The epistemology that ultimate truth can be received and attuned to rather than systematically derived to reminds me of American essayist Emerson's philosophy in the second half of the 19th century. Transcendentalism. In many of his essays, such as Spiritual Laws and Sovereignty of Ethics he wrote that a moral law already exists in nature comparable to the laws of physics. One just needs the faith in this invisible organization principle. Come to think of it, I can recall that he also quoted the Gita in other places so he was definitely inspired by classic Indian mysticism. But I digress. What is interesting here is that this is knee-jerkingly thought as "non-scientific", and thus lacking merit. However, as you mentioned, the field of physics has been approaching a similar understanding over the past century where traditional Newtonian logic starts to breaks down and so on.
Your new wisdom of institution sounds like an paradigm shift from the supermassive black hole of the "Gutenberg Galaxy" where—for one thing, value is placed on specializing into a pre-set role via an outdated university programs. For example, there are not a lot jobs where a degree in philosophy makes a difference. That is to say, a lot of educational programs are not in touch with the real world. More importantly, however, the advent of electronic media also made the question of identity prominent, whereas before it was a simpler matter (age, family, occupation, religion... that's it).
The proverbial Pandora's box has creaked. We must break free from the past conditioning and embrace a new way of understanding... The great problem seems to be we are carrying rudimentary belief systems from the past and now find this new tension of identity and meaning in the modern era. We are smack dab in a conflict of contradiction; in the dynamic interference of media influences encroaching on us and distorting perception rather than helping us keep rewire limitation of thought and hold our postures of mind poised. Who can help us be reborn?
I know you've written about media theorist and prophet McLuhan before (which is how I found out about you!)—and I also believe that understanding media is crucial for the future of communication, education and growth. It is the new environment, so to speak. For example, the dogmatic ways of thinking—the literate, rational, Gutenbergian mind can actually encumber us in the digital age simply because the media landscape has changed and thus requires a total shift of perception.
I suppose ultimately, as you proposed, it is about "whether we can build a new kind of institution that does what the old ones did, without demanding what the old ones demanded"—which becomes a problem of getting everyone "on the same page"... so to speak... Well, it's certainly hard to organize and reach people without a strong voice of authority amplified by social proof... so what can we do?
I love what you wrote: "Beyond changing one paradigm for another is learning to stand in the arena of paradigms with a kind of lightness and ontological humility, to remember that no single frame is the whole, and to let that remembrance become liberation rather than dread. " That statement is an atmosphere of invitation in and of itself. Embracing ambiguity and having the nimbleness to roam the great spectrum of knowledge as one fails forward into alignment. That attitude of acceptance and of existential insecurity is fundamental to walk the path.
There is a lot to learn and discover on this topic and I have hardly begun to scratch the surface!
Thanks Patricia for sharing this. It blows my mind with a sense of wonder of what is possible :)
Thanks so much for this, Robin! I’m really moved by how carefully you tracked the throughline.
Your Emerson/Transcendentalism link is spot-on, and it names the lineage I’m implicitly borrowing from: truth as something received through alignment, not only constructed through argument. I also appreciate your framing of why this gets dismissed as “non-scientific,” even as modern physics keeps complicating our older certainties.
I really resonate with your McLuhan/Gutenberg Galaxy read too. If the medium is the environment, then part of the “crisis of seeking” is an environmental mismatch: we’re trying to run old meaning-making operating systems inside a radically new perceptual landscape.
I’m sitting with the same design challenge you named: building legitimacy and coordination without charismatic authority + social proof. My current hunch is we replace the “strong voice” with strong rhythm (repeatable rituals), strong vows (clear cultural constraints), and strong stewardship (distributed, accountable leadership). Grateful you’re in this inquiry with me.
I so value your clarity and the discernment of the vision you hold Patricia. Yes to all of this. Institutions for attunement and discernment!
The epistemology that ultimate truth can be received and attuned to rather than systematically derived to reminds me of American essayist Emerson's philosophy in the second half of the 19th century. Transcendentalism. In many of his essays, such as Spiritual Laws and Sovereignty of Ethics he wrote that a moral law already exists in nature comparable to the laws of physics. One just needs the faith in this invisible organization principle. Come to think of it, I can recall that he also quoted the Gita in other places so he was definitely inspired by classic Indian mysticism. But I digress. What is interesting here is that this is knee-jerkingly thought as "non-scientific", and thus lacking merit. However, as you mentioned, the field of physics has been approaching a similar understanding over the past century where traditional Newtonian logic starts to breaks down and so on.
Your new wisdom of institution sounds like an paradigm shift from the supermassive black hole of the "Gutenberg Galaxy" where—for one thing, value is placed on specializing into a pre-set role via an outdated university programs. For example, there are not a lot jobs where a degree in philosophy makes a difference. That is to say, a lot of educational programs are not in touch with the real world. More importantly, however, the advent of electronic media also made the question of identity prominent, whereas before it was a simpler matter (age, family, occupation, religion... that's it).
The proverbial Pandora's box has creaked. We must break free from the past conditioning and embrace a new way of understanding... The great problem seems to be we are carrying rudimentary belief systems from the past and now find this new tension of identity and meaning in the modern era. We are smack dab in a conflict of contradiction; in the dynamic interference of media influences encroaching on us and distorting perception rather than helping us keep rewire limitation of thought and hold our postures of mind poised. Who can help us be reborn?
I know you've written about media theorist and prophet McLuhan before (which is how I found out about you!)—and I also believe that understanding media is crucial for the future of communication, education and growth. It is the new environment, so to speak. For example, the dogmatic ways of thinking—the literate, rational, Gutenbergian mind can actually encumber us in the digital age simply because the media landscape has changed and thus requires a total shift of perception.
I suppose ultimately, as you proposed, it is about "whether we can build a new kind of institution that does what the old ones did, without demanding what the old ones demanded"—which becomes a problem of getting everyone "on the same page"... so to speak... Well, it's certainly hard to organize and reach people without a strong voice of authority amplified by social proof... so what can we do?
I love what you wrote: "Beyond changing one paradigm for another is learning to stand in the arena of paradigms with a kind of lightness and ontological humility, to remember that no single frame is the whole, and to let that remembrance become liberation rather than dread. " That statement is an atmosphere of invitation in and of itself. Embracing ambiguity and having the nimbleness to roam the great spectrum of knowledge as one fails forward into alignment. That attitude of acceptance and of existential insecurity is fundamental to walk the path.
There is a lot to learn and discover on this topic and I have hardly begun to scratch the surface!
Thanks Patricia for sharing this. It blows my mind with a sense of wonder of what is possible :)
Thanks so much for this, Robin! I’m really moved by how carefully you tracked the throughline.
Your Emerson/Transcendentalism link is spot-on, and it names the lineage I’m implicitly borrowing from: truth as something received through alignment, not only constructed through argument. I also appreciate your framing of why this gets dismissed as “non-scientific,” even as modern physics keeps complicating our older certainties.
I really resonate with your McLuhan/Gutenberg Galaxy read too. If the medium is the environment, then part of the “crisis of seeking” is an environmental mismatch: we’re trying to run old meaning-making operating systems inside a radically new perceptual landscape.
I’m sitting with the same design challenge you named: building legitimacy and coordination without charismatic authority + social proof. My current hunch is we replace the “strong voice” with strong rhythm (repeatable rituals), strong vows (clear cultural constraints), and strong stewardship (distributed, accountable leadership). Grateful you’re in this inquiry with me.