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.