|
|
Musings Report 2022-38 9-17-22 Heretical Thoughts on Orthodoxies
You are receiving this email because you are one of the subscribers/major contributors to www.oftwominds.com.
For those who are new to the Musings reports: they're a glimpse into my notebook, the unfiltered swamp where I organize future themes, sort through the dozens of stories and links submitted by readers, refine my own research and start connecting dots which appear later in the blog or in my books. As always, I hope the Musings spark new appraisals and insights. Thank you for supporting the site and for inviting me into your circle of correspondents.
Thank You, Patrons and Contributors!
Welcome new patrons / subscribers Peter L., Sum D. and Elon G. -- thank you very much!
Heretical Thoughts on Orthodoxies
In today's world, the key orthodoxies are secular rather than religious: economic, ideological, geopolitical.
Religious orthodoxy is in the spiritual realm. It may have secular ramifications (for example, Galileo being forced to renounce his scientific advances) but it doesn't deal with forecasts of real-world systems.
Economic, ideological and geopolitical orthodoxies are different. They make forecasts about the real world, and they will be right or wrong.
The orthodoxies are divided into two camps: the Establishment/Status Quo orthodoxies and the alternative-media orthodoxies.
Both are fiercely defended by True Believers, as the orthodoxy is the foundation of the True Believers' identity and worldview.
The two orthodoxies aren't necessarily diametrically opposed. Sometimes they overlap.
Much of what passes for "informed commentary" now is nothing more than True Believers cherry-picking whatever supports their orthodoxy.
In this mindset, what's important is that everyone agrees with the orthodoxy. Public fealty to the orthodoxy is all that matters.
In this climate, projecting an outcome that doesn't fit an orthodoxy is heresy.
I don't see any value in trying to persuade others to agree with me. The analysis goes where it goes, and it doesn't really matter if we like the conclusion or not.
What matters is one forecast will be accurate and the rest will be wrong. If 99.99% pf the populace doesn't like the accurate forecast, that doesn't change the outcome.
If the analysis is sound, then the forecast is sound, and it won't change if it offends our sensibilities.
In other words, an emotionally detached analytic view is more likely to generate accurate forecasts than defending orthodoxies.
Put another way, accurate forecasts don't arise from popularity contests.
We might not like the results of a detached analysis, but liking it or hating it isn't the point. The accuracy is the point.
We might disagree with the forecast and hope it isn't accurate, but we understand our opinions and hopes won't change the outcome.
If we want to prepare an appropriate response to what's coming down the pike, we're better served by cultivating a detached view that favors analysis rather than orthodoxy.
I find the two orthodoxies lacking. Neither makes sense of the dynamics I see as consequential, so we're forced to assemble our own analysis.
In other words, we're forced to dabble in heresies.
For example, the Status Quo orthodoxy holds that the world is now multipolar and the influence and power of the U.S. / West is in an inevitable decline.
The West's dominance was a bad thing, so multipolarity is a good thing.
The alternative orthodoxy holds that the U.S. / West are doomed not just to decline but to the dominance of China and its partners.
The West had its day, now it's China's turn.
This orthodoxy holds the US dollar will collapse in a heap, replaced by Bitcoin, a gold-backed RMB/yuan, or a basket of non-Western currencies.
Questioning these orthodoxies is akin to declaring God is dead in 1500. It doesn't go over very well with True Believers and their enforcers.
These orthodoxies are values-based rather than analytic. They project what we think should happen because it fits our value system.
This is why orthodoxies are so vehemently defended: to question them is to question the moral rightness of the orthodoxy.
The problem is two-fold: 1) orthodoxies suppress evolution and 2) we're blinded by our emotional attachments to orthodoxies.
We don't get attached to forecasts that don't impact our values or our financial security.
If someone forecasts inflation in Lower Slobovia will rise from 8% to 10%, we don't have any emotional stake in the forecast. If inflation there rises or falls, we don't care. We don't bristle and rush to defend either forecast.
Unless we've staked a big bet on inflation rising in Lower Slobovia. Then we care, deeply. We're completely emotionally engaged, and ready to tear the head off anyone arguing that our position is faulty and we're going to lose the bet.
Those with no emotional stake in the issue look on us with bemusement. What's the big deal? Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, so why get worked up about it?
Indeed.
As longtime readers know, I favor looking at everything as a system. There is really only one system dynamic, Natural Selection, i.e. evolutionary success or failure when evolutionary pressure is applied.
Human societies and economies are ecosystems, too, and so their success or failure is Natural Selection at work.
Two things matter in evolution: transparency and variability. Evolution is only possible if the genome / society / economy generates a steady stream of mutations / variations.
Variations / variability are the fuel of evolution: if there are no mutations / variations, then there's nothing new being fed to the system which can offer selective advantages.
Transparency is the mechanism needed to test / select variability. In the genome, mutations that offer some selective advantage are conserved by an automatic process.
In human organizations, transparency means there's a free-for-all churn of variability / dissent, experimentation and sharing of results. New ideas and data flow freely between all the nodes of the system.
Human organizations with weak variability and transparency fail to adapt because they lack the means to do so.
This is scale-invariant. Relationships lacking variability and transparency fail, enterprises lacking variability and transparency fail, nations lacking variability and transparency fail.
Authoritarian regimes, be they relationships, enterprises or nations, fail because there is no other possible outcome other than evolutionary failure. Any success will be illusory / temporary.
Finding this regime attractive or repugnant won't change the inevitability of its failure.
Transparency is not easy. People contest our treasured orthodoxies, upsetting us. We're forced to admit to being wrong far more often than we like. It hurts our pride and we lose face, but the upside is the immense success of the evolutionary churn.
Consider a couple arguing in the supermarket aisle over what to buy and what to put back as unaffordable / unnecessary.
In an authoritarian regime lacking variability and transparency, the autocrat imposes their self-serving decision and punishes the dissenter.
If the autocrat has their way, the dissenter is handcuffed and hauled away: it's their just desserts for questioning the righteousness of my rule.
In a couple, we would call this domineering relationship dysfunctional. The rights and desires of one partner are annulled by the dominant partner.
In a evolutionarily dynamic relationship, the couple don't just argue and then stew over it later, they propose solutions and negotiate openly.
This process is also scale-invariant: every argument / disagreement reflects the underlying dynamics of the relationship, so every negotiation reflects these same dynamics.
This process is also evolutionary. The previous negotiation may leave one person dissatisfied, and so the negotiations evolve.
From the perspective of evolutionary churn, parents shouldn't avoid having disagreements in front of their children. Disagreeing and negotiating differences transparently in real time is a valuable lesson for kids on how to handle dissent and conflicts successfully.
Don't just grudgingly allow variations, elicit them, welcome them not as threats but as essential churn, and then negotiate an outcome that is evolutionary, i.e. contingent and open to being changed as conditions change.
The couple that never argues and always puts on a smiley face isn't the healthy relationship. It's evolutionarily doomed to failure because the façade of unity and happiness is not actual unity or happiness.
The lack of variability and transparency have a cost that the participants and the system pay one way or another. It can be hidden for a while but not indefinitely.
The same can be said of nations. If dissent is suppressed, data is hoarded, communication is shackled by fear of exposure or censure and all decisions are made opaquely, that regime is doomed to evolutionary failure.
The nation where all the dirty laundry is out and everybody is arguing about it is evolutionarily robust. The nation where the dirty laundry is hidden deep in the basement to preserve the illusion of unity and success has been stripped of variability and transparency.
Which nation has the most variability and transparency, China or the U.S.? It's simply not credible to claim China has outstanding levels of open dissent, debate and transparency.
We can argue about the U.S., which is part and parcel of the evolutionary churn. Whether it retains enough variability and transparency to survive is an open question. Whether it retains enough to evolve and thrive is also an open question.
We shall see.
My analytic forecast (laid out in my book Global Crisis, National Renewal) is that evolutionary success demands relocalizing production of essentials and consuming less, and all the systemic changes required to enable and incentivize this evolution.
Evolutionary pressure doesn't go away when you hide the dirty laundry. It builds up. When variability / dissent are suppressed, the system has no evolutionary fuel. Starved, it collapses.
I don't think it matters what we call the world system or what configuration aligns with our values or what we think should happen. Evolutionary pressure is building, and those organizations which choose autocratic suppression of variability / dissent and transparency will fail.
Those that defend the churn of variability / dissent and transparency will evolve, come what may.
Orthodoxies by definition have been of stripped of variability and transparency. That's what makes an orthodoxy an orthodoxy.
For this reason, evolutionary success cannot arise within orthodoxies. Dissent, variability, sharing ideas, proposing solutions and negotiating transparently are all intrinsically heretical.
Heresy evolves, orthodoxy cannot. Plan accordingly.
Highlights of the Blog
The End of Cheap Food 9/16/22
The Fourth Turn, Turn, Turn 9/14/22
Why This Recession Is Different 9/12/22
Best Thing That Happened To Me This Week
From the garden to the table: roasted tomatoes blenderized into fresh pasta sauce with homegrown basil.
Our chayote (called pipinola in Hawaii) shoots--the tender ends of the vines--stir-fried with dried shrimp.
The chayote fruit transformed into pickles.
From the local tofu factory, okara (upper left), the bland remains of the soybeans processed to make tofu, mixed with diced vegetables.
From Left Field
NOTE TO NEW READERS: This list is not comprised of articles I agree with or that I judge to be correct or of the highest quality. It is representative of the content I find interesting as reflections of the current zeitgeist. The list is intended to be perused with an open, critical, occasionally amused mind.
"An Ugly Thing To Watch" - China Is Facing An Employment Crisis -- transparency is hard...
Why Is the Dollar So Strong? American Innovation -- heresy!
Kroger Execs Knew Most Workers Live in Poverty -- food stamps and Medicaid = corporate welfare...
What a Young Philosopher Discovered More Than 200 Years Ago About Nature
A Very California Lesson on Just How Weird Electricity Is -- the happy story, let's hope for a Hollywood ending....
U.S. Incomes Fail to Grow for Second Year in a Row, Census Figures Show -- the real issue is whether the lowest-paid workers are gaining or losing ground....
Major foreign holders of U.S. treasury securities as of May 2022
Foreign countries held a total of $7.42 trillion in U.S. treasury securities.
Energy at the End of the World Seminar - Peter Zeihan (2:32 hours)
Long Covid is keeping millions out of work – and worsening labor shortage in the US
‘Godard shattered cinema’: Martin Scorsese, Mike Leigh, Abel Ferrara, Claire Denis and more pay tribute -- many of his later films are difficult to watch / enjoy, but still....
When the Big One Hits Portland, Cargo Bikers Will Save You (Wired)
The Best Homemade Tomato Soup -- recommended...
"I am indeed rich, since my income is superior to my expenses, and my expense is equal to my wishes." Edward Gibbon
Thanks for reading--
charles |
|
|
|
|
|
