The last "charge" speaks to a piece that I think is missing from the "Acting" list in the IDGs, and that is "honesty." This connects to Vanessa Andreotti's idea that to move forward we must first acknowledge our denials and use them as a lens to think about the future. (https://decolonialfutures.net/4denials/) If we're not honest about the predicament we're in, I'm not sure how relevant our work on "inner development" can be.
I wonder if there is a place for walking up to that line of sociopathy and staring into that abyss to learn the contours of the edge?
Reading Vanessa's work might suggest a practice of remembering always that in our "modern" lives, reading posts on Substack, donning our latest shirt, drawing water from the tap, these "conveniences," cannot simply be said to come with a "cost," but in every instance, moment to moment to moment represent an actual perpetration of violence done by "me" to some specific ecosystem, person, animal, community that I do not personally know or see.
From the depth to the breadth of scale, violence is inherent and certainly as we have learned is easy to stray into "unnecessary expressions" of this fundamental dynamic.
As I move through the modern world, remembering the violence I inflict, how do I hold that that it becomes guide and teacher and illuminates the sacred, rather than simply numbingly encouraging my narcissistic tendencies to grasp my own version of "growth to goodness…"?
This was a must read. Writing this around 2am while pulling an all nighter in between deadlines 😅. It's more of a hung jury moment for me. At one end, I'm trying to a start an initiative based around IDG's as one element but at the same time not inclined to have a "religious/cult following". Flawed? yes! Ultimate panacea? No! But they're still a useful tool for sparking conversations about inner growth and linking with broader ecosystem changes/ issues. I guess as always, only time will tell the implementation and evolution. Kudos to their team and thank you for this beautiful piece
Sparking conversations really resonates with me. I have been trying to start a conversation with the Business Analyst community which I left several years ago. I still have many connections and the potential to influence.
Without the IDGs, talking about presence and self-awareness would not have anything like the same weight. The BA community do like a standard or a framework and one that is created from a non-profit with laudable goals gives it some credibility.
As I hir Reply, I was put in mind of how the natural world simply uses the resources made available to it it. If it is useful then use it, if not, leave it alone.
There are no ideological value judments in the natural world.
Is this not then me operating as part of nature? (a bold statement indeed!)
Interesting then that I am drawn back into using my energy in an intellectual/ideological debate. Again, using the resource of a public forum to create connections with a like-minded 'tribe' and see what emerges. And also participating in a game that I enjoy which is reason enough.
Is there a risk that Perspectiva shares in and participates in blindspot identified by the 'h2minus-vortex' insofar as the deep assumption within the questioning (and the object of questioning) is that we are between 'worlds' and not between 'one world' (hegemonic project) and multiple wordings (as expressed in the pluriverse)?
Better to find the inbetween of the metaphors, rather than the inbetween of worlds, that idea we tend to reify into a ‘something’ we think we can imagine. All symbolic characterisations are problematic and why ‘we need a new story’ is half the game, sensing and resonance the others, and in honour of the metaphysics of Threeness (see Perspectiva's 10 premises), the last ingredient is the unfolding mystery. Metamodern oscillations between post- and -modern. Gebser’s ‘Janus-faced’, all these metaxic concepts come with a pull back into what we know, even if what we know is the unknown, the fetishisation of not-knowing we see now so often in spiritual circles, masquerading as a false humility of for fear of sounding heady and disembodied. Horrible! That is why courage and action becomes the prime value and virtue, because it’s actually the only thing that can create a new world - jumping off a 100-foot pole in Zen Koan terms
Funny you should say that. Of our ten premises the first, that we are in a time between worlds, is the one I am least sure about, and no longer really believe as such. But it’s not an axiom as such, more a scene setter, and I’m even less sure that the weakness of this tacit assumption invalidates the way we are seeing the global predicament through the three horizon model. I’m not sure we can resolve this here, but I think I do understand the depth of your query and why it matters. The discussion would need to explore how we are holding these models/narratives/assumptions. For instance ‘the hegemon’ is not H1 or H2- as such, and H3 is hard to specify with existing language but the language of H2minus and H2plus can still work at the very least as a useful heuristic to elucidate, for instance, the difference between innovation and transformation. But I’d welcome the chance to explore this query further.
I will take a shot at this. I've never given more than a passing thought to either SDG or IDG until now.
Your honour: Guilty on all counts. It maybe wasn't necessary to throw the book at IDG though. Being guilty of #4 pretty much covers the rest of it and more.
If I may flip the form and have a little fun with it, I could add that in this scenario IDG does not deserve the important "innocent before proven guilty" concept that people still do. A courtroom scenario implies this consideration, though I would argue that it's the other way around. IDG should have to prove it's innocence.
IMHO the smoking gun is having "Development" right in the name of the thing. I worked for years in an engineering consulting firm. "Development" was our God. "Development" signals to the consultant that there's nothing threatening here, it's business as usual.
Roundabout way of saying I completely agree and enjoyed reading your take. I would only question the "innocent before proven guilty" premise and suggest it should be the other way around for an acronym that sounds indistinguishable from a corporate wellness program. (Hmmm, now that I think of it, having the defendant skate away with calls for connection and empathy and so on, perhaps that's what you are getting at. If so --- well done; and if not --- for your consideration.)
Thanks for the report on a movement I'd not heard of, which sort of makes sense as you sketch it. There is no social fix which is not also a psychological fix, if we but allow that the social and psychological are a continuum. Allowing that, though, may require a de-reification of "inner." Are we "in"-dividuals, or polyviduals?
In distinction from the biases of the story, though, much as for instance the US version of mid-century modern was marred by racism, and the British version by the vestiges of empire, it was before the Reagan-Thatcher invention of the flavor of capitalism that is currently putting our world at such risk, and before the recurrence of religious fundamentalism that drives current genocides. In both nations, we saw a weakening of secular government, its regulation of markets, and its provision of enlightened (i.e. anti-fundamentalist) education (the two things the Republican Party is still distinctly against: regulation and education).
The U.S. led by Eisenhower had far higher taxes on the rich and business, more regulation of business, far less expensive higher education, greater economic equality.... Modernity and capitalism, in that era, was more progressive than most of what we've seen since. The explosion of creativity in the arts that followed, especially in the later 60s as the children of that era emerged on the stage, has not be equaled since. And the later technology boom was largely led by the children of the generation shortly after.
With Labor finally back in Britain, and the potential of Harris's movement here, a return to mid-century modern, a reversal from the Reagan-Thatcher surrender of civic function to industry by abdicating governments ... would that be a bad thing? The arts have always been about making inner life outer life, and outer life inner ("... except for me and my monkey"). As long as inner development is not in service of further inner alienation -- not a leading away from the outer, not more distraction than traction....
Beautifully composed - and perhaps that is THE fatal flaw? Perhaps we MUST seek and venerate the inner ugliness; compost it. Perhaps we must eschew the need to remain composed? Perhaps we are terrified by the monstrosity of the transformational energies we have unleashed - the power of a zillion suns and moons. Perhaps we must sing a dirge for the eclipse of humanity - praise the unlimited capacity for vanity that species exhibited. Perhaps we must learn to embrace the cosmic silence of the Universe - what apparently WAS before hoomens existed, and what apparently will endure?
Perhaps the ONLY thing left for us to do is to celebrate our untrammeled capacity for mixing ignorance, damage and optimism like 007.
Thanks, Jonathan for an entertaining exposure of the elephants in the room. Or, as I like to think of them, egregores, the inevitable emergent by-products of group mind.
I write as merely a concerned lay person, but my gut is screaming that there's one more charge to be leveled at your defendant: she has (prudishly?) bypassed the issues of human sexuality - sex-ed, eroticism, reproduction, sexual violence, population control, for example. I base this only on the IDG summit program, where I couldn't spot anything in this vein. Maybe I am missing something? Is there a presenter prepared to dive into these concerns if questions are raised? Are there essays or books in circulation on this?
If not, then I'd say 'guilty as charged.' I'd argue that, behind the "deeper patterns of the status quo" are three sexual egregores: one of puritanical anti-eroticism, another of sex-ignorance and misinformation, and another of exploitation of sexual instincts. These are all working in concert, undermining individuals and communities where we are most vulnerable, not only cutting off an energy for human advancement, but fueling the ongoing cycle of sexual violence - which happens to mirror the rape of the planet. This cries out for inner development resources and practices aimed at counteracting said egregores.
I wouldn't expect a blatantly pro-erotic stance - the cultural/moral/personal boundaries have to be respected - but somehow discretely work it in. Imagine raising consciousness of how human sexual energy can be reclaimed in service of all the other goals. New initiatives in education and therapy, as well as discussion of how to reshape sexual ethics and mores to bring them in line with the planetary reality. Otherwise, radical changes in other areas may fail to take root. So, what if the defendant in this case recruited an appropriate tantrika, sexologist, sex therapist, and/or sexological bodyworker, to test the waters with a diverse group of participants at the next gathering? Such action, in my book, would be a mitigating factor.
Thanks, Jonathan for an entertaining exposure of the elephants in the room. Or, as I like to think of them, egregores, the inevitable emergent by-products of group mind.
I write as merely a concerned lay person, but my gut is screaming that there's one more charge to be leveled at your defendant: she has (prudishly?) bypassed the issues of human sexuality - sex-ed, eroticism, reproduction, sexual violence, population control, for example. I base this only on the IDG summit program, where I couldn't spot anything in this vein. Maybe I am missing something? Is there a presenter prepared to dive into these concerns if questions are raised? Are there essays or books in circulation on this?
If not, then I'd say 'guilty as charged.' I'd argue that, behind the "deeper patterns of the status quo" are three sexual egregores: one of puritanical anti-eroticism, another of sex-ignorance and misinformation, and another of exploitation of sexual instincts. These are all working in concert, undermining individuals and communities where we are most vulnerable, not only cutting off an energy for human advancement, but fueling the ongoing cycle of sexual violence - which happens to mirror the rape of the planet. This cries out for inner development resources and practices aimed at counteracting said egregores.
I wouldn't expect a blatantly pro-erotic stance - the cultural/moral/personal boundaries have to be respected - but somehow discretely work it in. Imagine raising consciousness of how human sexual energy can be reclaimed in service of all the other goals. New initiatives in education and therapy, as well as discussion of how to reshape sexual ethics and mores to bring them in line with the planetary reality. Otherwise, radical changes in other areas may fail to take root. So, what if the defendant in this case recruited an appropriate tantrika, sexologist, sex therapist, and/or sexological bodyworker, to test the waters with a diverse group of participants at the next gathering? Such action, in my book, would be a mitigating factor.
Mmmm… thank you for a very thought-provoking piece, a thoughtful response to the question of, how might we tap into the transformative potential of the IDG’s, while also remaining aware of how easily they can get co-opted… (according to developmental psychologist Gordon Neufeld, “mixed feelings” serve as the fuel for maturation :-)
In reposting Michelle’s article, I expanded a bit on how much individual growth can happen in the context of collective action, offering two examples; the first being how at one point in time, the field of psychology discovered the power of democratic groups for healing (“milieu therapy”) and then largely backed away from that, veering instead toward toward individualistic approaches to therapy…
The second example is the current phenomenon of democratic mini-publics, where we see over and over again, how much healing and empowerment can (inadvertently) occur in that context. While the avowed purpose of mini-publics is improving policy-making and increasing the legitimacy of government, an astoundingly high percentage of participants (some reputable academics say 95%) find it deeply meaningful to have the opportunity to be part of a group of very diverse people, facing a challenging public issue together, in a facilitated context where each person is heard and treated with respect. This significantly contradicts the image of people as "not caring" about politics... other researchers are calling mini-publics "depolarization engines" due to their ability to promote complex thought. It seems that there is SO much we could be learning from this repeated phenomenon, that could be applied elsewhere….
Of course, mini-publics themselves can easily fall prey to participation-washing. And in a similar vein, often the question is asked, whether they are simply propping up the current system, or whether they have the potential to transform it. Yes, both possibilities are present… and it seems to me that it could be quite useful to regard deliberative mini-publics as a “communicative device” that shows something very powerful about human potential, and the kinds of contexts that bring out the best in humans — while also serving as a profound “practice ground” for the whole spectrum of SDG’s. And of course, similar to the SDG's, they are at best "necessary yet not sufficient."
Being stuck in the future, will never experience the present.
Systemic failure is when policy is 100 years in the past.
As Noam Chomsky has expressed, the only honesty today is the financial times, it follows the money, not the fiction.
It’s as if 2008 never happened, 1972 was insignificant and subsidized oil is not a consequent discussion of physics in ‘building a future’ in endless lectures and script, not conversations.
There is no fresh air of the past, there is no fresh water of the past, how do you plead?
As a relatively simple man, there's too much complexity born of analysis in the IDGs. A Simple (uncomplicated) version of the complex picture needs to be available if such a structure is to be accessible to the many. Without an entry-level account the thinking is elitist and subject to the charges outlined, though as yet guilty mostly of omission (of evident relevance at the grass roots).
Thanks for this.
The last "charge" speaks to a piece that I think is missing from the "Acting" list in the IDGs, and that is "honesty." This connects to Vanessa Andreotti's idea that to move forward we must first acknowledge our denials and use them as a lens to think about the future. (https://decolonialfutures.net/4denials/) If we're not honest about the predicament we're in, I'm not sure how relevant our work on "inner development" can be.
Yes, well observed. More generally Vanessa’s work is almost cryptonite for the IDGs.
I wonder if there is a place for walking up to that line of sociopathy and staring into that abyss to learn the contours of the edge?
Reading Vanessa's work might suggest a practice of remembering always that in our "modern" lives, reading posts on Substack, donning our latest shirt, drawing water from the tap, these "conveniences," cannot simply be said to come with a "cost," but in every instance, moment to moment to moment represent an actual perpetration of violence done by "me" to some specific ecosystem, person, animal, community that I do not personally know or see.
From the depth to the breadth of scale, violence is inherent and certainly as we have learned is easy to stray into "unnecessary expressions" of this fundamental dynamic.
As I move through the modern world, remembering the violence I inflict, how do I hold that that it becomes guide and teacher and illuminates the sacred, rather than simply numbingly encouraging my narcissistic tendencies to grasp my own version of "growth to goodness…"?
This was a must read. Writing this around 2am while pulling an all nighter in between deadlines 😅. It's more of a hung jury moment for me. At one end, I'm trying to a start an initiative based around IDG's as one element but at the same time not inclined to have a "religious/cult following". Flawed? yes! Ultimate panacea? No! But they're still a useful tool for sparking conversations about inner growth and linking with broader ecosystem changes/ issues. I guess as always, only time will tell the implementation and evolution. Kudos to their team and thank you for this beautiful piece
Sparking conversations really resonates with me. I have been trying to start a conversation with the Business Analyst community which I left several years ago. I still have many connections and the potential to influence.
Without the IDGs, talking about presence and self-awareness would not have anything like the same weight. The BA community do like a standard or a framework and one that is created from a non-profit with laudable goals gives it some credibility.
In this case I see it as a bridge.
Here is the article I wrote
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/skills-really-make-difference-alex-papworth-r4zce/?trackingId=dmHd4axpqh%2FfoST4fa9mZw%3D%3D
As I hir Reply, I was put in mind of how the natural world simply uses the resources made available to it it. If it is useful then use it, if not, leave it alone.
There are no ideological value judments in the natural world.
Is this not then me operating as part of nature? (a bold statement indeed!)
Interesting then that I am drawn back into using my energy in an intellectual/ideological debate. Again, using the resource of a public forum to create connections with a like-minded 'tribe' and see what emerges. And also participating in a game that I enjoy which is reason enough.
Is there a risk that Perspectiva shares in and participates in blindspot identified by the 'h2minus-vortex' insofar as the deep assumption within the questioning (and the object of questioning) is that we are between 'worlds' and not between 'one world' (hegemonic project) and multiple wordings (as expressed in the pluriverse)?
https://perspecteeva.substack.com/p/deactivating-the-h2minus-vortex
Better to find the inbetween of the metaphors, rather than the inbetween of worlds, that idea we tend to reify into a ‘something’ we think we can imagine. All symbolic characterisations are problematic and why ‘we need a new story’ is half the game, sensing and resonance the others, and in honour of the metaphysics of Threeness (see Perspectiva's 10 premises), the last ingredient is the unfolding mystery. Metamodern oscillations between post- and -modern. Gebser’s ‘Janus-faced’, all these metaxic concepts come with a pull back into what we know, even if what we know is the unknown, the fetishisation of not-knowing we see now so often in spiritual circles, masquerading as a false humility of for fear of sounding heady and disembodied. Horrible! That is why courage and action becomes the prime value and virtue, because it’s actually the only thing that can create a new world - jumping off a 100-foot pole in Zen Koan terms
Funny you should say that. Of our ten premises the first, that we are in a time between worlds, is the one I am least sure about, and no longer really believe as such. But it’s not an axiom as such, more a scene setter, and I’m even less sure that the weakness of this tacit assumption invalidates the way we are seeing the global predicament through the three horizon model. I’m not sure we can resolve this here, but I think I do understand the depth of your query and why it matters. The discussion would need to explore how we are holding these models/narratives/assumptions. For instance ‘the hegemon’ is not H1 or H2- as such, and H3 is hard to specify with existing language but the language of H2minus and H2plus can still work at the very least as a useful heuristic to elucidate, for instance, the difference between innovation and transformation. But I’d welcome the chance to explore this query further.
I will take a shot at this. I've never given more than a passing thought to either SDG or IDG until now.
Your honour: Guilty on all counts. It maybe wasn't necessary to throw the book at IDG though. Being guilty of #4 pretty much covers the rest of it and more.
If I may flip the form and have a little fun with it, I could add that in this scenario IDG does not deserve the important "innocent before proven guilty" concept that people still do. A courtroom scenario implies this consideration, though I would argue that it's the other way around. IDG should have to prove it's innocence.
IMHO the smoking gun is having "Development" right in the name of the thing. I worked for years in an engineering consulting firm. "Development" was our God. "Development" signals to the consultant that there's nothing threatening here, it's business as usual.
Roundabout way of saying I completely agree and enjoyed reading your take. I would only question the "innocent before proven guilty" premise and suggest it should be the other way around for an acronym that sounds indistinguishable from a corporate wellness program. (Hmmm, now that I think of it, having the defendant skate away with calls for connection and empathy and so on, perhaps that's what you are getting at. If so --- well done; and if not --- for your consideration.)
So even the IDGs don't believe in inner development goals?
Thanks for the report on a movement I'd not heard of, which sort of makes sense as you sketch it. There is no social fix which is not also a psychological fix, if we but allow that the social and psychological are a continuum. Allowing that, though, may require a de-reification of "inner." Are we "in"-dividuals, or polyviduals?
In distinction from the biases of the story, though, much as for instance the US version of mid-century modern was marred by racism, and the British version by the vestiges of empire, it was before the Reagan-Thatcher invention of the flavor of capitalism that is currently putting our world at such risk, and before the recurrence of religious fundamentalism that drives current genocides. In both nations, we saw a weakening of secular government, its regulation of markets, and its provision of enlightened (i.e. anti-fundamentalist) education (the two things the Republican Party is still distinctly against: regulation and education).
The U.S. led by Eisenhower had far higher taxes on the rich and business, more regulation of business, far less expensive higher education, greater economic equality.... Modernity and capitalism, in that era, was more progressive than most of what we've seen since. The explosion of creativity in the arts that followed, especially in the later 60s as the children of that era emerged on the stage, has not be equaled since. And the later technology boom was largely led by the children of the generation shortly after.
With Labor finally back in Britain, and the potential of Harris's movement here, a return to mid-century modern, a reversal from the Reagan-Thatcher surrender of civic function to industry by abdicating governments ... would that be a bad thing? The arts have always been about making inner life outer life, and outer life inner ("... except for me and my monkey"). As long as inner development is not in service of further inner alienation -- not a leading away from the outer, not more distraction than traction....
Beautifully composed - and perhaps that is THE fatal flaw? Perhaps we MUST seek and venerate the inner ugliness; compost it. Perhaps we must eschew the need to remain composed? Perhaps we are terrified by the monstrosity of the transformational energies we have unleashed - the power of a zillion suns and moons. Perhaps we must sing a dirge for the eclipse of humanity - praise the unlimited capacity for vanity that species exhibited. Perhaps we must learn to embrace the cosmic silence of the Universe - what apparently WAS before hoomens existed, and what apparently will endure?
Perhaps the ONLY thing left for us to do is to celebrate our untrammeled capacity for mixing ignorance, damage and optimism like 007.
Thanks, Jonathan for an entertaining exposure of the elephants in the room. Or, as I like to think of them, egregores, the inevitable emergent by-products of group mind.
I write as merely a concerned lay person, but my gut is screaming that there's one more charge to be leveled at your defendant: she has (prudishly?) bypassed the issues of human sexuality - sex-ed, eroticism, reproduction, sexual violence, population control, for example. I base this only on the IDG summit program, where I couldn't spot anything in this vein. Maybe I am missing something? Is there a presenter prepared to dive into these concerns if questions are raised? Are there essays or books in circulation on this?
If not, then I'd say 'guilty as charged.' I'd argue that, behind the "deeper patterns of the status quo" are three sexual egregores: one of puritanical anti-eroticism, another of sex-ignorance and misinformation, and another of exploitation of sexual instincts. These are all working in concert, undermining individuals and communities where we are most vulnerable, not only cutting off an energy for human advancement, but fueling the ongoing cycle of sexual violence - which happens to mirror the rape of the planet. This cries out for inner development resources and practices aimed at counteracting said egregores.
I wouldn't expect a blatantly pro-erotic stance - the cultural/moral/personal boundaries have to be respected - but somehow discretely work it in. Imagine raising consciousness of how human sexual energy can be reclaimed in service of all the other goals. New initiatives in education and therapy, as well as discussion of how to reshape sexual ethics and mores to bring them in line with the planetary reality. Otherwise, radical changes in other areas may fail to take root. So, what if the defendant in this case recruited an appropriate tantrika, sexologist, sex therapist, and/or sexological bodyworker, to test the waters with a diverse group of participants at the next gathering? Such action, in my book, would be a mitigating factor.
Thanks, Jonathan for an entertaining exposure of the elephants in the room. Or, as I like to think of them, egregores, the inevitable emergent by-products of group mind.
I write as merely a concerned lay person, but my gut is screaming that there's one more charge to be leveled at your defendant: she has (prudishly?) bypassed the issues of human sexuality - sex-ed, eroticism, reproduction, sexual violence, population control, for example. I base this only on the IDG summit program, where I couldn't spot anything in this vein. Maybe I am missing something? Is there a presenter prepared to dive into these concerns if questions are raised? Are there essays or books in circulation on this?
If not, then I'd say 'guilty as charged.' I'd argue that, behind the "deeper patterns of the status quo" are three sexual egregores: one of puritanical anti-eroticism, another of sex-ignorance and misinformation, and another of exploitation of sexual instincts. These are all working in concert, undermining individuals and communities where we are most vulnerable, not only cutting off an energy for human advancement, but fueling the ongoing cycle of sexual violence - which happens to mirror the rape of the planet. This cries out for inner development resources and practices aimed at counteracting said egregores.
I wouldn't expect a blatantly pro-erotic stance - the cultural/moral/personal boundaries have to be respected - but somehow discretely work it in. Imagine raising consciousness of how human sexual energy can be reclaimed in service of all the other goals. New initiatives in education and therapy, as well as discussion of how to reshape sexual ethics and mores to bring them in line with the planetary reality. Otherwise, radical changes in other areas may fail to take root. So, what if the defendant in this case recruited an appropriate tantrika, sexologist, sex therapist, and/or sexological bodyworker, to test the waters with a diverse group of participants at the next gathering? Such action, in my book, would be a mitigating factor.
Mmmm… thank you for a very thought-provoking piece, a thoughtful response to the question of, how might we tap into the transformative potential of the IDG’s, while also remaining aware of how easily they can get co-opted… (according to developmental psychologist Gordon Neufeld, “mixed feelings” serve as the fuel for maturation :-)
On a somewhat similar theme, I recently came across a post by Michelle Holiday, titled “The Need for Practice Grounds (or: The Outer work of Inner Development.) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/need-practice-grounds-outer-work-inner-development-michelle-holliday-b5nke/
In reposting Michelle’s article, I expanded a bit on how much individual growth can happen in the context of collective action, offering two examples; the first being how at one point in time, the field of psychology discovered the power of democratic groups for healing (“milieu therapy”) and then largely backed away from that, veering instead toward toward individualistic approaches to therapy…
The second example is the current phenomenon of democratic mini-publics, where we see over and over again, how much healing and empowerment can (inadvertently) occur in that context. While the avowed purpose of mini-publics is improving policy-making and increasing the legitimacy of government, an astoundingly high percentage of participants (some reputable academics say 95%) find it deeply meaningful to have the opportunity to be part of a group of very diverse people, facing a challenging public issue together, in a facilitated context where each person is heard and treated with respect. This significantly contradicts the image of people as "not caring" about politics... other researchers are calling mini-publics "depolarization engines" due to their ability to promote complex thought. It seems that there is SO much we could be learning from this repeated phenomenon, that could be applied elsewhere….
Of course, mini-publics themselves can easily fall prey to participation-washing. And in a similar vein, often the question is asked, whether they are simply propping up the current system, or whether they have the potential to transform it. Yes, both possibilities are present… and it seems to me that it could be quite useful to regard deliberative mini-publics as a “communicative device” that shows something very powerful about human potential, and the kinds of contexts that bring out the best in humans — while also serving as a profound “practice ground” for the whole spectrum of SDG’s. And of course, similar to the SDG's, they are at best "necessary yet not sufficient."
Being stuck in the future, will never experience the present.
Systemic failure is when policy is 100 years in the past.
As Noam Chomsky has expressed, the only honesty today is the financial times, it follows the money, not the fiction.
It’s as if 2008 never happened, 1972 was insignificant and subsidized oil is not a consequent discussion of physics in ‘building a future’ in endless lectures and script, not conversations.
There is no fresh air of the past, there is no fresh water of the past, how do you plead?
The matrix is merely to look at worldmeters and world debt, simultaneously.
As a relatively simple man, there's too much complexity born of analysis in the IDGs. A Simple (uncomplicated) version of the complex picture needs to be available if such a structure is to be accessible to the many. Without an entry-level account the thinking is elitist and subject to the charges outlined, though as yet guilty mostly of omission (of evident relevance at the grass roots).