Thank you for an amazing article, I have felt what you write for a long time, after 20 years of study I am able to rationaly understandit but am far from being able to elucidade where we're at as clearly as you have in this piece!
The only thing I would add is to suggest it's important to add the lens of the "Meaning Crisis" as developed by John Verveake to the analysis. The meta-crisis being a symptom of humanity's meaning crisis.
One thing got me thinking: one system that DID survive for two millennia is Christianity/ the Catholic church. I'm surely not a fan, and from my limited perspective I don't see many healthy elements-but I'm wondering what can be learned from them regarding stability
Survive? In one sense, but it had to go through centuries of the challenge after Martin Luther, also power and corruption, (Borgias, Inquisition etc.) and is now just a minority faith system - even if a significant one. In any event it is not a system that the planet can operate on. We need something entirely new. I will attempt to say more about that in the near future.
Prigogine's quote seems fabricated. What if the so-called 'islands of coherence' are actually ineffectual? I'm curious about the origins of this concept and what justifies the belief in these islands of coherence, aside from the questionable quote.
“When a complex system is far from equilibrium, small islands of coherence in a sea of chaos have the capacity to shift the entire system to a higher order.” — Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize-winning chemist https://www.garrisoninstitute.org/blog/islands-of- coherence/
My use was not precise but he is widely quoted (Meg Wheatley, Marilyn Hamilton for example) As for ineffectual in this context, we will need to find out, because there are no viable alternatives. And that was the point.
It is indeed widely quoted, yet it is always cited without any reference to its source, whether in books, articles, public speeches, etc.
My point is that people frequently use this quote (or many other misattributed quotes from Nobel Prize winners) to lend credibility to, justify or reinforce their arguments. I think there is no need for this, especially when the quote may be questionable or its original context may be far removed from your own. It creates the opposite effect of what is intended.
I’m just trying to offer constructive (if unsolicited) feedback here.
Thank you for an amazing article, I have felt what you write for a long time, after 20 years of study I am able to rationaly understandit but am far from being able to elucidade where we're at as clearly as you have in this piece!
The only thing I would add is to suggest it's important to add the lens of the "Meaning Crisis" as developed by John Verveake to the analysis. The meta-crisis being a symptom of humanity's meaning crisis.
Much appreciate your perspective.
One thing got me thinking: one system that DID survive for two millennia is Christianity/ the Catholic church. I'm surely not a fan, and from my limited perspective I don't see many healthy elements-but I'm wondering what can be learned from them regarding stability
Survive? In one sense, but it had to go through centuries of the challenge after Martin Luther, also power and corruption, (Borgias, Inquisition etc.) and is now just a minority faith system - even if a significant one. In any event it is not a system that the planet can operate on. We need something entirely new. I will attempt to say more about that in the near future.
Looking forward to the article.
One thing that might happen could be AI-centered.
The difference between Utopia and dystopia will just be a matter of a few prompts....
Meanwhile I just read an article on one of the last hospitals in Sudan. Sobering.
Prigogine's quote seems fabricated. What if the so-called 'islands of coherence' are actually ineffectual? I'm curious about the origins of this concept and what justifies the belief in these islands of coherence, aside from the questionable quote.
“When a complex system is far from equilibrium, small islands of coherence in a sea of chaos have the capacity to shift the entire system to a higher order.” — Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize-winning chemist https://www.garrisoninstitute.org/blog/islands-of- coherence/
My use was not precise but he is widely quoted (Meg Wheatley, Marilyn Hamilton for example) As for ineffectual in this context, we will need to find out, because there are no viable alternatives. And that was the point.
It is indeed widely quoted, yet it is always cited without any reference to its source, whether in books, articles, public speeches, etc.
My point is that people frequently use this quote (or many other misattributed quotes from Nobel Prize winners) to lend credibility to, justify or reinforce their arguments. I think there is no need for this, especially when the quote may be questionable or its original context may be far removed from your own. It creates the opposite effect of what is intended.
I’m just trying to offer constructive (if unsolicited) feedback here.