Lene, thanks for good definitions and a great quote. This captures well what I have in mind.
Brandon,
Thanks for your analysis, let me respond in some detail.
1) I am glad we agree on the vertical axis.
2) Lene has offered us a good description of revolution <-> evolution. Because “Revolutionary Anti-Capitalistic" contains the term “revolutionary” in its name, I am comfortable using that to calibrate the “revolutionary” pole of the horizontal
axis. Regarding evolution, the process of biological evolution is guided by “reproductive success”. I argue that “Rational Optimistic Enlightenment” is guided by our decision (choice) to use
rationality as our primary basis for decision making. Pinker has become increasing explicit about that in his 3 most recent books, Better angels, Enlightenment now, and Rationality. Similarly the decision to “seek real good” provides the guidance
in living wisely. (I see Living Wisely largely aligned with Rational Optimistic Enlightenment, I am a big fan of Pinker). Living wisely can effect institutional change as wiser people vote, and spend their time and money more wisely.
3) Because “doomer defeatist” assumes the collapse of existing institutions, I place it at the institutional pole. There is a legitimate question about what DD assumes
causes the institutional collapse. Perhaps they believe it is inevitable and they are only in “survivalist” mode as individuals. I view Bannon as working to stimulate the collapse of many institutions (e.g. storm the capital).
4) I advocate Living Wisely
Thanks,
Lee Beaumont
CAUTION: This
email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Brandon,
Good questions.
I would say:
- Revolution: tipping point cascading of events due to lack of organic development due to political incompetence
- Evolution: distribution of agency among people, which allows them to adjust locally
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy
/ Lene
On 02-12-2021 00:30, Brandon Norgaard wrote:
[log in to unmask]" class="">
CAUTION: This
email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
That’s awesome, thanks Lee!
Some thoughts:
-
I can see how the vertical axis lines up with the Influence Matrix in a way similar to how Waldamar explained in a graphic shared with this list a few days ago, wherein he showed it was
closely related to the upper vs. lower quadrants of Integral Theory. This individual vs. group dynamic keeps popping up in all kinds of places.
-
It is unclear what is the crux of the distinction between revolutionary and evolutionary approaches. We might start with the overarching assumption among probably all of these approaches
that there is a very high likelihood of negative large-scale impacts in the not-to-distant future. That assumption is baked into the acknowledgement of the meta-crisis. I’m interpreting your revolution vs. evolution dichotomy as hinging upon whether people
in that camp want active interventions in an effort to make serious course-corrections or whether they want incremental change through a series of mini-interventions that would be informed by feedback from the prior mini-interventions. Evolutionary approaches,
I suppose, don’t have a grand strategy, or at least there is an assumption that there are natural forces driving this whole thing and the best we can do would be to make adjustments that might have a large-scale impact down the line, but not in a way we can
foresee ahead of time. Is this accurate, partially accurate? Or perhaps am I really just misinterpreting?
-
Isn’t doomer defeatist more of an individual thing rather than institutional?
-
I find myself agreeing more so with the approaches closer to the center and less with those further out in one direction or another. As I see it, we need a more balanced approach.
-Brandon
CAUTION: This
email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
ToK Folk:
I used the dimensions of individual <-> institutional shown vertically, and revolutions <-> evolution plotted horizontally.
My placement of each concept is approximate at best.
Are the dimensions chosen the best for illuminating the differences in the approaches?
Is each approach properly placed?
Does this analysis and display provide any insights?
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or
click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or
click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
--
Lene Rachel Andersen
Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European Bildung Network
Full member of the Club of Rome
Nordic Bildung
Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
www.nordicbildung.org
+45 28 96 42 40
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or
click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1