intimacy crisis
term proposed by david j. temple as part of the cosmoerotic humanism philosophy. i also refer to it as psycho-spiritual alienation. the church of the intimate web also is actively working on addressing it, calling it the global intimacy disorder.
it states that the fundamental driver of the metacrisis is a lack of intimacy. with ourselves, with others and with the world.
[quote from first principles & first values]
daniel schmachtenberger also refers to it quoting david bohm and j. krishnamurti's conversations:
"If people have not watched the conversations that David Bohm and Krishnamurti had together back in the day, I would recommend them as some of the most useful, valuable, beautiful recordings of human conversation I've ever seen. And in one short clip, David Bohm speaking on, if you YouTube it, I think it's called Fragmentation and Wholeness, something like that. He basically identifies, and this was maybe the '80s, the cause of the metacrisis, though he didn't call it metacrisis or superorganism, but like all the problems of the human predicament that is clearly going towards a point of self-determination that was seeable at that time. The way he defined it I think was exceptionally good. I think it maps to the way indigenous wisdom has defined it in other things. Men are not the web of life. We are merely a strand and at whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
But when we become power capable of doing exponentially powerful stuff, then our own short term, our win lose becomes omni lose lose. Our short term optimization ends up affecting even the timescales we care about. So what Bohm said is the underlying cause of the problem is a consciousness that perceives parts rather than that perceives wholes or the nature of wholeness. And because it perceives parts, it can think about something separate from others. So it can think about benefiting something separate from others and either it can then care about some parts more than others so it's okay harming the other things or it just doesn't even realize it is. So whether it is separation of care and values or separation of just calculation.
And so I can benefit myself at the expense of somebody else. I can benefit my in-group at the expense of an out-group. I can benefit my species at the expense of nature. I can benefit my current at the expense of my future. I can benefit these metrics at the expense of other metrics we don't know about. And that all of the problems come from that in so far as we were perceiving the field of wholeness itself and our goals were coming from there. And then our goal achieving was in service of goals that came from there. That's what wisdom binding intelligence would mean, which is the perception of and the identification with wholeness being that which guides our manipulation of parts, i.e. technology.
alexander beiner also talks about it as the consequence of physicalism as the dominant philosophical view since the enlightenment. in his article Reality Eats Culture For Breakfast, he presents a great perspective on the subject and possible alternative paradigms that could replace physicalism/cartesian dualism, namely philosophical idealism and panpsychism as well.
intimately related with: eye of value, iain mcgilchrist's the master and his emissary