions of ourselves 2024-03-13 15:21 - Lauren: And when working together really support a healthy expression of an individual but it's a continual game and balance 2024-03-13 15:22 - Martin: If we say that feminine wisdom embodies more of the RH and orients better - I think it’s quite important to recognise it - because of capacities… 2024-03-13 15:31 - Martin: https://youtu.be/H8apGpq2LJs?t=1771 2024-03-14 11:25 - Simon: I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable with this question, and I'm worried that some of the replies might be leading us on wild goose chases. My understanding, limited though it is, is that one of the main differences between typical men and women is that the corpus callosum differs: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum#Variation_between_sexes To me, that clearly does not mean that M/F correlates with L/R, but that , at least in some ways, the typical female brain is more interconnected than the typical male one. (And naturally I do want to emphasis "typical" and acknowledge wide variation and overlap.) From the perspective of a LH-dominated society, I can imagine that this extra connection can be seen as pro-RH, in that it resists the compartmentalisation of the two hemispheres. Theoretically, I could imagine a society where the LH was undervalued, and the feminine pointed to a restoration of LH position. Though, fair, this isn't likely! Another reason I feel discomfort is that this identification supports stereotypes. I'm a bit allergic to gender stereotypes, because I feel that I had to suppress my own feminine sensibilities at a young age, due to adverse boarding school experiences. As a parent, I have come to recognise that much of my feelings and behaviour is more typically motherly than fatherly. While I don't see or feel myself as non-binary, I have a great predisposition to sympathy with those who do. I live in the awkward space where I feel that perceptions of me as typically masculine, conditioning, and social norms pressure me to be not fully myself, and not be understood. This was reinforced only recently by attending a trial workshop with Fanny Norlin — I've put a copy of some relevant work by her on my site at https://www.simongrant.org/partners/FannyNorlin/FaMTiB.html — her workshop was for masculine men wanting to integrate the feminine, but it turned out that I didn't really have the typical masculine traits that worked well in that setting. I guess I'm just asking for care and sensitivity around gender issues and stereotyping! 2024-03-14 11:26 - Simon: Having said that, Martin's question relates to the divine M and F, which is less uncomfortable, as long as we all hold closely in mind that as males and females and others we can embody both. 2024-03-14 12:13 - Martin: Just to clarify - It never crossed my mind that L/R hemisphere had anything to do with the anatomy of the brain and I certainly don’t think that divine M/F has anything to do with men and women in terms of putting them on a warpath or expressing superiority/inferiority. The concepts of divine masculine and feminine are essentially poetic descriptions of abstract ideas. The reason for comparing the two concepts (L/R - M/F) is akin to us comparing similar philosophical concepts emerging in different philosophies - dao, dharma, yin and yang.. - sense making, insights 2024-03-14 12:35 - Nicholas: Agreeing with general sentiment but bit confused by first thing you say here, Martin. 2024-03-14 12:42 - Martin: I don’t believe there’s any relevance as to where physically some reasoning mechanism might or might not be located. I’d love to hear why would anyone think otherwise? I believe in absolute possibilities, so anything that makes an active effort to close the boundaries I meet with suspicion. 2024-03-14 14:41 - Martin: I’d be interested in some reflections as to what we’ve achieved in this study group and how it could be done better. I’ve been watching a lot of videos recently (the same intellectual space) and found an enormous amount of coherence. Way more than, for example, the video we’ve been following. Even with the flow and pre-sense-making - 4 people seems to be the maximum and 3 probably optimal. If there’s not enough coherence - 2 people only. Theoretically, with a facilitator it could handle more people - but then it would be up to that person to intuitively guide conversation taking into account their insight into people’s capacities and then solicit answers - so the whole group would be more oriented towards that person’s sense making rather than the emergence. Rule Omega is an interesting concept. Or maybe stick to circling, but with more structure? 2024-03-14 19:26 - Simon: Just replying to this sub-thread, Martin and Nicholas I am also surprised by it not crossing your mind, Martin, as to my mind Iain has spent a lot of time both researching and publishing on what the measurable differences between LH and RH are. Now, as Iain is the first to point out, what the research says is only tenuously related to the cultural stereotypes — or indeed archetypes. I'm of course happy that you say that “The concepts of divine masculine and feminine are essentially poetic descriptions of abstract ideas.” But still, alas, the reason I give myself for my discomfort is that using that language very clearly and directly invites attribution of particular stereotypical or archetypical traits onto people who present as either male or female. Which to my mind is something I would rather the 2nd Renaissance culture moved beyond! So I'm with Nicholas in noticing that “I have noticed Iain M does not like the masculine/feminine framing at all.” That's just my personal opinion, but switching into a stewardship or meta- role, my sense is that this (text-based prose communication) really isn't the best place to continue this conversation. Poetry is better, thanks for that! Where is the best place to have this conversation then? The question brings up one possible idea, that we could have a series of (initially) one-off conversations around particular questions or issues or disagreements that have arisen. I see the outcomes as possibly either a resolution, which could be recorded somewhere; or a live research question, to be added to potential agenda to be taken on by a small team for possible publication. My impression is that the quality of conversation here is so high, that any major differences of opinion are likely to be reflected in the wider intellectual space, and for that reason alone, worth publishing about. 2024-03-14 19:37 - Simon: I would also be interested! My nuance here would be along the lines of, well, coherence, is that what is most generative? Doing this work for the study group, and also hearing all the different perspectives, leads me to a fascination with the points of incoherence. A bit like my fascination with questions — part of what I wrote here https://wiki.simongrant.org/doku.php/d:2024-02-18 Coherence is very useful for ground-level teaching, granted. I feel we are well beyond the need for that. My memory brings back, again, the diamond of participatory decision making (e.g. https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Diamond_of_Participation ) where a "groan zone" is an integral part of the overall process. For sure, we haven't fully done the convergent side of the diamond. And, to take up your numbers point, maybe writing coherently works best with two or three co-authors? (Personally I've done quite enough single authorship, and would love to do more joint work!) As far as the video goes, personally I very much appreciate the rawness of the incoherence. Because it was largely unprepared, and totally unscripted, it gives insight into the individuals' positions and perspectives which to me is more fascinating than you would get from a more coherent piece. 2024-03-14 19:50 - Martin: What I did was - set aside the biological underpinnings that he based on the insights from neuroscience and cognitive psychology and approached this as a conceptual framework. To me - it is a dualistic perspective that suggests that we engage with the world in two "fundamentally?" different ways. Analytical and utilitarian left and holistic, interconnected right. I don't see how would my analysis or study have been any different if I'd paid any attention to the physical origin of this functionality? I'm not an expert in neuroscience and I have no way of verifying the validity of this particular aspect of his research, but I can assess the ideas that are derived from it because they don’t exist only in the context of the physicality. 2024-03-14 19:59 - Simon: No worries, Martin, I'm much in harmony with your general approach of something like "well it wouldn't really matter anyway if this were nothing to do with brain lateralisation". Sure, we can still approach it from a purely conceptual framework point of view. Just that I don't agree that the science of brain lateralisation is of no interest or value. I think it can give us plenty of food for thought, and much more nourishing than the "folk" ideas of LH=reason and RH=emotion which are entirely misguided. 2024-03-15 07:18 - Nicholas: Yeah, the best way to understand the meaning of the Divine Feminine probably isn't three self-selected males talking about it in a WhatsApp chat... 2024-03-15 07:20 - Nicholas: ...would it be possible, before the call, to have a shared list of ideas of how to take this forward? Starting with Simon's suggestions above. After failing to do the homework last week, I am keen to be set some more. 2024-03-15 09:37 - Martin: I suppose one way of engaging with the issue is to commit an ad hominem fallacy (genetic fallacy) by trying to discredit either us (identified as self-selected males) or the setting (WhatsApp) in order to invalidate our ability to understand the concept. 🤷. 2024-03-15 09:46 - Nicholas: I am not saying you shouldn't have brought it up. I am just saying we aren't going to resolve it like this. 2024-03-15 09:49 - Nicholas: And I think we all have extremely limited ability to understand this concept and/or reality that some extremely impressive people have devoted their lives to. 2024-03-15 09:52 - Martin: Thanks Simon - this would be (in my opinion) an example of a straw man fallacy. I offered a reasoned approach to evaluating ideas based on their conceptual merits rather than their physical origins and you seem to suggest that I meant that the science of brain lateralisation is of no interest or value. I never said that the brain lateralisation had no value - all I was saying is that’s above my paygrade and rather than pretend I can use it to any effect - I decided to ignore the origin foundations. You’re welcome to explain why would taking into account neuroscience change my understanding and how. Anyway, this logical fallacies intermezzo was just meant as a light hearted Friday morning joke :-) 2024-03-15 09:55 - Martin: … and yet - that’s what we’re exactly trying to do here 2024-03-15 09:55 - Nicholas: Which is why I want to stop. Or at least be realistic about it. 2024-03-15 09:56 - Martin: I was referring to our study of Master and his Emissary. Is that what you meant? 2024-03-15 09:57 - Nicholas: No. More specifically to this question you bring up about Divine masculine/feminine & relationship to RH/LH 2024-03-15 09:58 - Simon: This reminds me of the advice which I've seen given to (e.g.) couple arguments. If one or more of us are triggered, best to cool off and come back later. And if the medium is part of the issue (which I would say it is) stop – yes – and also come back in a different medium. 2024-03-15 10:00 - Simon: I've seen it noted as a kind of boundary issue. (Admission: I have had lots and lots of boundary issues I've handled in ways I am not proud of in my life) 2024-03-15 10:05 - Martin: One other concept (I hope this one is not contentious) that I’ve seen mentioned (especially in the context of coherence) is anti-fragility. I think that’s also useful in terms of evaluating ideas without too much of an emotional attachment. And, of course, what we’ve talked about - holding tension. 2024-03-15 10:07 - Nicholas: I can feel how much I want to keep arguing with Martin, rather than listen to Simon here. I absolutely have to resist the temptation. I mean there are other people getting these messages. It is embarrassing to be arguing in public like this! I'll use that thought to stop me if nothing else will. Off this chat for today. 2024-03-18 07:16 - Nicholas: Hi all. Really sorry but realise there is no way I can make today's call. Meetings have been moved around. I could send some thoughts either before or after, maybe. I think after is probably better. 2024-03-18 11:51 - Elisa: Hi all! For our last session today, we will be enquiring into what issues feel most alive, and where people are feeling moved to go next (if anywhere). Hope to see many of you there! 😊 2024-03-18 11:51 - Elisa: Nicholas you’ll be missed, but looking forward to hearing your reflections later (I can share the meeting notes so you have a sense of what was said…) 2024-03-18 12:04 - Nicholas: Thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
2024-03-18 — Session 8Present: Simon, Elisa, Gavin, Lauren, Martin Agenda
NotesSharing circle - round 1: what issues are alive?Martin
Simon
Gavin
Lauren
Elisa
Sharing circle - round 2: how are others' shares impacting us?Lauren
Martin
Gavin
Elisa
Simon
Sharing circle - round 3: where do we feel moved to go from here?Suggested options:
Martin
Simon
Gavin
Elisa
Lauren
Next steps
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
WhatsApp messages after this last meeting2024-03-18 15:50 - Elisa: So... the study group is now officially over! 🎉 Thank you so much to everyone who participated and shared their contributions. Here are the notes from today's final session: https://github.com/orgs/life-itself/discussions/1022#discussioncomment-8829890 If you weren't able to attend today and feel so inclined, please do share any reflections and suggestions for where you would like to go next (if anywhere). At the end of today's session we shared ideas about some directions that some of us might be interested to follow, so do take a look at the notes on that. We'll keep this group open for some time, and you are welcome to use it to organise around anything that you'd like to follow up on, or share further reflections. 2024-03-18 15:53 - Elisa: We would also like to invite feedback and reflections on what the experience was like for you. Simon and I are looking to write something about it in the next few months (and we are in discussion about potentially opening that process up to anyone who would like to contribute), but while it's all still fresh, it would be great if you'd like to share anything that feels alive for you. Different formats (including e.g. poetry, or some other artistic medium) are welcome 😊 2024-03-18 15:54 - Lauren: I need to share the link to the one I read, I'll do that now 2024-03-18 15:57 - Simon: Thanks @elisapaka ! And, if you want to develop an idea, please also feel free to set up a shared doc (HackMD or Google, whatever) and post a link here. We encourage raw ideas earlier while they're fresh, rather than leaving them until the energy is weakened. At the same time, suggesting something here is not a commitment, so low risk. Someone else might be stimulated to take it up 2024-03-18 15:59 - Simon: For those who weren't there today, we were envisaging any of three modes: (1) something you're willing to lead, if there are interested participants (2) something you are interested enough to develop jointly with someone else, but not alone (3) something that you don't feel up to doing yourself but you would be a participant in if someone else did it. And then, of course, all promising ideas that receive support here will be transferred to the main research group to see if more are interested 2024-03-18 16:01 - Lauren: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WomEqF58ldLlP3zmtAYRaC8AQv7TkuiC-7NzYQfOST8/edit?usp=sharing - it's not been edited any more since I shared it 2024-03-18 16:05 - Lauren: I said I'd be happy to pull together a quick win pdf/eBook of creative shares - images people have drawn/painted, poems, a short essay, a reflective piece, a link to a piece of music composed etc . . . if people send to me over the next few days. I feel after this week I might lose momentum to do it. email to send items to me: please subject it clearly for my reference. Deadline midnight Wednesday CET. 2024-03-18 20:16 - Gavin: Good to be there today. I offered to host / initiate a space to inquire into ‘the wisdom that the world is asking of us’, including ways to cultivate and nurture this wisdom. Starting with an inquiry practice format in groups of 3 or 4, which is quite meditative, but which is then also open to evolve. Just let me know if you are interested, and we can go from there. Thanks everyone! Gavin 😃 2024-03-19 12:48 - Nicholas: I apologise for not having said much. I just haven't had much time to think. Suggestions seem to me good. No objections! I feel that I probably need to write something myself about why I do appreciate this material as I have been so focused on where I don't. 2024-03-19 13:21 - Matthew: I haven’t been able to make the last few meetings, but I’m really grateful for this study group and energy that’s been forming here. As a final update/comment I wanted to respond to the question Nicholas posed a week or so ago on some of our individual motivations. 2024-03-19 13:22 - Matthew: First, I’m reminded of the analogy of ‘signal’ and ‘noise’, that there is so much noise in the world, often in the form of advertisements or things on social media, and that this barrage of noise for me feels like it only contributes to a certain way of being that I’m in the process of unlearning. The conversation is part of the ‘signal’ that make sense to me and is more than just ‘noise’, and so here I would also say that the kind of information I decide to take in has a lot to do with my own health and well being, and this conversation is apart of what I find to be the ‘signal’. Side question: do others feel an aversion (even physical) to a lot of the ‘noise’ in the world, ie advertisements? 2024-03-19 13:27 - Matthew: More on the conversation itself, I’m in the process of ‘entering the real world’ and there is this sense of having to do certain things or fulfil certain obligations, financial and even related to school, etc, which often take a good part of my energy, when I think my energy can be more valuable elsewhere. So: ‘why am I partaking in this way of being and sacrificing my energy towards this’ is an acute question for anyone who considers this. Obviously there are things we must do, and this is fine, and indeed an important lesson; but the sense is really that a lot of what we do can and probably should be almost entirely different. There is a certain ‘life style arc’ embedded in the ‘real world’ which is something I’m resistant to take part in. 2024-03-19 13:29 - Matthew: Hoping things can continue in some form in the future 😌 2024-03-19 13:30 - Martin: I’m strongly sensitive to noise too and can feel it everywhere (cognitively and pysically). I’m sure you’ve seen this, but just in case you haven’t. https://youtu.be/7LqaotiGWjQ?t=627 2024-03-20 07:32 - Simon: I found this quite relevant to our study topic, and particularly what Iain's approach is... perhaps correlates with your work Isabela ? https://neurosciencenews.com/transcendent-thinking-neurodevelopment-25771/ 2024-03-20 07:35 - Simon: Also, as Elisa has already put the notes from Monday on our GitHub system, I thought we could use the HackMD notes page as a reference place to point to whatever work we are carrying on to follow up on these topics. Anyone who can't hack HackMD please feel free to ask me to put a note in there. https://hackmd.io/@6NpGUUD7RZW60KZAKgmfmA/BymZbgSqT 2024-03-20 16:16 - Danielle: Hi everyone! I am loving the Life Itself contributions to Limicon. I am wondering if the pre-registration feels important? The norm of the space has been to just show up to events as you can-and we have had some confusion in the one other pre-register session. 2024-03-20 16:18 - Lauren: Hey Danielle, OK thanks for flagging this up, I'll amend to remove the pre register And reshare the links with you via WhatsApp, if that's OK? 2024-03-25 13:42 - Lauren: Hey all, I'm a bit behind with my commitment to creating a pdf of shares, and wanted to check in if anyone else had anything they wanted to include? So far there are only 2 of us, so it would be great if more people had items to contribute. 2024-03-25 15:07 - Simon: Your idea struck me as lovely, Lauren, it's just that for that kind of creativity I need more space and time, if it comes at all! Something of that nature may come to me, but my sense is, probably not quickly... 2024-03-25 15:07 - Nicholas: Yes, I am also "struggling with perceptions of time scarcity" this week! 2024-03-25 15:10 - Lauren: No problem, just to say it doesn't have to be perfect, I can feature them as 'works in progress' if that helps alleviate any pressure |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hosted by @elisapaka and @asimong
WhatsApp messages in the run-up to the study group
2023-12-27 15:15 - Rufus: Here are some ideas from past discussions re the study group:
More thematic
2023-12-27 16:24 - Simon: Thanks for the suggestions, @rufuspollock ! Just to note a couple of my personal reactions... (1) any list like this is likely to be completely attractive only to the person suggesting it, so personally I wouldn't suggest doing this up front, but better in a deliberately inclusive way that elicits ideas from everyone together without generating expectations. I don't think we need a list of suggestion. I wasn't even thinking that we would have "a study group" that works its way through different things to study. My suggestion arose simply and specifically as a one-off idea to study the McGilchrist/Vervaeke/Schmachtenberger conversation as a way of stimulating ideas around research agendas.
2023-12-27, 16:26 - Catherine: We could have a time window (e.g. 1 week or 2) where anyone in this group can propose suggestions for a first piece of material to "study"/read/discuss together in some way and then create a poll to select which of those nominations to go with?
2023-12-27, 16:27 - Simon: (2) You will recall that I didn't want to set up a study group just on my own. This is partly because the whole way that a group is set up, including whether people suggest study topics, strikes me as part of the holding of the whole conversational space — including the sensitivity to what people are looking for. So: I don't want to say that this is "right" or "wrong" or anything simplistically naive like that, but that it is a great process for those who feel called to devote their attention and time to setting up a suitable container to lead the process collectively.
2023-12-27, 16:31 - Simon: The wisdom from the Art of Hosting community is that it takes a field to hold a field; that an individual does not have that capacity. I'm not sure how to say this sensitively and without hurting feelings… but for me, I only proposed studying that particular conversation, and there was some interest in that particular proposal — I may have been missing something, but I didn't sense a consensus behind the idea of "setting up a study group" and setting up a process to decide what that study group should study.
2023-12-27 16:35 - Simon: I do recommend speaking first person here, so I'll say I have two personal interests: first, to join with others in discerning what is most interesting from that specific conversation and relating it to the Life Itself research agenda; and second, in various ways to nurture and grow a culture and a context that is generative of research projects — by which I mean small groups of people who come together, either initially to write a paper on some area of common interest, or to make a research proposal, or bid into some source of funding.
2023-12-27 16:56 - Rufus: > is that it takes a field to hold a field; that an individual does not have that capacity. I'm not sure how to say this sensitively and without hurting feelings… but for me, I only proposed studying that particular conversation, and there was some interest in that particular proposal
Great clarification.
Yes, good to have clarification re the focus on the mcgilchrist/vervaeke conversation
I had sense from Catherine had offered to "hold the field" with you.
Happy to run with that. Let not the best be the enemy of the good 😄
2024-01-05 19:24 - Elisa: This is a somewhat late reply to the above, but my own intuitions feel aligned with the thoughts that Simon has laid out. I like the double aim of stimulating a research agenda in an emergent way, and experimenting with ways of holding the space and nurturing a culture that is collectively led and generative of research projects. I had a great conversation with Gavin on the research community call today, and he expressed interest in this (and in the Vervaeke-Schmachtenberger-McGilchrist conversation as a starting point). It sounded like he’d be particularly interested in dialectic inquiry as a process for identifying questions that feel alive or salient (which may or may not be how we want to approach things.)
2024-01-10 14:26 - Simon: hi @elisapaka and all... I've added some extra features and sub-headings to my "study copy" of the 3-way conversation, at the same place https://www.simongrant.org/philosophy/2023_metacrisis-conversation.html and would like to ask you Elisa and @catherinet1 if this now looks like sufficient detail to use as a study text, and whether my headings are suitable to break it up into sessions? Hopefully we can talk this over soon and start up the study group.
2024-01-19 09:37 - Elisa: Hey all. For anyone who hasn't seen the post about the first study group session on the Life Itself General or Research chats, here is the plan:
We will be discussing the conversation between John Vervaeke, Iain McGilchrist and Daniel Schmachtenberger entitled 'The Psychological Drivers of the Metacrisis' (see links below, including transcript). We have divided the conversation into sections, which we will examine over the course of a few sessions. In addition to making sense of and digesting the conversation, the overarching aim is to stimulate potential research ideas, particularly as they relate to the Life Itself research agenda.
Links
When
2024-01-26 17:59 - Simon: Oh, one more extra thing! If you're not familiar with Iain McGilchrist's thinking, you might find this very recent article helpful: https://perspecteeva.substack.com/p/understanding-iain-mcgilchrists-worldview
2024-01-29 08:18 - Gavin: Sending my apologies for today everyone - I can’t make it unfortunately. 🙁 But to feed in one thread that feels important from the first 40 minutes - what are the potential drawbacks and benefits of the meta crisis framing over polycrisis? Eg. are the causes of meta crisis useful and discernible beyond human nature, and evolution of consciousness. Might it help or hinder short term triage responses -
Eg making sure as many people as possible get food and water. Hope you have a good meet!
2024-01-29 08:23 - Gavin: Goodness, this is impressive Simon - what a resource. I listened to the audio, but thanks for taking the time to do this. 🙏
2024-01-29 09:29 - Christopher: Yes useful. I started my own version of a transcript doing exactly this but I will stop and use yours.
2024-01-29 13:07 - Olga: Guys I’m battling COVID and complications (been sick for at least two weeks:/) and I might not be very prepared but I would still like to show up and at least observe i hope that’s okay
2024-01-29 13:49 - Olga: [nah, I’m really not feeling good. I’m very sorry I’ll sadly have to pass. Hopefully see you guys next time.]
2024-01-29 13:50 - Matt: Sorry to hear. Get well soon Olga
2024-01-29 14:14 - Em: I’m very excited about this group. 🌱
We have just started
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions