My suggestion for last month is far deeper than economic reform, and economic reform is one of the necessary consequences.
What I was talking about was a level of understanding of ourselves, of epistemology, of ontology, or the spaces of paradigms of understanding, and the spaces of possible ways of interacting, and the physics and chemistry of existence and life.
What I see evolving from this awareness is an understanding of evolution that is far beyond anything taught explicitly in mainstream at present. The present focus of evolutionary teaching is the “nature red in tooth and claw” focus on the role of differential survival as a filter on variation – which is real enough in one sense.
However, what is ignored is the role of cooperation in evolution. What is not explicitly taught is that all major advances in the complexity of life are characterised by new levels of cooperation, and raw cooperation is always vulnerable to cheating, so to be stable all new levels of cooperation have to have attendant strategies that remove any benefit from cheating, and thus allow cooperation to survive and prosper.
What I am talking about is a level of “spiritual” evolution that brings true probabilistic understanding to all knowledge, all awareness.
Within this framework of fundamental uncertainty at all levels, we can build progressive levels of confidence within specific domains.
We can build an understanding of the evolution and utility of historical modes of understanding, of cultures, and of our path from simple binary distinctions and certainty into approximations of infinities and the profound uncertainty that must logically accompany any finite entity into any infinity.
So for me, part of the process of awareness is understanding the biological drivers of genetics, and the profound way that evolution “holographically” averages across all of the billions of possibilities simultaneously – and we are each instances of such filtering in a sense.
Then there is the development of culture analogous to the genetic development of cells, bodies and ecologies.
Then there is our personal instantiations of being as individuals, each with the genetic and cultural histories that we have, and each with our personal journeys of questions asked, distinctions and abstractions made, choices, consequences.
For me, culture is interesting only in a historical sense.
For me, what is most interesting is how individuals transcend their cultural birth in a sense.
What interests me is going beyond the cultures of the past to create the first fully consciously created culture that empowers all individuals to self actualise in whatever way they responsibly choose.
So yes there is a part that is economic reform.
And there is part that is cultural reform.
And there is part that is an exploration of individual values.
And there is part that is personal choice, and personal transcendence.
What I am talking about is an exploration of value.
What is value?
Why do we value what we do?
What are the commonly hidden influences from deep genetic time – of survival over aeons, and the more recent and still deep cultural influences of stories (paradigms, implicit and explicit assumptions) that have worked for thousands of generations for our ancestors?
What is the notion of responsibility in the context we find ourselves in today?
What is freedom?
I align with every one of the shared principles of UUA, and the underlying schema I use is significantly different.
For me it is much more than an order vs chaos thing, and there are certainly aspects of that.
For me, it is clear that there appears to be an infinite set of possible algorithms (ways of calculating or making sense of things), which can be usefully categorised into four infinite classes:
Those which are computable in an easily calculable amount of time;
Those which may be computed, but the time to compute them cannot be calculated in less time than actually doing the calculation;
Those which have no computational solution, and may be computed indefinitely;
Those which may fall into either class 2 or 3 but cannot be computed ahead of time which (ie uncertain).
The first class of problems can easily and safely be explored.
The last three classes of problem involve what is know in computational theory as “the halting problem” – how to determine that you have spent enough time on this problem and it is not worth investing any more as it is never going to deliver a solution, vs the solution might be “just around the next corner” (so to speak).
There is no simple answer to that problem, and there are a number of general heuristics (rules of thumb if you like) that are used in practice by different organisms and systems (at various levels).
Add to that the results from database theory, that if you have a processor that is fully employed, the most computationally efficient search is a fully random search (if you have spare processor capacity to maintain indexes, then indexed searches become more time efficient, but always take more processor cycles overall to implement).
So when one looks from this perspective, of the general space of spaces of computation, then the distinction between order and chaos becomes extremely blurred, and from some perspectives it is impossible to see any distinction.
Add into this that there are fundamental uncertainties at many levels relating to all perceptions, all abstractions derived from perceptions and even all logic.
From my perspective, all religion is probably false, and at the same time is also a reasonable response to the halting problem; and is usually a useful first order approximation (framed within simple binary distinctions) to infinities that must logically be unknowable at profound levels.