-->

Saturday, June 7, 2025

Crisis or Transformation? The Distinction That Shapes Our World

Everywhere we turn, we hear about the crises we face: a polycrisis, a metacrisis, a megacrisis. But to even speak these words, we must first perform a fundamental act. We must draw a distinction.

The philosopher George Spencer-Brown, in his work Laws of Form, argued that all knowledge begins with this simple act: drawing a boundary. We draw a line to separate one thing from everything else. In our current narrative, we have drawn a sharp distinction, labeling one side "the way the world should be" and the other, "a crisis that needs fixing."

Once that distinction is made, our focus narrows. We are compelled to address the "problem" side, the part of reality that deviates from our ideal. But in doing so, we risk becoming blind to the larger, undivided pattern from which the distinction was drawn. The very act of naming the crisis can obscure the nature of the whole.

This desire to correct what we've defined as an error is timeless. It echoes the 13th-century king, Alfonso X, who said, “Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe.”1

But what if the most powerful move is not to fix the part we've labeled "wrong," but to dissolve the distinction itself? What happens when we try to see the whole pattern, including the chaotic elements we've walled off as a "crisis"?

To do this, we can look for similar patterns in the universe's history.

The Creative Pollution of Stars

Consider the stars. They are born from clouds of gas and dust, and for billions of years, they fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, bathing their planetary systems in life-giving energy. But this process is finite. Eventually, the star exhausts its fuel and dies in a spectacular explosion—a supernova.

From the perspective of the star, this is a destructive end. But if we erase that boundary, we see that the star's "pollution"—the heavy elements like carbon, oxygen, and iron forged in its core and scattered across the cosmos—is the critical ingredient for everything that comes next. This stellar debris is the stuff of planets, of life, and of us. Our existence is made possible only by the explosive "waste" of a previous cosmic generation.

The Echo in Evolution

We see a similar pattern in the story of life on Earth. The leading edge of evolution has always built upon the remains of what came before. The very air we breathe, rich with oxygen, was once a toxic pollutant spewed out by early microbial life, causing one of the planet's first mass extinctions. Today, our industrial civilization is powered by hydrocarbons—the concentrated, buried carcasses of countless organisms that lived and died hundreds of millions of years ago. We are, in a very real sense, living off the ghosts and waste of past life.

Our Role in the Undivided Whole

If we apply this perspective to our present moment, it reframes everything. What if our pollution, our discarded technologies, and even the societal structures we are building and dismantling are not problems to be isolated and solved, but integral parts of a larger system in transformation?

This gives new weight to Carl Sagan's famous words: “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” As finite beings, our capacity to understand the depth of existence is limited. Perhaps our purpose is not to be the final arbiters of what is "right" or "wrong" with the universe.

Are we creating the context for new forms of intelligence—perhaps artificial or hybrid beings—that can understand the universe in ways we cannot even conceive? Are our vast networks of information and our ecological pressures the necessary crucible that will forge the next leap in cosmic awareness?

Ultimately, the reality we inhabit is shaped by the distinctions we choose to make. By drawing a hard line around "crisis," we commit ourselves to a path of reaction and repair. But if we dare to erase that line, we are invited into a different role. We are no longer repairmen for a broken universe, but conscious participants in a messy, magnificent, and cosmic birth. The challenge is to see the whole, not just the part we've learned to fear.

A Poem to Capture these ideas:

Of course. Here is that blog post's core philosophy, captured in the form of a poem.


Before the crisis, came the line,
The first distinction, sharp and deep.
We carved the world in yours and mine,
And woke a problem from its sleep.

We gave a name to fear and doubt,
We called it Error, Flaw, and Fall.
The part we wished to cast right out,
And in that part, we saw it all.

A king's desire to rearrange
The flawed design of moon and sun,
To fix, control, resist the change,
To mourn the thing that can't be undone.

But what if we let the drawn line fade?
And see the whole, the undivided?
The terrifying, grand parade,
By which the future is provided?

A star must burn and break and die,
A sacrifice of fire and gas,
To scatter carbon through the sky,
In one explosive, final pass.
Its final ash, its "poison" breath,
Became the soil for roots and trees.
Our life is owed to stellar death;
We are its brilliant debris.

The first life choked the ancient air
With oxygen, a toxic plume.
It built a world beyond compare
From out its own destructive doom.
And now we burn the buried dead,
The pressure of a million years,
A ghostly fuel to forge ahead,
And build a house upon our fears.

So look upon our smoke and waste,
The tangled code, the plastic seas.
Is this a failure, made in haste?
Or compost for new destinies?
Is this the ruin of the age,
The final, lamentable scrawl?
Or just the turning of a page,
The raw material for it all?

For we are ways the cosmos wakes,
A fleeting, self-aware design.
And from the pieces that we break,
May grow a more transcendent mind.

The choice is in the name we speak,
The boundary we hold as true.
Is this a world gone wrong and weak?
Or one that's birthing something new?

So are we here to mend the flaw,
As panicked builders in the night?
Or stand in silent, patient awe,
As midwives to a coming light?

 


 

__________________________________________________

Below is my original expression that I asked Google Gemini AI to improve and to generate the poem.

These days there is much talk about various forms of crises that we are in - poly, meta, mega, giga, ... There is a basic distinction that is unstated, i.e., that there is an error in the unfolding of the universe. We need to correct that error.  It is reminiscent of Alfonso X's quoteHad I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. If we look at what has happened in history, what is happening now, in a time of great change, there are very obviously problems from a number of different perspectives: human suffering, species extinction, processing "natural" resources and creating pollution, changing / destroying ecologies, etc. However, if don't make the distinction of an error in the unfolding / creation process, then we have to abstract up and take different perspective on what is going on.

One way to approach this shift in perspective is to look at other patterns that have a similar structure, similar pattern. We can find several such patterns:

  • Stars form, burn up there constituents, giving off energy, and then explode / implode. We / life are made possible by the creation of heavier elements which are the left over pollution of that explosion. This is the exponential curve often cited in analysing our problems from economy, ecology, biology, etc.
  • Is there a similar pattern in evolution? What we consider to be the leading edge of evolution is living off the pollution / carcasses of the many generations of life that came before. Are not our hydrocarbons that which was once life as we now think of.
  • ...
So, if we take the perspective that there is no crisis but an unfolding, what is a possible narrative for all the issues we are facing? Are we a rung in ladder / spiral of unfolding of this existence / universe? In which case, are our pollutions and our creations the "pollution" that leads to the next stage of the unfolding. Let us take Carl Sagan's quote: The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” Then are we creating the context for the next "forms" that will understand the universe better than we can? We are finite being and have limited capacity to understand the depth, the breadth, the magnificence, and the mystery of this existence. We may soon have artificial intelligences that can understand this existence at a much deeper level than we are able. Will we have mergers, hybrid forms, ...  that understand more of the universe?

Friday, September 6, 2024

Lessons From AI

 There is the notion of "the map is not the territory". Given what we are seeing with AIs, the confabulations, the diversity, their multiplicity, we can enlarge this view. We can say that an experience is not reality. All experiences are training data for us / our neural nets. Since there are as many ways to interpret these experiences, this training data as there are neural nets, we can say that an experience has aspects of reality but is not reality.

Saturday, August 17, 2024

The Non Problem of Consciousness

 There is much conversation about the "Hard problem of consciousness". One perspective on that is that this issue is born out of primate biology of wanting to be / feel special. A rather simple resolution to this is that all that exists is "aware" of its existence by definition. Then there are gradation / spectrum on what that awareness encompasses. Humans are at a particular level on that spectrum. There is no problem of consciousness, rather an excess of primate arrogance.


Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Should vs Could

 When we use "should", we are in some sense battling reality, i.e., it IS not the way we want it to be. However, if we use "could", then we engage the imaginal to chart possible paths to what could be. It take more energy and is more difficult to find a path of what could be. And what could be may not what we want once we actually get there.

It may be useful to note that should's often arise out of a value system. And our value systems are a story about what is important. What is important to us is not necessarily important to "reality". And hence we are out of sync with the real. The Tao Te Ching talks about being one with the way without specify what that way is. That is the eternal journey - discovering a way to the way.

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Relationship as foreground

 We tend to notice and name things. These things are in the foreground of our thinking and behavior. Let us consider the notion of holons. Part come together to make a whole. Wholes can be parts to another level of wholes. We can see this progression from particles, to organisms, to galaxies, etc. However, no whole can exist without a a particular set of relationships between its parts. Most / some relationships do not create a whole. In that sense, when we see a thing ( a whole), that whole only exists because of a very particular set of relationships between its parts. And hence one can say that it is the relationships that are in the foreground for "all" things that exist.

The origin of this post is from Iain McGilchrist's idea that:

We cannot understand reality by disassembling it and examining its parts. The whole is more than the sum of the parts | Iain McGilchrist on why the world is made of relationships, not things.

Categories, Errors, Spectra, Spaces

 Let us apply the Laws of Form to the notion of categories. Before any distinction is made, there are not categories. Is this what is reflected in spiritual, psychedelic, and other experiences where one has the sense of no boundaries and being part of one "consciousness"? We create categories with some value / intent. In particular, our psycho-biology uses distinctions / categories to create the "other".  The other can he revered (perhaps as authority) or hated. These variations determine our behavior towards the "other". 

Another way to think about this is that we are all somewhere on a spectrum of whatever attribute we are using to create categories. Categories imply a qualitative difference. However, on most attributes what we have are really quantitative differences.

We can further generalize this notion to think of a multi-dimensional space of attributes in which we all exist. In this case again we are quantitatively different from each other rather than qualitatively as implied by categorizations. These categorizations can be positive (saint vs sinners, boss vs worker, ..) or negative (good ethnic group vs vermin, chosen group vs damned, ...).

These ideas can be applied to the notion of category error / mistake. We put things, beings, etc, in different categories with some intent. Would it be more accurate to think of them as being in a different part of ontological attribute space? One of the possible benefits of that may be that affect circuits may not be inadvertently activated with their resulting behaviors and responses to the delineated category?

The Sacred as a Container

 

Think of the Sacred as a containment field for consciousnesses. What contains behavior? Some kind of container / limit can be such a "manager" / controller for behavior. The sacred acts as such a container. It creates both a wall as well as a veil that stops the algorithmic neural nets we have from venturing past that wall or looking beyond that veil. Perhaps this is the notion behind Nietsche's "God is dead" statement. 

In another sense, one can think of the creation of the meme of the sacred as a psychotechnology to set limits on behaviors and practices.