The Psychological Drivers of the Metacrisis

[vexed87]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA5GV-XmwtM&t=0s

I found this conversation a pleasure so thought I would share it here. "The Psychological Drivers of the Metacrisis" features a discussion with John Vervaeke, Iain McGilchrist, and Daniel Schmachtenberger. They explore the psychological aspects underlying current global crises, discussing the impact of cognitive patterns, societal structures, and individual behaviors on these crises and go so far as to suggest some solutions, worth a watch, enjoy.

[7Wannabe5]

Thanks for posting this video. I found it quite interesting. I was especially struck (around 28-32) by Vervaeke's observation that majority surveyed describe their life as lacking in meaning, and also the two question he suggests can puzzle "problem with meaning" out from anyone:

WARNING: DETAILS REVEALED BELOW



********************************************************************

1) What do you want to still exist even if you don't?

2) How much of a difference do you make to it now?

As he asked the first question, I immediately thought "My kids, Nature, and The Library", and my immediate response to the second question was along the lines of "My lifelong activity vectors have basically been in alignment, but I'm still not doing enough; I'm not on ideal path/practice." I also humorously noted that it was a bit selfish/dystopic to work towards a future where my own kids would be alone on Island Earth with access to large Knowledge/Arts base, but the fact that I have also frequently cared for or educated the offspring of other humans would reflect a more generous practice. So, I changed my answer to "Our Kids, Nature, and The Library."

[jennypenny]

I was especially struck (around 28-32) by Vervaeke's observation that majority surveyed describe their life as lacking in meaning

Who did they survey? (can't listen right now)

[mathiverse]

@jennypenny: ~"80% of respondents to a 2019 UK national survey found that their lives were meaningless" - That was the most detailed he got about the source.

[Henry]

"80% of respondents to a 2019 UK national survey found that their lives were meaningless"

Brexistentialsim

[7Wannabe5]

Two books that are currently on my stack that also speak to this issue are "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" by Ken Wilber, Integral Theory guru, and "Optimal Illusions: The False Promise of Optimization" by Coco Krumme, female data scientist who dropped out of Silicon Valley and into a dilapidated cabin.

At one point in this discussion, Daniel Schmachtenberger asks about how matriarchal societies might have addressed these issues, but the question is dropped. The sub-text of the discussion that really struck me was that it was kind of hard to ignore that three (highly intelligent, likeable) white guys over the age of 50 sitting in leather chairs in front of a marble fireplace are talking about how to solve ginormous global problems without more than a sliver of recognition of the irony. They go to "religio" as their solution space without really touching base on how the "feminizing" aspects of religion are towards how it brings meaning to life. A very interesting point made by Wilber in "S.E.S" is that while patriarchy is often negatively associated with dominance over women, it also constituted the means or method by which adult males became parts of "families" in the most primitive human societies. Maternity is less in need of cultural invention or social intervention than paternity. And it is also the case that as optimization became the prime directive of Modernity, it was adult males who were first called upon to make themselves more "machine-like" in the market-place.

Here I was, fiddling away on my laptop for some far-off research group that wanted a better way to model wildfire spread in California so it could sell more insurance to homeowners. Then I'd put the laptop away and fiddle with the faulty well pump or stuff walls with the sheep's-wool insulation I'd carted up in cardboard boxes from Oregon. My vegetable starts mostly faltered, and I slowly made friends in the community. I realized: the skills that had brought me here, the skills that put me at the pinnacle of this new belief system of efficiency and optimization...these weren't the skills that would help me now.

- Coco Krumme "Optimal Illusions"

One thought I had while watching this discussion was along the lines of "I don't need some new complex "religion" to experience meaning in my life, because I am at core a simple woman." And I remembered a job experience I had that was the direct opposite of implementing data science; I was filling in for a few weeks for a pre-school teacher, working with an older African-American woman, and a younger Muslim woman, and one of our tasks requiring quiet co-operation was helping all of the 4 year olds in our charge to quiet down and take a nap on their little mats. And I thought about how much more "holistic" a discussion about "The Psychological Drivers of the Metacrisis" would be if the three gentle-men engaged were also co-operating in an effort to do something like build a simple stone wall together as they were having the discussion. It's difficult for me to express what I am trying to get at in words, but whenever I watch these discussions which are self-aware structured to be more civilized than a debate, I think/feel that "civilizing" something that might otherwise be combatative is not the same as the simple co-operation I experienced with the other women in the napping room full of children.

[jennypenny]

@7W5 -- I hadn't replied yet because I couldn't think of a tactful and cohesive way to express my thoughts, but you come pretty close. My not-so-tactful thoughts were basically that they (men like them) had engineered the meaning out of their lives and are now looking for contrived ways to put it back in. There are so many assumptions that go unacknowledged in that discussion. On one level it's funny given the lack of self-awareness. On another it's dangerous because they are convincing younger generations that they too are living meaningless lives. Instead of the panel acknowledging the narrowness of their viewpoint, they double down, concocting new ways to find meaning instead of encouraging people go back to living the lives that used to satisfy them.

Many on the forum have expressed the same sentiments regarding meaning and it breaks my heart to read it when it comes up. Who said life should be 'meaningful' is some articulable way? If you ask someone if their life has meaning and they can't come up with a 'good' answer, does that mean that their life doesn't have meaning? The question itself might plant doubt if the person can't really articulate a satisfying answer (even if their life is fulfilling). It's similar to how the current trend of telling people to find their purpose and meaning and passion sets people up for failure because people assume that means there is *one* special way to live one's life and doing it any other way is pointless. Too many misguided expectations.

Just because some old white guys with a platform have lost the thread doesn't mean the rest of us can't muddle through well enough. There are big problems to be solved, but I'm not sure they even got the problems right. As 7W5 said, if they'd had their discussion while bricklaying, they might have grokked the answers (or at least the right questions) without them ever being articulated.


Side note: I recently read about yet another study showing that pfas/plastics are probably having profound effects of our endocrine systems. It could be that the call is coming from inside the house. We might be trying to fix the wrong problem.

[zbigi]

On another it's dangerous because they are convincing younger generations that they too are living meaningless lives.

I don't think any further convincing needs to be done. As was posted in another thread here recently, a recent study (idk how credible) from the UK showed that 80% of people there feel their lives are meaningless.

Instead of the panel acknowledging the narrowness of their viewpoint, they double down, concocting new ways to find meaning instead of encouraging people go back to living the lives that used to satisfy them.

I assume you mean more rural life? I'm not so sure most people were satisfied with it. Back-breaking work is only fun when your survival does not directly depend of the results. Huge numbers of people across the world escaped rural environments and went into the cities the first chance they got.

[jennypenny]

I don't think any further convincing needs to be done. As was posted in another thread here recently, a recent study (idk how credible) from the UK showed that 80% of people there feel their lives are meaningless.

But why? That was my point. Are they being convinced their lives are meaningless, either by setting unrealistic standards or by being told that things like menial labor are unfulfilling? Are their supporting social structures being demolished or demonized? Are they being convinced that having meaning in everything they do is essential? I'm challenging the metric itself.

Back-breaking work is only fun when your survival does not directly depend of the results. Huge numbers of people across the world escaped rural environments and went into the cities the first chance they got.

And yet now happiness quotients and the like are in the toilet. Maybe people were happier before and didn't know it. Maybe they traded economic poverty for spiritual poverty.

I'm not romanticizing poverty, but obviously a wrong turn was made somewhere. I'm arguing that maybe people were convinced to want something that (1) isn't attainable, and (2) won't provide the satisfaction they seek. (see self-esteem movement)

[7Wannabe5]

Who said life should be 'meaningful' is some articulable way?

Yes! That's why I was having difficulty articulating my thought/feeling.

My not-so-tactful thoughts were basically that they (men like them) had engineered the meaning out of their lives and are now looking for contrived ways to put it back in.

Yes, I agree on the "contrived", but, otoh, we have all currently found ourselves engineered into a situation where our 8 billion plus lives are dependent on the engineering. I think you recommended the very good book "The Wizard and the Prophet" which compares/contrasts Norman Borlaug, the individual deemed most responsible for the Green Revolution and William Vogt, one of the originators of ecological theory and "modern" organic practices. Krumme touches on Borlaug in "Optimal Illusions", because agriculture is arguably currently the most optimized industry of all. So, there may be a limit on how many of us can "afford" to go back to a simpler(less complicated as opposed to less complex) yet more meaningful existence. Female horticulturalists are believed to have provided 80% of the calories consumed by humans at that level of cultural development, but I am not entirely optimistic that I possess the intelligence to support my theoretical grandchildren on 2 acre fair share plot, and there is also a part of me that would very much like to watch the episode in which the Primitive Technology guy re-invents the radio out of nothing but Nature. Actually, there is part of me that would like to build a solar powered AI garden robot for my next permaculture project, while another part of my nature simply wants to find herself squatting down barefoot in the flowers and savoring a fresh strawberry. I think maybe best balance is to be found in not letting ingenuity take precedence over wisdom.

ETA: It might also be the case that the average man needs some kind of "religion" appropriate to his level of complexity more than the average woman. In "It's a Guy Thing", Deida suggests that if/when a guy goes all distant-machine-like in bed with you, best practice is to do something like smack him on the ass to bring him back into emotional communion with you. So, maybe men who are trying to be post/trans Modern need something like a religious practice to smack them on the spiritual ass back into communion with the sacred or meaningful.

[zbigi]

But why? That was my point. Are they being convinced their lives are meaningless, either by setting unrealistic standards or by being told that things like menial labor are unfulfilling? Are their supporting social structures being demolished or demonized? Are they being convinced that having meaning in everything they do is essential? I'm challenging the metric itself. And yet now happiness quotients and the like are in the toilet. Maybe people were happier before and didn't know it. Maybe they traded economic poverty for spiritual poverty.

This is a big question obviously. I think the "three white boomer men" (as well as your last sentence) might be onto something here, as our era's culture is uniquely devoid of spirituality. Throught history, the big questions like "what is the meaning of all this" used to be handled by religion (whether monotheistic and organized or something more primitive). Now it's largely gone, and people are just seemingly unable to replace it.

I'm not romanticizing poverty, but obviously a wrong turn was made somewhere. I'm arguing that maybe people were convinced to want something that (1) isn't attainable, and (2) won't provide the satisfaction they seek. (see self-esteem movement)

I'm not sure. If you asked people in year 1600 in Europe if their life was meaningless, they probably wouldn't even understand the question. After all, the meaning comes from God, so what are you asking about exactly?
Unfortunately I hardly know anything about Japan, China or India. Given that their belief systems are very different from Christianity, it would be interesting to see how they created or failed to create meaning for people over the ages.

[Henry]

I'm not sure. If you asked people in year 1600 in Europe if their life was meaningless, they probably wouldn't even understand the question. After all, the meaning comes from God, so what are you asking about exactly?

CS Lewis views it as a classical vs. romantic view of the world. The Christian view is the classical view. The world was created and imbued with order and meaning and man by finds his meaning in his assigned role and place in it. It does not mean it's without mystery. It is however, a closed system. The Romantic view is what most people are engaged in today. They stare out into an open and endless universe trying to peer into its limitlessness and its unfolding meaning and at best experience a temporary relief which my college friend referred to it as "that stupid transcendent feeling" one sometimes get when they stand on the beach or watch an astronaut smile while he pisses himself while floating in a spaceship. It's not to say everyone living in the pre-enlightenment world lived appropriately or self-consciously in that viewpoint. It's just that when they sat down to drink pints at The Ole Dark Horse Inn they all cursed God for all the indignities and sufferings they experienced in their miserable 30 years on earth.

[AxelHeyst]

Here’s a malignant story: The Gods, bored one day, decided to make humans, and imbued us with an appetite for meaning. They gave us to understand that the meanings were hidden. But they weren’t. There weren’t any meanings. The Gods watch us making holes in life looking for the hidden meanings of life, wringing our hands in futility and pushing each other out of the way. That is how the meaning of life came into being. This is their entertainment.

[zbigi]

So, reason for our existence (pretty close to life's "meaning") is to be entertainment for the evil gods. Sounds a lot like Gnosticism (an early offshoot of Christianity) where entire world and people in it were created by the malevolent Demiurg.

[thef0x]

@Alex -- check out the book "To Your Scattered Bodies Go" if you're interested in a 4 part sci fi series semi-related to that Jenkinson quote. The books get weirder and weirder but in a good way. I think you'd really enjoy them.

The premise is everyone is reincarnated as their youthful selves along a river. Each book follows a historical character (everyone is reincarnated afterall) so that brings some added fun to the series.

Humans will do as they will do.

[plantnerd]

I've done a lot of reading into well-being and happiness, and one of the foundational pieces is a sense of meaning in your life- but according the the parts I'm remembering now, sans ability to provide references, that meaning can be as simple as "providing for my family", "maintaining sanitation by being a garbage collector", or "keeping a subspecies of a butterfly alive by propagating it's host plant".

Like, it doesn't need to be a Grand, Religious Meaning. It can be a small, person-sized meaning.

I should go watch the video, seeing as the discussion was interesting enough to make me comment.

[Lemur]

@plantnerd

+1. I found my baseline happiness improved immensely when I rid myself of grand-scheme meaning and trying to find the "answer" when I was going through my age 20s nihilistic phase.