My worry is that its purely something circular - that the stories/structures that are the most meaningful are the ones that manage to feel the most meaningful for the biggest groups of people.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Or possibly, the ability to play with/unify existing structures of power, which still boils down to charisma/bureaucracy/tradition/resources. Is there something else? Something new?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Can't those institutions have regular hierarchies of power while not being dogmatic?
-
Yeah sure, but where do those at the top get their power from? If it's just 'they won the bureaucratic game' then these systems are identical to modern ones. Tradition-based hierarchies aren't in rn. My worry is it's charisma-based ones next. Eugh.
-
Hmm I'm not sure if I understand your framing. Are you looking for the power model of institutions in a metamodern age? Or the authority and governance structure inside metamodern institutions?
-
Either would be great, thanks
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm half way through reading this book. It has some interesting real world examples: https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Organizations-Creating-Inspired-Consciousness-ebook/dp/B00ICS9VI4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536624804&sr=8-1&keywords=reinventing+organizations …
-
Oooh, this is the second time this book has come up. Seems like I might need to read it then...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Institutions are inherently meaningful and embody some value system so their very existence avoids the groundless pomo trap.
-
But if a modern institution embodies a static set of values (or a set we pretend are static), how does a fluid institution embody a changing set of values without collapsing into nihilism?
-
If it’s an institution and it exists it has values otherwise it will cease to exist. If those values change a lot the people engaging in it will likely turnover. A successful startup is maybe an example of an organization with shifting values. Most early employees will churn.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Consent of the governed? It's a modern idea but I don't see it as obsolete.
-
But what leads people to consent to being governed?
-
Belief that their interests are being represented. This interacts heavily with social norms, signaling behavior, propaganda, and all kinds of other distortions on belief formation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the short answer might be something like “loosely-held lip service to convention”. Nobody has the time/energy to re-evaluate and re-construct everything from first principles, so they innovate on some front + use legacy ‘code’ for everything else until it becomes an issue
-
Yup I think it’s exactly this. “Solving for adoption” is a challenge, otherwise you have the “Esperanto problem” where you might have a superior system that nobody wants to adopt because nobody has adopted it yethttps://twitter.com/autotrnslucence/status/1039285828629889024?s=21 …
-
I think that structures that pretend there’s one true source of meaning might have an advantage of focus - they can laser in on one thing, like growth, and in that way best structures that are more responsive/realistic.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not enough existing rn, so it's hard to say. I'd start with "Rough consensus and running code" among open source devs
-
Is running code roughly equivalent to 'the ability to make things happen in the world'? Because that seems to just boil down to charisma, bureaucracy, tradition and resources a la weber.
-
I think the idea is that you can do those things but without the formal structure Or switch between formal structure and informal modes more easily? Maybe we can find something if we look at the cracks in Weber's model, but I'm not that familiar with him
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.