I am confused with your use of the term meta-crisis... 'Meta' refers to a recursive property of transformation, or in other words when a framework can be applied to itself. A meta-analysis is an analysis of other analyses, meta-cognition is the awareness you have of your own awareness, etc... By which I understand meta-crisis as being 'the crisis of crises', which on its surface is a meaningful idea to wrestle with, even perhaps highlighting the outline of the great spiritual work of transformation that both allows us to see through familiarity when we are blind to the crises around us, and at the same time keep us from breaking down into our own personal crisis while navigating others. True masters can stay calm and act intentionally in a crisis, while other can make a crisis out of even the slightest misfortune. Thus each and every human being must confront the meta-crisis within themselves, and I am happy to extend the definition to higher (or lower) forms of organization than the individual. For example, the judicial system exists to address the societal meta-crisis, etc... I think this is a very interesting idea to explore, but I dont get any clear sense of what you mean by the term in your writings other than as a stand in for a vague, abstract 'societal crisis' which is the agglomeration of many other societal crises.
That is a great question. As the editorial director of the Center, I am working closely with Dr. Marc Gafni on a number of books. And I have asked him questions about this as well.
Especially since there is so much talk about the polycrisis now, I personally prefer the term meta-crisis, the way he is using it, as it points to the deepest generator functions that are at the root of all the crises we are facing as humanity. Dr. Marc Gafni, together with colleagues, has formulated these generator functions as
1. rivalrous conflict governed by win/lose metrics
2. complicated rather than complex systems (with complicated systems being fragile and complex systems being anti-fragile)
Dr. Gafni has analyzed these more deeply in the sense that in complex self-organizing systems, for example a cell, there is allurement between the parts, while in complicated systems, like a Ferrari, there is no allurement between the parts.
And at the deepest level, the generator function of all of these is what Dr. Marc has termed the global intimacy disorder. We are not intimate with each other. We are not intimate with the people suffering all over the world. We are not intimate with the animals and plants and the whole biosphere. We are not intimate with all the aspects of ourselves - our split-off parts. And so forth...
The term intimacy in this context is defined by him very precisely in an interior science equation that works all the way up and down the evolutionary chain:
Intimacy = shared identity in the context of (relative) otherness x mutuality of recognition x mutuality of feeling x mutuality of value x mutuality of purpose
So, the solution to our meta-crisis is by us growing into a new global intimacy, an evolutionary intimacy.
Here is an early version of an essay about twenty applications of the intimacy equation that you may find interesting:
I appreciate the thoroughness your reply, and I'm interested in learning more and maybe I'm just missing something but I do want to clarify my case. The generative function of crises is a very interesting idea, although the verbiage is new to me it vibes with my own study of conflict and I'm interested in reading more about Dr. Gafni's thoughts on it. That being said, I dont think the term 'meta-crisis' would be the appropriate term to use if that is the intended meaning. Obviously when coining a new term you can create whatever you want without regard to etymological structures, but the cost of doing so are paid in clarity and accessibility, as I would argue that if the meaning is not etymologically obvious then it needs to be parenthetically explained in order to be understood which is either cumbersome or requires speaking to an in-group who already knows the intended meaning. It may seem a small point, but I would encourage Dr. Gafni to reflect on whether meta-crisis is the most suitable term for the meaning he is trying to express. I'd be happy to brainstorm together if there's any interest in my input. Thanks Kerstin
I am confused with your use of the term meta-crisis... 'Meta' refers to a recursive property of transformation, or in other words when a framework can be applied to itself. A meta-analysis is an analysis of other analyses, meta-cognition is the awareness you have of your own awareness, etc... By which I understand meta-crisis as being 'the crisis of crises', which on its surface is a meaningful idea to wrestle with, even perhaps highlighting the outline of the great spiritual work of transformation that both allows us to see through familiarity when we are blind to the crises around us, and at the same time keep us from breaking down into our own personal crisis while navigating others. True masters can stay calm and act intentionally in a crisis, while other can make a crisis out of even the slightest misfortune. Thus each and every human being must confront the meta-crisis within themselves, and I am happy to extend the definition to higher (or lower) forms of organization than the individual. For example, the judicial system exists to address the societal meta-crisis, etc... I think this is a very interesting idea to explore, but I dont get any clear sense of what you mean by the term in your writings other than as a stand in for a vague, abstract 'societal crisis' which is the agglomeration of many other societal crises.
Hi Julian,
That is a great question. As the editorial director of the Center, I am working closely with Dr. Marc Gafni on a number of books. And I have asked him questions about this as well.
Especially since there is so much talk about the polycrisis now, I personally prefer the term meta-crisis, the way he is using it, as it points to the deepest generator functions that are at the root of all the crises we are facing as humanity. Dr. Marc Gafni, together with colleagues, has formulated these generator functions as
1. rivalrous conflict governed by win/lose metrics
2. complicated rather than complex systems (with complicated systems being fragile and complex systems being anti-fragile)
Dr. Gafni has analyzed these more deeply in the sense that in complex self-organizing systems, for example a cell, there is allurement between the parts, while in complicated systems, like a Ferrari, there is no allurement between the parts.
And at the deepest level, the generator function of all of these is what Dr. Marc has termed the global intimacy disorder. We are not intimate with each other. We are not intimate with the people suffering all over the world. We are not intimate with the animals and plants and the whole biosphere. We are not intimate with all the aspects of ourselves - our split-off parts. And so forth...
The term intimacy in this context is defined by him very precisely in an interior science equation that works all the way up and down the evolutionary chain:
Intimacy = shared identity in the context of (relative) otherness x mutuality of recognition x mutuality of feeling x mutuality of value x mutuality of purpose
So, the solution to our meta-crisis is by us growing into a new global intimacy, an evolutionary intimacy.
Here is an early version of an essay about twenty applications of the intimacy equation that you may find interesting:
https://marcgafni.substack.com/p/the-evolution-of-love-and-intimacy
I appreciate the thoroughness your reply, and I'm interested in learning more and maybe I'm just missing something but I do want to clarify my case. The generative function of crises is a very interesting idea, although the verbiage is new to me it vibes with my own study of conflict and I'm interested in reading more about Dr. Gafni's thoughts on it. That being said, I dont think the term 'meta-crisis' would be the appropriate term to use if that is the intended meaning. Obviously when coining a new term you can create whatever you want without regard to etymological structures, but the cost of doing so are paid in clarity and accessibility, as I would argue that if the meaning is not etymologically obvious then it needs to be parenthetically explained in order to be understood which is either cumbersome or requires speaking to an in-group who already knows the intended meaning. It may seem a small point, but I would encourage Dr. Gafni to reflect on whether meta-crisis is the most suitable term for the meaning he is trying to express. I'd be happy to brainstorm together if there's any interest in my input. Thanks Kerstin