Crises

 There is much talk about crises these days, leading to the notion of a meta-crisis:

Evolution and Values

 In listening to a number of narratives and explanations of evolution, I think we are caught in a Darwinian trap. An implicit assumption in evolutionary theory is that "success" equates to propagation through time. Has an organism figured out how to continue to exist? This makes longevity / time the highest value. However, from the perspective of the infinite / reality / multiple universes / ...., it is the creation and experience of diverse, unique (?) experiences that is perhaps a higher value since that is what infinity continues to do to the best of our current knowledge. Each moment of experience has a "value" to infinity that is "immeasurable". Otherwise, why would it have been created? All our narratives of what is important are part of the infinite experience set of infinity. We make stories about valuing this over that, often forgetting that creation has given existence to all that exists. And perhaps the value of existence is higher than our notions of longevity or having more time or other artifacts of creation.

Combining Models - Vervaeke, Wilber, McGilchrist

 In Vervaeke's Awakening from the meaning crisis work, he mentions 4 ways of knowing:  1) participatory; 2) procedural; 3) perspectival; and 4) propositional. We can look at this model in light of Wilber's Integral model, and McGilchrist's left/right brain model.

Participatory is a strong relationship dynamic between Wilber's upper left and lower left quadrants with a lesser relationship to the right quadrants.

Procedural is a strong relationship between upper left quadrant and the right quadrants.This can be generalized to a tribal, city state, civilizational level as a relationship between lower left and the right quadrants.

Perspectival is a meta relationship to the quadrants, i.e., what is the agent's viewpoint in the quadrants. One can see "it" from a single quadrant view or multi quadrant view. Or various combinations of some or all the quadrants perspectives.

Propositional is the left brain map / model of "it" / reality. And actions can be based on this basis alone.

System Boundaries and Limits

 

One of the models I came across was classifying cooperation, altruism, selfishness, spite in an "economic" geometry. I have some thoughts about expanding this geometry.

Meaning Crisis ?

 These thoughts arise out of watching Vervaeke's Awakening from the meaning crisis and numbers of conversations and dialogues on such topics. One of the themes in these conversations is the loss of the sacred. And one could say Nietsche's notion of "God is dead" is along the same lines. And an attempt to create a new or reawakened sense of the sacred. Or in Vervaeke's term, creating a "religion that is not a religion". The notion of sacred is a bit of a concern for me. One way to look at the sacred is that it creates a veil ( of our own making ) with which we blind ourselves to what is beyond whatever our version of the sacred is. The sacred is useful in terms of the neurological states it allows us to experience. And of course, the side effects of those states can be quite beneficial.

Another way to think of the meaning crisis is that there is a mismatch of the values we ( as a result of the culture we are in ) get programmed with and our basic biology. Part of our biological frame includes empathy, a sense of fairness. Our current cultures put a high metric on economics ( a mode of having ). This is a maladapted metric to our biology. Hence, in the process of making money we may feel a sense of meaninglessness because of the mismatch of that metric to our biology / neurology. Another factor to keep in minds is that this sense of empathy, fairness is an evolutionary addition to our biology. It seems to be present in other primates, mammals, ....? What are the earliest indicators of this biological feature in evolution?

Scapegoats, Girard, and structural frames

 Girard's notion of the origins of scapegoating:

Whereas the philosophers of the 18th century would have agreed that communal violence comes to an end due to a social contract, Girard believes that, paradoxically, the problem of violence is frequently solved with a lesser dose of violence. When mimetic rivalries accumulate, tensions grow ever greater. But, that tension eventually reaches a paroxysm. When violence is at the point of threatening the existence of the community, very frequently a bizarre psychosocial mechanism arises: communal violence is all of the sudden projected upon a single individual. Thus, people that were formerly struggling, now unite efforts against someone chosen as a scapegoat. Former enemies now become friends, as they communally participate in the execution of violence against a specified enemy.

One of the questions that arises is what are possible underlying structures of this phenomenon. One possibility is that mammalian predator neurologies generate  waste products that build up over time. There is a need to release these wastes. When a group has accumulated enough waste, it seeks a receptacle for that energy or a release mechanism. Scapegoat(s) are found as ways to release this energy.

One can also think of this process as a way to maintain stability and avoid change. If something external is the "cause" of the energy build up, then one doesn't have to deal with one's own part in the build up of this "waste product' / energy.

An example of this structure in the alpha and omega of the wolf pack. Human societies / civilizations also create their own omegas in terms of  a servant class, an ethnic group, an easily differentiated sub-group, ...

Reasoning Frames

 Watching a dialogue between Professor Gilbert Morris and Daniel Schmactenberger on "A History of Racial Conflict", came across the notion of "motivated reasoning". The question arises when is there not motivated reasoning? We have the illusion of being "objective". Since the majority of our thinking is unconscious, and we are biological beings who don't really understand their neurology, reasoning structures, motivations, limitations, ...., we categorically can not be objective in any reasonable sense. Hence, all our reasoning is motivated reasoning based on reasons we may or may not be aware of.

Next, there is the issue of the frame used for reasoning. The frame used in this dialogue was basically a "moral frame", e.g., how could persons like Jefferson, Washington profess such high morals, write the Bill of Rights and yet participate in slavery and oppress other human beings. One can tie oneself in knots trying to answer this dilemma. A more useful frame for these kinds of issues in particular, and other issues in general, is to use a "structural frame", i.e., what kinds of underlying structures create these phenomena. Part of our biology is to utilize and maximize asymmetry in our favor. And to feel special as primates or perhaps even more generally, as living beings with a perspective. We also have a reptilian heritage of identifying "blemishes" in others as a way to identify them and then use that rationalization to increase our asymmetry with them. The asymmetry is what allows us to create hierarchies - servants, slaves, worker bees, bosses, .... This creation and utilization of asymmetry is part of our biological heritage. All human societies do this, continue to do it, we are surrounded by this phenomena in all societies, past and present. It is also the basis of this existence, particles -> atoms -> molecules -> cells -> ..... Each aggregation increasing the asymmetry between itself and its components or "siblings".

The structural frame, imho, gives more of a chance of being intentional and have choice over this basic biological impulse that we have. The universe cares little, if at all, for our moral frames. It does respond to the congruency of our structural understanding to the actual causal structures of the phenomena in question.