The Future of Governance Part 1 | Jordan Hall and John Vervaeke | Voices with Vervaeke

I'm so happy of having found this corner of the internet.

I am comforted by the knowledge that there are minds like John and Jordan's, grappling with these questions. They are formulating approaches to problems that I think many intuit, but struggle to comprehend. Their 'competence' is so needed. Thank you.

Balaji, Dave Snowden and Jonathan Pageau all in one podcast. Worlds are colliding! This was fantastic. Only criticism is there are much easier ways to help regular people understand Snowden’s Cynefin model. Just take a look at how he explains it and copy him. People won’t engage if they can’t understand what you’re on about. 🙏🏻

Amazing framework for discussing these topics.

PROUD!🌟

Thanks John V for interpreting JH's brilliance. That last segment was genuis

Brilliant diagnosis of the malfunction of our current systems of governance, and felt sense of the shift required to manifest a properly functioning one. Really looking forward to part 2.

Continually grappling with the sense that I'm either too stupid to understand this or there's nothing of substance being discussed here. At least the ratio of coherent, significant points vs contrived detours was too low for my taste. Love you John, I found you much easier to follow but I couldn't hang in there for this one.

This is the greatest comedy podcast on YouTube

32:00 "The problem with contracts and text and laws and rules is they overestimate our capacity for per-specifying relevance" 🎯

Whew. This was fantastic. Can't wait for part 2 I'm particularly interested in the fleshing out and grounding (in common language) of Jordans notion of a "new protocol". This is exactly what I'm searching for too.

That's what IM talking about. Doing an undergrad in economics, it feels insane that there are no conversations about how the world might work when we function as a full context planet. Always waiting for something to break before the next marginal innovation.

First off, so glad to see you two in dialogos once again and looking forward to seeing how this evolves. Second. Thoughts that came to mind: 1. The tyranny of pluralism; that is, the degree to which pluralism cuts off dialogue for the claimed sake of harmony, which on the surface appears good as we should desire to prevent a kind of 30 Years War, yet in the long run harmful, particularly when issues involving concepts of the nous/divinity/mysterium/sacred are brought to bare and the natural fear of not desiring to examine one's right (wise vs egoic) relations with their existence are challenged. 2. The necessity of transparency; that is, the degree to which one's unwillingness to be open to their hidden interests and actions can force multiply insincere outcomes for the commons and maximize central power/control. 3. This was danced around but not deeply touched upon: The honesty and wisdom of recognizing the realness of the tremendum or darkness/evil not just within the immediate but on a 7, 8, 9... generations time scale and why this justly fosters right relation with the nous/divinity/mysterium/sacred; that being, the degree to which we are courageous enough to not BS ourselves. 4. How to optimally scale the evolution of an expanding neo-neocortex on par with the shamanic and wisdom traditions that, in their greatest instances didn't seek monetary or powerful gain, but instead wise/right relations with the totality of each other and our shared ecological existence?, for which this and other conversations in "this corner of the internet" are attempting. All of these and likely so many more, seemingly providing further openness to an emergence of the good, true, and beautiful. PS My sincere gratitude and love to you both.

Bravo 👏 I'm indebted to yu both

My summary so far: initial chunk of this discussion is basically concerned with model error in the broadest sense. As the saying goes: all models are wrong but some are useful. Forming a model requires identifying aspects of reality, where an aspect is a set of relevant features, which means aspects are post relevance realization. The argument being we should have the ability to update our models of governance dialogically with reality. In other words, our models of governance should track reality. While I agree with it, I would have to add that models of governance are not be changed like underwear, because the dynamic in reality they track is very slow relative to the temporal scale of the human. Even though the technological change is accelerating, it can't do so forever (societally we're probably in a punctuated equilibrium type of situation).

I can't put my finger on it, but Jordan just always gave me evil mastermind type vibes

9:40 necessity and timing, very relevant. 25 minutes in and Jordan is describing system overload, by 27:40 starts to point us in a new direction.30:25 or so, monological management to dialogical evolution, well put. Jordan's explanation of the educational process and purpose was very succinct, as it also showed its eventual demise in that purpose has run its course. John then picks up on that noticing that those who might have to relinquish their stations in society are already implementing bulwarks to prevent that change from occurring. Really great depth here of what is happening today and what might come to pass if sane thought is not incorporated into our future. 52 minutes, Jordan's description of sovereignty is right on point, sovereignty can't exist in an I space, it can only exist in a we space, no man is an island, comes into focus here, there is no I in this world, it took a we to produce the I. The finish is a great place to start again, so well put by Jordan. Looking forward to the next get together, thank you both Jordan and John. Peace

Liberation from specialization and the competitive orientation of the market economy seem to be what all 18 yr olds have been dreaming of!

This conversation makes me want to run out and found a new political party, solely invested in reforming the state apparatus to a technologically up to date form. Bringing something like that to fruition is something a person could dedicate an entire political career to. It would take a massive collective will. If this sort of updating doesn't happen gradually through reforms, then it will take nations falling to revolutions and re-creating themselves, and all the painful chaos that goes along with that.

Wow, didn't expected that one today. Have to rethink my schedule now.