I am comforted by the knowledge that there are minds like John and Jordan's, grappling with these questions. They are formulating approaches to problems that I think many intuit, but struggle to comprehend. Their 'competence' is so needed. Thank you.
Because I agree with what Mr Vervaeke and Mr Hall are saying. Experts are a function of the literary, bureaucratic and constitutional era. Citizens with sovereign and local competency is a different model.
Brilliant diagnosis of the malfunction of our current systems of governance, and felt sense of the shift required to manifest a properly functioning one. Really looking forward to part 2.
Balaji, Dave Snowden and Jonathan Pageau all in one podcast. Worlds are colliding! This was fantastic. Only criticism is there are much easier ways to help regular people understand Snowden’s Cynefin model. Just take a look at how he explains it and copy him. People won’t engage if they can’t understand what you’re on about. 🙏🏻
Continually grappling with the sense that I'm either too stupid to understand this or there's nothing of substance being discussed here. At least the ratio of coherent, significant points vs contrived detours was too low for my taste. Love you John, I found you much easier to follow but I couldn't hang in there for this one.
Whew. This was fantastic. Can't wait for part 2 I'm particularly interested in the fleshing out and grounding (in common language) of Jordans notion of a "new protocol". This is exactly what I'm searching for too.
Does anyone have links to further information on this protocol? Jordan mentions that a "young man in Germany" is working on this? Here's a link to where he starts describing the protocol: ua-cam.com/video/qag_uAVWdk4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/qag_uAVWdk4/v-deo.html It occurs to me that this is what Confucianism emphasised in it's own way. Matching concern with protocol to good governance and distributed/relational cognition fits right in. He also believed you instantly solve many knotty problems immediately in getting this right. In general we Chinese have also assumed that the words we are each using are not likely to be so in the same way, so we are quite sensitive historically as a culture to detect mapping error, equivocation and the need to apply a disambiguation protocol. I'm not sure that is still the case generally in modern times though (eg. Chin-glish). We have not kept our loyalty to the Master very well, but it is never too late to dust the grave.
9:40 necessity and timing, very relevant. 25 minutes in and Jordan is describing system overload, by 27:40 starts to point us in a new direction.30:25 or so, monological management to dialogical evolution, well put. Jordan's explanation of the educational process and purpose was very succinct, as it also showed its eventual demise in that purpose has run its course. John then picks up on that noticing that those who might have to relinquish their stations in society are already implementing bulwarks to prevent that change from occurring. Really great depth here of what is happening today and what might come to pass if sane thought is not incorporated into our future. 52 minutes, Jordan's description of sovereignty is right on point, sovereignty can't exist in an I space, it can only exist in a we space, no man is an island, comes into focus here, there is no I in this world, it took a we to produce the I. The finish is a great place to start again, so well put by Jordan. Looking forward to the next get together, thank you both Jordan and John. Peace
First off, so glad to see you two in dialogos once again and looking forward to seeing how this evolves. Second. Thoughts that came to mind: 1. The tyranny of pluralism; that is, the degree to which pluralism cuts off dialogue for the claimed sake of harmony, which on the surface appears good as we should desire to prevent a kind of 30 Years War, yet in the long run harmful, particularly when issues involving concepts of the nous/divinity/mysterium/sacred are brought to bare and the natural fear of not desiring to examine one's right (wise vs egoic) relations with their existence are challenged. 2. The necessity of transparency; that is, the degree to which one's unwillingness to be open to their hidden interests and actions can force multiply insincere outcomes for the commons and maximize central power/control. 3. This was danced around but not deeply touched upon: The honesty and wisdom of recognizing the realness of the tremendum or darkness/evil not just within the immediate but on a 7, 8, 9... generations time scale and why this justly fosters right relation with the nous/divinity/mysterium/sacred; that being, the degree to which we are courageous enough to not BS ourselves. 4. How to optimally scale the evolution of an expanding neo-neocortex on par with the shamanic and wisdom traditions that, in their greatest instances didn't seek monetary or powerful gain, but instead wise/right relations with the totality of each other and our shared ecological existence?, for which this and other conversations in "this corner of the internet" are attempting. All of these and likely so many more, seemingly providing further openness to an emergence of the good, true, and beautiful. PS My sincere gratitude and love to you both.
I love this conversational format! I might recommend packaging and marketing as a podcast. The format is well defined and is continuing to gain traction as the primary source for thought leadership. I can see JV being a leader here. This content is immediately more relevant to real life than recent episodes of Lex Friedman, for example. Great stuff!
My summary so far: initial chunk of this discussion is basically concerned with model error in the broadest sense. As the saying goes: all models are wrong but some are useful. Forming a model requires identifying aspects of reality, where an aspect is a set of relevant features, which means aspects are post relevance realization. The argument being we should have the ability to update our models of governance dialogically with reality. In other words, our models of governance should track reality. While I agree with it, I would have to add that models of governance are not be changed like underwear, because the dynamic in reality they track is very slow relative to the temporal scale of the human. Even though the technological change is accelerating, it can't do so forever (societally we're probably in a punctuated equilibrium type of situation).
Excellent dialogue with brilliant intersections and convergence on what is truly relevant here and now and at the highest level of analysis within which all decisions and action will be embedded. The Santa Fe Institute has really been ahead of the curve on these topics and I am hopeful that we will be able to embody the differentiation between the complex and the complicated, expertise vs competence, and the sovereign nested wholes approach as opposed to what I have termed the "jargonization" of language (the creation of arbitrary words and language categories based on the sequence of appearing technological needs in hindsight), which is very much a similar concept to the creation of nested partitions rather than wholes, or arbitrary categorization, which itself is opposed by the process of "gistification" or extracting the gist (the focal point of the meaning of a whole), the spectrum of which is closely tied to competence capacity. How we create the world moving forward will be very much tied to what language we consciously create, and how we express it through action. The technological "singularity" is the point at which the predictive capabilities are such that language can be created and integrated before the physical manifestations arise. This is all to say that creating jargon in itself is no solution, and extracting the gist can only give us an upper level view, it can never create actionable plans. We must indeed develop protocols for how to communicate, particularly glaring in importance is how to extract meanings from words (for example, what is consciousness? Disambiguation is key here, splitting a term into its separate view-points and approaches and creating language we can all agree on to communicate these things with concrete definitions will be key for moving forward as a civilization. It all begins with language! We need to be able to speak to each other with better interconnected understanding frameworks.
@Dorothy Deyev I'd guess it's funny because the comment kind of illustrates my point. Too much jargon is bad. Not enough people understand it before it has surpassed its optimal usefulness. It makes for a slow and frictional set of interactions that only rust over time (similar to an individual human aging). To achieve a better future for ourselves in the here and now, we need to define the objectives of agreement in terms of categorical wholes rather than partitions and strive to create language that allows for the embodiment of the ideal at a distance. Only after we extract the gist of our goals can we hope to create meaningful language!
Thank you John and Jordan for this discussion. I would love to see you invite Daniel Schmachtenberger to contribute to this conversation as he is doing some amazing work on this topic with the consilience project. Regards. Ray
thank you both. I have been waiting for you, knowing that there were someones who could create historical context with our present reality providing form and function to a hopeful future in its becoming. As the person below me says, many have intuited but struggle to comprehend. I still struggle, but now I think I will be taking a very exciting journey into this new possibility/potential governance
This conversation makes me want to run out and found a new political party, solely invested in reforming the state apparatus to a technologically up to date form. Bringing something like that to fruition is something a person could dedicate an entire political career to. It would take a massive collective will. If this sort of updating doesn't happen gradually through reforms, then it will take nations falling to revolutions and re-creating themselves, and all the painful chaos that goes along with that.
Wonderful conversation! I love the turn toward a historical moment and attempting to frame how to real-ize so many theoretical frames I can see playing in background for you both. As a note, DC Schindler's Freedom from Reality is a tremendous argument on the fundamental problem of Modern Liberty, and provides extensive support for Jordan's points about freedom
Wow. Such an inspiration! Listening to this I've developed art project and I'm aspiring to handSHAKE people up. This conversation could not been more important and exciting for the orientation for becoming in the broadest sense. Anticipate the next one is going to be a historic Dialogos. The convergence. Beautiful.
A deeply interesting conversation. Quite beautiful, as well. Thank you, John, this was fresh and engaging and stimulating. Well done, already this seems to be a brilliant series. ❤ Love the surfing analogy 🤙
Your first sentence begs the question "what is being governed" and the second describes the objectification of the self it seems to me. What level of objects and why objectify the self at all?
Proprietary jargon is useful for condensing ideas but less so for communication. I can still get the the heart of an idea, it will just take a few more words.
All creatures contain a map of their environment embodied in their structure. The context is always changing and updating the map is crucial for fitness.
Oh boy, quite a bit to like here, but also some flashing danger signs. I do not think Hall understands what is needed to deal with complexity (specifically complex adaptive self-referential systems) and radical uncertainty (versus mere randomness). Unlike, say, Nassim Taleb who most certainly does. But OK, willing to wait for further installments in the series to see where it leads. Great questions by Prof. Vervaeke throughout the conversation.
Thank you for this interesting, nuanced and thought provoking and inspiring explication and suggestion about how to integrate and move on to systemic , complex and complexity aware governance and interaction per se. maybe in part 2 , but I think it´s extremely important also to think about not only capacities, those humans woh manage this complexity ( like the judges etc.) would need, but also on which level of personal development in many aspects they need and have to be trained in, as we probably dont need or want wise people of lets say a pre- modern or fundamentalist capacity and conditioning. And this comes back to the power question, who is the one to choose the values and how they work out in such a system....just snippets of what could be said. Or will or have we to leave it to self organization and swarm intelligence or probably a mix of both, which means a mix of complicatedness and strategy and self organization and complexity in a feedback cycle. However to integrate all kinds of levels of human consciousness development achievements makes this a very Integral endeavour. And as often I think the questions which arise are as important as the answers given.
Thank you very much @JohnVervaeke for these dia-logos. I am so glad that you mention the importance of taking into account the human embodiment wisdom for the design of new forms of collaboration. I am working and presenting a proposal in this regard. I would like to meet and collaborate, if possible, with the German guy mentioned by @JordanHall, who is working on a proposal on that, or the incarnation as he mentioned. Thank you so much
That's what IM talking about. Doing an undergrad in economics, it feels insane that there are no conversations about how the world might work when we function as a full context planet. Always waiting for something to break before the next marginal innovation.
The neo-neo cortex has to be informed by a more integrated self regulation between the personal neocortex with the emotional and instictive brains. This then scales to civilization, from networks of stable practice integrated one way or another into real, and into some degree of institutional life (partial to total). This is the only way it's ever really worked.
Honestly had a hard time following Jordan's meandering until John lent some lucidity to the discussion. Jordan touched on some important issues and I suspect the next step would be to formulate a concise and cogent problem statement much like John did with the Meaning Crisis. Much was glossed over and I feel compelled to read up on jurisprudence, political philosophy and complexity theory just for starters to level me up to the discussion.
I am hopefully that this conversation proves prophetic. Is this to suggest that the network state would be properly balanced by community being checked by market, market being checked by governance (judge/prophet) and governance being checked by community? How would this balance be reflected in an appropriate communication protocol and in relationality?
I was interested in the expansion of the surfing analogy. I was riding the wave tucked up ready for a reentry to glide into a new reality but it was cut short. Was it meant to relate to sovereignty?
I actually just recently went through the audio book the republic by plato throughout this discussion i kept remembering that book and wonder if we could ever have a philosopher king again? As always i appreciate your time JV ❤️🍄
Any recommended reading for a poor soul who is lost but interested? (DAOs, complexity/complicatedness, expertise/competence) Marshall McLuhan seems relevant wrt media and the psyche...
While I fear I may be rushing in where fools fear to tread. I would like to comment on Jordan Hall’s advocacy of judicial sovereignty. I think the American Constitution and the liberalism on which it is bases is considerably more robust and profound than he gives it credit for. The idea of liberty is not simply a negative rejection of George III but rather seeks to create an affordance for individual and social agency. The idea of governance itself is based on a restricted role for the use of compulsion. The rule of law is like the protocols that they discussed for dia-logos in that it seeks not to the content of the discussion but set the procedures that make the discussion possible. To do this requires the ascent and input of the various participants either directly or by representation. Thus the law is the product of the legislative function. The execution of the procedures of the law is an executive function and the judicial function is to see that these procedures are followed. Now it is true that the U.S. has increasingly departed from these norms in favor of an administrative state but that does not justify endowing judges with the powers of a philosopher king. Neither does it seem wise to assume that they can have the wisdom implied in such a role.
1:06:55 jingle/jangle protocol: to identify what do you mean by that? Are we jingling different concepts together into the same word? Are we jangling the same concept apart into different words? “What is _____? What is _____ not? What are the parts of _____? What is _____ a part of?”
I purpose, and would vote for a network state governance run in a Dialectic into Dialogos fashion by John Vervaeke, Jordan Hall, Guy Sengstock, Chris Maestro, Jordan Peterson and Ian McGilcrist. And for us voters to follow idea and variables and changes, you guys collaborate to make a soft system mapping tool so we could in real time see what you guys are cooking up. That would create a container for transparency, trust and thereby be able to see what the effect of the decisions would feel like, look like and what the impact in the long run would affect the natural environment at large etc.
1:13:30 wow I feel like im listening to an anarchist proposal here which is interesting. Not "bomb throwing chaos" anarchism, but the kind of governance proper mutualists and anarchists have been describing with shared commons and local autonomy. Also the critiques of the state as being inflexible and distant from where governance is really needed, and governance as a shared set of sensibilities as opposed to a list of codes (the wisdom and judgement element). I would love to hear you talk on anarchism or with some anarchists in the future.
Hi guys, (by extended note) I notice lots of talk of regime and paradigm change. Perhaps the "deeper" convergence is about remembering, re-imagination and re-participation and reintegration. No doubt an embodied religious quest. (JPII's theology of the body is good reading) Agape is working wonders in TLC etc. The geopolitical "fall out" and turn to the New Silk Road of BRICS type inheritance of former "non" (but regional) alliances, . A hint of our new global economy of relations. Today, resources of the new silk road converge with the meta- Resoursement of Neo-platonism. Symbolically, I find this intriguing. Culture shock is to be predicted. Equally, "new" Neo-platonism (as correctly assumed here,I think) usefully develops a post-late modern critique of modernism. Naturally paradigmatic fellow travelers are of a theologically inclined (remote to "post-colonial") interpretation of post-secularism. To my mind, the theological argument is powerful for obvious agapeic reasons. But what I cannot ignore is the "vibe" of re-mystification, in the sense of a radical "re-enchantment". And this brings me to the the question "was the world ever possibly dis-enchanted?" it would seem that cultural Marxism has decimates swathes, nevertheless (apart from its modernist predictability), I ask, is the tale of our Silk Road journey not more mythologically available to attention? The "social" pull-back to comforting "BS" is enormously attractive.The theory of Paradigm Change (apologies Kuhn) looks more like an appeal to M(m)etanoia! Nerves will fail and disappointment ensue. The long path of "relevance realization" cannot fail us by a mere appeal to an a-historical elevation (reduction) to dynamics of Silk Road realities. From simple philosophical principles, preceding any Western theological concerns, ultimately moral content is a religious question. All cultural contexts included. For me, the Ultimate question remains "to whom do we pay the greatest Justice?". I as a Believer, prefer a/the Source of Intimacy.
Is it possible to create a highly adaptable l, dynamic and responsible soft systems.thinking network that can more closely match with the unfolding with new terrains?
1:07:00 I think much of the miscommunication has to do with a misalignment of core values. I don't care how eloquently you describe something I know to be wrong, my emotional state will be tied to the value structure not the meaning.
Jordan & D-Schmact have been talking about "new forms of governance" for years now yet somehow have never addressed the subject of enterprise architecture. This is a huge credibility gap for someone who comes from the tech & IPO space given a documented enterprise architecture is a requirement for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Non prescriptive methodologies like TOGAF provide a framework for developing the kind of organizational/governance structures Jordan is fumbling to address with transparency and clear documentation of process & KPI'S (whatever that means for the given system). Pyscho-technologies are information technologies and we have a robust set of best practices around the development and management of these systems, there's really no excuse for not being aware of them given Jordan's professional background.
Hit up forrest landry... also big up all dem Marshall Mchluhan from Jordan. The answer to the complicated and the complex is clairty. We allow each other to fuck with each other instead of spend time teaching all that is known.
The removal of the codified and algorithmic from judicial function is essentially a reversal of what the East India Company/British Raj did to India! Very interesting.
This is an interesting perspective, which reminds me of the Mintzberg ''missionary'' organization, strongly coordinated by shared ideology. My concern is that most people love to obey (bureaucracies exist so that we can leverage these people in spite of their low interest for being accountable). Freud expressed (I don't have the exact quote) that ''most people don't want freedom because freedom comes with responsibilities and they don't want to be responsible''. Unfortunately, I cannot see how a cultural revolution would change this in a foreseeable future ...Nevertheless, the position deserves to be explored and thanks for this
9:56 - Institutions can't provide the tools of "adequate governance" we need to untie these Gordian knots. The change of scale required is necessarily a D.I.Y affair.
Moses spent 40 years raised in complete executive government of deity kings. Yet establishes no executive government. Confines deity connection to wisdom of juridical judgment.
Klaus Schwab: “🎶🎶My RATNAR isht bigger zen yours, Zats right, it’s bigger than yours. In CBDC I will charge. 🎶My Game B bugshakes bring all they/them’s to ze smart cities. 🎶We already stole ze culture away, with ze bad ideas you try to fix and the world… lost its mind.🎶🎶 🎶 Don’t worry, my Utopia won’t be a utopia eizer. And we have no nostalgia and will also use zat to gaslight anyone who resists.”
Benefits of technology = Slash time on paperwork, optimize passion for teaching. No more maths illiteracy. That's alot at the end ey. I still think 6 houses should button drop their allocated colored ball into the top of the pyramid puzzle maze. It would kinda be like a lottery draw every time the maze changes. Randomness is sooo much more fun. Weighted by efforts...only sux thing is deciding who looks after the luminescent one . Lol, obvious suspicion if it falls faster than a feather hhh. I'm totally kidding. Fanciful ideas is still allowed you know.
Presumably...with the acceleration of tech etc....as Jordan says...what do human beings do (as so many of their previous activities are automated)? Well...they be human. That...of course...is the 6 brazzilion dollar question. What does it actually mean ... to be a human? The issue is not just that there does not exist a definitive answer to that question... the issue is that there does not exist anything remotely resembling a definitive (empirical) answer to that question.
I have written replies for my opinion on new protocol making and its discomfort is why, but very verbose, so I posted it to my blog. I think this video is good, but the nature of my experience more than 30 years of life crisis, it would be deflecting its meaning, so post it to my blog only.
As Jordan says..."...what is the proper human role in the world???..." How is it relevant...that there does not even begin to exist a definitive empirical answer to that question! Perhaps not surprsingly...to the degree that there is an answer...it is found in religion (in a typically blatantly cryptic form): Love one another. The only relevant question is...what the hell does that actually mean? Meaning...if people were capable of doing that to the degree that is intended by who or whatever authored those words...in what way would that be manifest on this planet? I think we can safely assume that whatever it is that is occurring on this planet (generally speaking of course)...it is not that. So...is 'that' possible...is 'that' the answer to Jordan's question...and if it is...what would it mean?
Nations=gentile whatever it was, the people knew the difference between (divine) king vs inspired judge. ?God is the executive and doesn’t have an executive representative.
Interesting that Hall thinks the Constitution is first about sovernty of the State, then transfers sovernty to the Citizen, the individual. It does coimcidentally back his negative space argument. But of course this is a decidedly sophomoric mistake regarding the Constitution of the US. Nice try Komrade.
Wow. "Enormously dehumanizing characteristics." Well, that about says it all. Who is this guy? Does he actually have blood in his veins? or is he an a.i. humanoid sort of creature? He surely likes to hear himself spouting off complex concepts in a jumbled fashion of juxtapositioning to make them sound like he's saying something logical and profound. Thankfully, JV stepped in now and then to save the poor guy and steer him back on course,more or less. Yikes. Maybe it's time for a Spring Break, guys. Seriously.
I am comforted by the knowledge that there are minds like John and Jordan's, grappling with these questions. They are formulating approaches to problems that I think many intuit, but struggle to comprehend. Their 'competence' is so needed. Thank you.
Agreed, but all our sovereignty is needed. The age of experts is passing.
@@gaagaam896 why do you think that? I'm curious
Because I agree with what Mr Vervaeke and Mr Hall are saying. Experts are a function of the literary, bureaucratic and constitutional era. Citizens with sovereign and local competency is a different model.
I'm so happy of having found this corner of the internet.
Brilliant diagnosis of the malfunction of our current systems of governance, and felt sense of the shift required to manifest a properly functioning one. Really looking forward to part 2.
Balaji, Dave Snowden and Jonathan Pageau all in one podcast. Worlds are colliding! This was fantastic. Only criticism is there are much easier ways to help regular people understand Snowden’s Cynefin model. Just take a look at how he explains it and copy him. People won’t engage if they can’t understand what you’re on about. 🙏🏻
Continually grappling with the sense that I'm either too stupid to understand this or there's nothing of substance being discussed here. At least the ratio of coherent, significant points vs contrived detours was too low for my taste.
Love you John, I found you much easier to follow but I couldn't hang in there for this one.
Whew. This was fantastic. Can't wait for part 2
I'm particularly interested in the fleshing out and grounding (in common language) of Jordans notion of a "new protocol". This is exactly what I'm searching for too.
And what a beautiful note by John at the end, as Jordan emphasised.
Let's re-emphasise wise judgement, and re-integrate prophetic wisdom ❤️
Does anyone have links to further information on this protocol? Jordan mentions that a "young man in Germany" is working on this? Here's a link to where he starts describing the protocol:
ua-cam.com/video/qag_uAVWdk4/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/qag_uAVWdk4/v-deo.html
It occurs to me that this is what Confucianism emphasised in it's own way. Matching concern with protocol to good governance and distributed/relational cognition fits right in. He also believed you instantly solve many knotty problems immediately in getting this right.
In general we Chinese have also assumed that the words we are each using are not likely to be so in the same way, so we are quite sensitive historically as a culture to detect mapping error, equivocation and the need to apply a disambiguation protocol.
I'm not sure that is still the case generally in modern times though (eg. Chin-glish). We have not kept our loyalty to the Master very well, but it is never too late to dust the grave.
9:40 necessity and timing, very relevant. 25 minutes in and Jordan is describing system overload, by 27:40 starts to point us in a new direction.30:25 or so, monological management to dialogical evolution, well put. Jordan's explanation of the educational process and purpose was very succinct, as it also showed its eventual demise in that purpose has run its course. John then picks up on that noticing that those who might have to relinquish their stations in society are already implementing bulwarks to prevent that change from occurring. Really great depth here of what is happening today and what might come to pass if sane thought is not incorporated into our future. 52 minutes, Jordan's description of sovereignty is right on point, sovereignty can't exist in an I space, it can only exist in a we space, no man is an island, comes into focus here, there is no I in this world, it took a we to produce the I. The finish is a great place to start again, so well put by Jordan. Looking forward to the next get together, thank you both Jordan and John. Peace
Thanks John V for interpreting JH's brilliance. That last segment was genuis
First off, so glad to see you two in dialogos once again and looking forward to seeing how this evolves.
Second. Thoughts that came to mind:
1. The tyranny of pluralism; that is, the degree to which pluralism cuts off dialogue for the claimed sake of harmony, which on the surface appears good as we should desire to prevent a kind of 30 Years War, yet in the long run harmful, particularly when issues involving concepts of the nous/divinity/mysterium/sacred are brought to bare and the natural fear of not desiring to examine one's right (wise vs egoic) relations with their existence are challenged.
2. The necessity of transparency; that is, the degree to which one's unwillingness to be open to their hidden interests and actions can force multiply insincere outcomes for the commons and maximize central power/control.
3. This was danced around but not deeply touched upon: The honesty and wisdom of recognizing the realness of the tremendum or darkness/evil not just within the immediate but on a 7, 8, 9... generations time scale and why this justly fosters right relation with the nous/divinity/mysterium/sacred; that being, the degree to which we are courageous enough to not BS ourselves.
4. How to optimally scale the evolution of an expanding neo-neocortex on par with the shamanic and wisdom traditions that, in their greatest instances didn't seek monetary or powerful gain, but instead wise/right relations with the totality of each other and our shared ecological existence?, for which this and other conversations in "this corner of the internet" are attempting.
All of these and likely so many more, seemingly providing further openness to an emergence of the good, true, and beautiful.
PS My sincere gratitude and love to you both.
Fascinating conversation! I am very much looking forward to part 2
The boys are back in town! It's been a while since I've seen the two of you deep in some dialogos. Great work.
Wow, didn't expected that one today.
Have to rethink my schedule now.
This is exciting. I need about 10 minutes to digest every sentence, but I'm on it : )
Amazing framework for discussing these topics.
I love this conversational format! I might recommend packaging and marketing as a podcast. The format is well defined and is continuing to gain traction as the primary source for thought leadership. I can see JV being a leader here. This content is immediately more relevant to real life than recent episodes of Lex Friedman, for example. Great stuff!
Roger that
Agreed, I end up downloading them as mp3s so I can listen to them as podcasts.
Wow, stunning interview! Thank you! I’m currently exploring the implementation of pilot projects here in South Africa based on these insights.
My summary so far: initial chunk of this discussion is basically concerned with model error in the broadest sense. As the saying goes: all models are wrong but some are useful. Forming a model requires identifying aspects of reality, where an aspect is a set of relevant features, which means aspects are post relevance realization. The argument being we should have the ability to update our models of governance dialogically with reality. In other words, our models of governance should track reality.
While I agree with it, I would have to add that models of governance are not be changed like underwear, because the dynamic in reality they track is very slow relative to the temporal scale of the human. Even though the technological change is accelerating, it can't do so forever (societally we're probably in a punctuated equilibrium type of situation).
Excellent dialogue with brilliant intersections and convergence on what is truly relevant here and now and at the highest level of analysis within which all decisions and action will be embedded. The Santa Fe Institute has really been ahead of the curve on these topics and I am hopeful that we will be able to embody the differentiation between the complex and the complicated, expertise vs competence, and the sovereign nested wholes approach as opposed to what I have termed the "jargonization" of language (the creation of arbitrary words and language categories based on the sequence of appearing technological needs in hindsight), which is very much a similar concept to the creation of nested partitions rather than wholes, or arbitrary categorization, which itself is opposed by the process of "gistification" or extracting the gist (the focal point of the meaning of a whole), the spectrum of which is closely tied to competence capacity. How we create the world moving forward will be very much tied to what language we consciously create, and how we express it through action. The technological "singularity" is the point at which the predictive capabilities are such that language can be created and integrated before the physical manifestations arise. This is all to say that creating jargon in itself is no solution, and extracting the gist can only give us an upper level view, it can never create actionable plans. We must indeed develop protocols for how to communicate, particularly glaring in importance is how to extract meanings from words (for example, what is consciousness? Disambiguation is key here, splitting a term into its separate view-points and approaches and creating language we can all agree on to communicate these things with concrete definitions will be key for moving forward as a civilization. It all begins with language! We need to be able to speak to each other with better interconnected understanding frameworks.
For some reason, this made me laugh. That's not a criticism.
😂😅🤣
@Dorothy Deyev I'd guess it's funny because the comment kind of illustrates my point. Too much jargon is bad. Not enough people understand it before it has surpassed its optimal usefulness. It makes for a slow and frictional set of interactions that only rust over time (similar to an individual human aging). To achieve a better future for ourselves in the here and now, we need to define the objectives of agreement in terms of categorical wholes rather than partitions and strive to create language that allows for the embodiment of the ideal at a distance. Only after we extract the gist of our goals can we hope to create meaningful language!
Thank you John and Jordan for this discussion. I would love to see you invite Daniel Schmachtenberger to contribute to this conversation as he is doing some amazing work on this topic with the consilience project. Regards. Ray
Fantastic discussion and John asks really important questions to cover all bases.
This is the greatest comedy podcast on UA-cam
thank you both. I have been waiting for you, knowing that there were someones who could create historical context with our present reality providing form and function to a hopeful future in its becoming. As the person below me says, many have intuited but struggle to comprehend. I still struggle, but now I think I will be taking a very exciting journey into this new possibility/potential governance
32:00 "The problem with contracts and text and laws and rules is they overestimate our capacity for per-specifying relevance" 🎯
This conversation makes me want to run out and found a new political party, solely invested in reforming the state apparatus to a technologically up to date form. Bringing something like that to fruition is something a person could dedicate an entire political career to. It would take a massive collective will.
If this sort of updating doesn't happen gradually through reforms, then it will take nations falling to revolutions and re-creating themselves, and all the painful chaos that goes along with that.
Wonderful conversation! I love the turn toward a historical moment and attempting to frame how to real-ize so many theoretical frames I can see playing in background for you both.
As a note, DC Schindler's Freedom from Reality is a tremendous argument on the fundamental problem of Modern Liberty, and provides extensive support for Jordan's points about freedom
Wow. Such an inspiration! Listening to this I've developed art project and I'm aspiring to handSHAKE people up. This conversation could not been more important and exciting for the orientation for becoming in the broadest sense. Anticipate the next one is going to be a historic Dialogos. The convergence. Beautiful.
Awesome, ultra hyped for the entire serie.
thanks for the share.
A deeply interesting conversation. Quite beautiful, as well. Thank you, John, this was fresh and engaging and stimulating. Well done, already this seems to be a brilliant series. ❤ Love the surfing analogy 🤙
Thank you both for this.
Good governance requires the proper distribution of power.
Skin in the game, transaction costs, value and incentive structures, etc...
Your first sentence begs the question "what is being governed" and the second describes the objectification of the self it seems to me. What level of objects and why objectify the self at all?
Thanks Jordan and John!
Proprietary jargon is useful for condensing ideas but less so for communication. I can still get the the heart of an idea, it will just take a few more words.
All creatures contain a map of their environment embodied in their structure.
The context is always changing and updating the map is crucial for fitness.
Oh boy, quite a bit to like here, but also some flashing danger signs. I do not think Hall understands what is needed to deal with complexity (specifically complex adaptive self-referential systems) and radical uncertainty (versus mere randomness). Unlike, say, Nassim Taleb who most certainly does. But OK, willing to wait for further installments in the series to see where it leads. Great questions by Prof. Vervaeke throughout the conversation.
I say, treat it like a reference point to check against later.
Thank you for this interesting, nuanced and thought provoking and inspiring explication and suggestion about how to integrate and move on to systemic , complex and complexity aware governance and interaction per se.
maybe in part 2 , but I think it´s extremely important also to think about not only capacities, those humans woh manage this complexity ( like the judges etc.) would need, but also on which level of personal development in many aspects they need and have to be trained in, as we probably dont need or want wise people of lets say a pre- modern or fundamentalist capacity and conditioning. And this comes back to the power question, who is the one to choose the values and how they work out in such a system....just snippets of what could be said. Or will or have we to leave it to self organization and swarm intelligence or probably a mix of both, which means a mix of complicatedness and strategy and self organization and complexity in a feedback cycle.
However to integrate all kinds of levels of human consciousness development achievements makes this a very Integral endeavour. And as often I think the questions which arise are as important as the answers given.
Liberation from specialization and the competitive orientation of the market economy seem to be what all 18 yr olds have been dreaming of!
I can't put my finger on it, but Jordan just always gave me evil mastermind type vibes
The "found problem" for me is polarization, which upon further research looks like a mechanical consequence of the first-past-the-post voting style.
1:00:27 How about a open source systems thinking mapping tool?
Old school guest! Haven’t seen him around anywhere for a while!
Here algorithm, have a snack. You'll need it while you work hard nurturing this content.
Thank you very much @JohnVervaeke for these dia-logos. I am so glad that you mention the importance of taking into account the human embodiment wisdom for the design of new forms of collaboration. I am working and presenting a proposal in this regard. I would like to meet and collaborate, if possible, with the German guy mentioned by @JordanHall, who is working on a proposal on that, or the incarnation as he mentioned. Thank you so much
Complexity and emergence.
"There is no logical path from sequence to function."
Robert B. Laughlin
That's what IM talking about. Doing an undergrad in economics, it feels insane that there are no conversations about how the world might work when we function as a full context planet. Always waiting for something to break before the next marginal innovation.
The neo-neo cortex has to be informed by a more integrated self regulation between the personal neocortex with the emotional and instictive brains.
This then scales to civilization, from networks of stable practice integrated one way or another into real, and into some degree of institutional life (partial to total). This is the only way it's ever really worked.
PROUD!🌟
Don't forget to Disembody. Forget Disembody. There is an agency. You are really alone.
Bravo 👏 I'm indebted to yu both
Apart from the quality of the content, kudos on the microphone👍 looks very proper
1:25:13 such a great point
Honestly had a hard time following Jordan's meandering until John lent some lucidity to the discussion. Jordan touched on some important issues and I suspect the next step would be to formulate a concise and cogent problem statement much like John did with the Meaning Crisis. Much was glossed over and I feel compelled to read up on jurisprudence, political philosophy and complexity theory just for starters to level me up to the discussion.
I am hopefully that this conversation proves prophetic. Is this to suggest that the network state would be properly balanced by community being checked by market, market being checked by governance (judge/prophet) and governance being checked by community? How would this balance be reflected in an appropriate communication protocol and in relationality?
I was interested in the expansion of the surfing analogy. I was riding the wave tucked up ready for a reentry to glide into a new reality but it was cut short. Was it meant to relate to sovereignty?
I actually just recently went through the audio book the republic by plato throughout this discussion i kept remembering that book and wonder if we could ever have a philosopher king again? As always i appreciate your time JV ❤️🍄
Any recommended reading for a poor soul who is lost but interested? (DAOs, complexity/complicatedness, expertise/competence)
Marshall McLuhan seems relevant wrt media and the psyche...
A big shout out to the Undisciplined channel that is almost at the end of a series reading Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law.
This is jaw dropping
While I fear I may be rushing in where fools fear to tread. I would like to comment on Jordan Hall’s advocacy of judicial sovereignty. I think the American Constitution and the liberalism on which it is bases is considerably more robust and profound than he gives it credit for.
The idea of liberty is not simply a negative rejection of George III but rather seeks to create an affordance for individual and social agency. The idea of governance itself is based on a restricted role for the use of compulsion.
The rule of law is like the protocols that they discussed for dia-logos in that it seeks not to the content of the discussion but set the procedures that make the discussion possible.
To do this requires the ascent and input of the various participants either directly or by representation. Thus the law is the product of the legislative function. The execution of the procedures of the law is an executive function and the judicial function is to see that these procedures are followed.
Now it is true that the U.S. has increasingly departed from these norms in favor of an administrative state but that does not justify endowing judges with the powers of a philosopher king. Neither does it seem wise to assume that they can have the wisdom implied in such a role.
41:45 I call it Wise Crowds
1:06:55 jingle/jangle protocol: to identify what do you mean by that?
Are we jingling different concepts together into the same word?
Are we jangling the same concept apart into different words?
“What is _____?
What is _____ not?
What are the parts of _____?
What is _____ a part of?”
I purpose, and would vote for a network state governance run in a Dialectic into Dialogos fashion by John Vervaeke, Jordan Hall, Guy Sengstock, Chris Maestro, Jordan Peterson and Ian McGilcrist. And for us voters to follow idea and variables and changes, you guys collaborate to make a soft system mapping tool so we could in real time see what you guys are cooking up. That would create a container for transparency, trust and thereby be able to see what the effect of the decisions would feel like, look like and what the impact in the long run would affect the natural environment at large etc.
Amen
31:10 How does a highly dynamic and adaptable version of highly sensitive system thinking design fit into this, if at all?
Absolutely wild how little can be said with so many words 😂🙏
Yeah, there will be another virus released and banks collapsing and these two will be finishing a two year conversation about how to butter toast.
BINGO! 🎉
You guys are burying yourselves
@@dahudge9 1.Do you have an argument that I am wrong? Or the OP. 2. I don’t know wt f Vegan Vicar is on about, nor do I care.
Is this going to be loaded up on Spotify????
1:13:30 wow I feel like im listening to an anarchist proposal here which is interesting. Not "bomb throwing chaos" anarchism, but the kind of governance proper mutualists and anarchists have been describing with shared commons and local autonomy. Also the critiques of the state as being inflexible and distant from where governance is really needed, and governance as a shared set of sensibilities as opposed to a list of codes (the wisdom and judgement element).
I would love to hear you talk on anarchism or with some anarchists in the future.
Don't forget to Disembody
Hi guys, (by extended note) I notice lots of talk of regime and paradigm change. Perhaps the "deeper" convergence is about remembering, re-imagination and re-participation and reintegration. No doubt an embodied religious quest. (JPII's theology of the body is good reading) Agape is working wonders in TLC etc. The geopolitical "fall out" and turn to the New Silk Road of BRICS type inheritance of former "non" (but regional) alliances, . A hint of our new global economy of relations. Today, resources of the new silk road converge with the meta- Resoursement of Neo-platonism. Symbolically, I find this intriguing. Culture shock is to be predicted. Equally, "new" Neo-platonism (as correctly assumed here,I think) usefully develops a post-late modern critique of modernism. Naturally paradigmatic fellow travelers are of a theologically inclined (remote to "post-colonial") interpretation of post-secularism. To my mind, the theological argument is powerful for obvious agapeic reasons. But what I cannot ignore is the "vibe" of re-mystification, in the sense of a radical "re-enchantment". And this brings me to the the question "was the world ever possibly dis-enchanted?" it would seem that cultural Marxism has decimates swathes, nevertheless (apart from its modernist predictability), I ask, is the tale of our Silk Road journey not more mythologically available to attention? The "social" pull-back to comforting "BS" is enormously attractive.The theory of Paradigm Change (apologies Kuhn) looks more like an appeal to M(m)etanoia! Nerves will fail and disappointment ensue. The long path of "relevance realization" cannot fail us by a mere appeal to an a-historical elevation (reduction) to dynamics of Silk Road realities. From simple philosophical principles, preceding any Western theological concerns, ultimately moral content is a religious question. All cultural contexts included. For me, the Ultimate question remains "to whom do we pay the greatest Justice?". I as a Believer, prefer a/the Source of Intimacy.
Is it possible to create a highly adaptable l, dynamic and responsible soft systems.thinking network that can more closely match with the unfolding with new terrains?
How can we help? This is definitely needed and thankfully brings a sense of hope.
1:07:00
I think much of the miscommunication has to do with a misalignment of core values. I don't care how eloquently you describe something I know to be wrong, my emotional state will be tied to the value structure not the meaning.
Jordan & D-Schmact have been talking about "new forms of governance" for years now yet somehow have never addressed the subject of enterprise architecture. This is a huge credibility gap for someone who comes from the tech & IPO space given a documented enterprise architecture is a requirement for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Non prescriptive methodologies like TOGAF provide a framework for developing the kind of organizational/governance structures Jordan is fumbling to address with transparency and clear documentation of process & KPI'S (whatever that means for the given system). Pyscho-technologies are information technologies and we have a robust set of best practices around the development and management of these systems, there's really no excuse for not being aware of them given Jordan's professional background.
Hit up forrest landry... also big up all dem Marshall Mchluhan from Jordan. The answer to the complicated and the complex is clairty. We allow each other to fuck with each other instead of spend time teaching all that is known.
The removal of the codified and algorithmic from judicial function is essentially a reversal of what the East India Company/British Raj did to India! Very interesting.
This is an interesting perspective, which reminds me of the Mintzberg ''missionary'' organization, strongly coordinated by shared ideology. My concern is that most people love to obey (bureaucracies exist so that we can leverage these people in spite of their low interest for being accountable). Freud expressed (I don't have the exact quote) that ''most people don't want freedom because freedom comes with responsibilities and they don't want to be responsible''. Unfortunately, I cannot see how a cultural revolution would change this in a foreseeable future ...Nevertheless, the position deserves to be explored and thanks for this
9:56 - Institutions can't provide the tools of "adequate governance" we need to untie these Gordian knots. The change of scale required is necessarily a D.I.Y affair.
The is and the aught are not the same. Complicated is reasoned, complex is felt.
Could someone define dio logos?
Dialogue.
good one.
Moses spent 40 years raised in complete executive government of deity kings.
Yet establishes no executive government.
Confines deity connection to wisdom of juridical judgment.
Klaus Schwab: “🎶🎶My RATNAR isht bigger zen yours, Zats right, it’s bigger than yours. In CBDC I will charge. 🎶My Game B bugshakes bring all they/them’s to ze smart cities. 🎶We already stole ze culture away, with ze bad ideas you try to fix and the world… lost its mind.🎶🎶 🎶 Don’t worry, my Utopia won’t be a utopia eizer. And we have no nostalgia and will also use zat to gaslight anyone who resists.”
lit
skoll !
first
Shall be last.
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
It’s the other way around executive kings lead to wars wars justify the king.
Benefits of technology = Slash time on paperwork, optimize passion for teaching. No more maths illiteracy. That's alot at the end ey. I still think 6 houses should button drop their allocated colored ball into the top of the pyramid puzzle maze. It would kinda be like a lottery draw every time the maze changes. Randomness is sooo much more fun. Weighted by efforts...only sux thing is deciding who looks after the luminescent one . Lol, obvious suspicion if it falls faster than a feather hhh. I'm totally kidding. Fanciful ideas is still allowed you know.
I like this discussion, but I have a very strong feeling the sun has very different plans for us.
Presumably...with the acceleration of tech etc....as Jordan says...what do human beings do (as so many of their previous activities are automated)? Well...they be human. That...of course...is the 6 brazzilion dollar question. What does it actually mean ... to be a human? The issue is not just that there does not exist a definitive answer to that question... the issue is that there does not exist anything remotely resembling a definitive (empirical) answer to that question.
*tosses a comment to the algorithm*
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Grr. I cannot see the comment someone left. Silly…
@@gregorywitcher5618 select “Newest” at the top of the comment section. ☝️☝️
@@TheWorldTeacher nope. No dice. This is an aspect of badow shanning.
I have written replies for my opinion on new protocol making and its discomfort is why, but very verbose, so I posted it to my blog. I think this video is good, but the nature of my experience more than 30 years of life crisis, it would be deflecting its meaning, so post it to my blog only.
Please no! Twitter as a form of intelligence??????Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
As Jordan says..."...what is the proper human role in the world???..." How is it relevant...that there does not even begin to exist a definitive empirical answer to that question! Perhaps not surprsingly...to the degree that there is an answer...it is found in religion (in a typically blatantly cryptic form): Love one another. The only relevant question is...what the hell does that actually mean? Meaning...if people were capable of doing that to the degree that is intended by who or whatever authored those words...in what way would that be manifest on this planet? I think we can safely assume that whatever it is that is occurring on this planet (generally speaking of course)...it is not that. So...is 'that' possible...is 'that' the answer to Jordan's question...and if it is...what would it mean?
This guest often uses 50 words when 5 would do. Way too much non-stop abstraction babble, bring it back to the concrete now and again my dude.
Nations=gentile whatever it was, the people knew the difference between (divine) king vs inspired judge. ?God is the executive and doesn’t have an executive representative.
Interesting that Hall thinks the Constitution is first about sovernty of the State, then transfers sovernty to the Citizen, the individual. It does coimcidentally back his negative space argument. But of course this is a decidedly sophomoric mistake regarding the Constitution of the US. Nice try Komrade.
Wow. "Enormously dehumanizing characteristics."
Well, that about says it all. Who is this guy? Does he actually have blood in his veins? or is he an a.i. humanoid sort of creature? He surely likes to hear himself spouting off complex concepts in a jumbled fashion of juxtapositioning to make them sound like he's saying something logical and profound. Thankfully, JV stepped in now and then to save the poor guy and steer him back on course,more or less. Yikes. Maybe it's time for a Spring Break, guys. Seriously.
Lol. That's Jordan. Someone whom lives months ahead of us. If nothing else, thats the one tidbit to remember.
I watched 10 minutes of this, then got bored of having to watch adverts for the 3rd time. Shame.