From: jimruttshow8596
The Concept of Effective Value Meme (EVM) describes how values are not arbitrary but emerge from overarching, deeper structures related to the development of societies [02:50:49]. These structures generate values that are similar or correspond to one another across different societal stages [02:50:52]. EVMs suggest that values evolve with societies as they face different systemic challenges [02:22:15].
Evolution of Societal Values
Imagine a time machine taking you to Rome in 200 AD [01:37:30]. The values of its citizens regarding slavery, the death penalty, gender relationships, and punishment would seem shocking and crude to a contemporary Swedish citizen [01:48:45]. Conversely, the Roman citizen would find modern stances on these issues “meaningless, abstract, wishy-washy,” or “suffocatingly politically correct” [02:01:01]. This highlights a fundamental difference: societal values are not arbitrary but follow a logic rooted in societal development [02:08:43].
Significant value differences exist between:
- Any agricultural society and any industrial modern society [02:17:59].
- Tribal societies and modern societies [02:31:31].
Societies develop values adapted to their conditions [02:20:52]. For instance, modern values evolved to support an expanding industrial welfare state [02:33:00].
Limitations of Current Values
Today, societies face increasingly complex challenges like climate change, global governance, migration flows, and existential risks from technology [02:50:50]. The prevailing modern and postmodern values are insufficient for populations to self-organize around these deeper, more universal issues [02:52:08]. This necessitates the development of meta-modern values [02:32:00].
Components of the Effective Value Meme
The effective value meme is decomposed into four parts:
- Model of Hierarchical Complexity [02:12:09]
- Code or Symbol Stage [02:15:18]
- Emotional State [02:18:21]
- Emotional Depth [02:21:00]
Model of Hierarchical Complexity
This model mathematically formulates the key elements of different stages of cognitive complexity [02:34:25]. It explains why a four-year-old cannot formulate a new theory of physics – their brain doesn’t perform thoughts of that complexity level [02:05:53]. Developed from the work of Piaget and Kohlberg, with significant contributions from Michael Commons, it identifies 17 stages of adult development [02:29:25].
Key stages for most adults include:
- Abstract [02:26:00]: Ability to reason about abstract variables, even if not tangible [02:27:00]. Most adults reach this stage by junior high [02:28:49].
- Formal Operations [02:29:05]: Ability to formulate linear or non-linear relationships between several abstract variables [02:29:09]. Over half of adults reach this stage, sufficient for most modern labor economy functions [02:29:50].
- Systemic [02:59:59]: Ability to create whole systems of formal relations, seeing feedback loops [03:02:05]. About 20% of the adult population reaches this stage, common among academics [03:02:05].
- Meta-systematic [03:03:35]: Ability to see patterns within systems, comparing properties, and understanding different system logics, leading to less reductive thinking [03:05:37]. Approximately 1.8% of the population reaches this stage [03:11:14].
- Paradigmatic [03:05:06]: The stage after meta-systematic [03:06:06].
People at different stages of complexity may find it difficult to understand each other; for instance, a meta-systematic thinker might find an abstract thinker shallow [03:11:11].
Code or Symbol Stage
This dimension explores how culture itself evolves, embedding certain symbols or ideas of different complexity stages [03:05:54]. It explains why a medieval genius wouldn’t understand Newton’s physics or even basic Cartesian coordinates [03:31:56]. This suggests a deep, non-arbitrary pattern to how culture evolves [03:37:42], making modern societies more comparable to each other than to their own past [03:53:54].
The culture’s “code” must be “downloaded” into individuals for them to use it, and more complex thinkers are more likely to find code that resonates with their mental complexity [03:14:14]. Exposure to complex code can also spur more complex thought [03:34:14]. The speaker argues that modern ideas, when taken to their ultimate conclusion, collapse and lead to postmodern conclusions, which in turn collapse to meta-modern conclusions [04:15:50].
Emotional Depth (Spirituality)
Spirituality is considered vital as it acknowledges that deep inner experiences of “wholeness, love, or connection” are profoundly important [01:09:49]. These experiences, once had, cannot be unseen [01:10:03]. Spirituality, in this context, refers to anything related to “higher subjective states” where the mind opens up, revealing pristine clarity and “super presence” beyond words [01:10:22].
Philosophy itself is often driven by individuals experiencing these high subjective states, leading to new conclusions about reality [01:11:08]. Religions too, with their compelling images and stories, originate from such exceptionally high states, often intertwined with notions of terror or the seriousness of suffering [01:12:01].
A meta-modern perspective acknowledges the empirical reality of these experiences without resorting to literal interpretations (e.g., Jesus walking on water) [01:14:01]. It considers contemplation a “powerful psycho-spiritual technology” [01:13:00]. While altered states of consciousness involve unusual brain networks and rhythms, processed by the brain’s “confabulator” to create narratives [01:17:10], they are still useful tools for resetting the mind [01:19:32].
The challenge lies in balancing:
- Essentialism: Ascribing unwarranted depth to surface phenomena (e.g., believing angels are real because one saw them) [01:20:36]. This is common among those high on depth/state but low on complexity/code [01:27:12].
- Reductionism: Disenchanting reality by reducing all experiences to their constituent objective parts (e.g., love is just neural firing) [01:27:20]. This is common among those high on complexity/code but low on depth/state [01:27:23].
The optimal position involves matching inner depths with complexity, allowing one to find the world “enchanted awesome super cool” while maintaining a critical mind and avoiding manipulation [01:28:17]. This requires a difficult, dynamic balance between “crude reductionism” and “trembling spirituality” [01:29:54].
The Challenge of Meta-Modernism and Societal Change
A significant hurdle for meta-modernism is that less than 2% of the population possesses the “cognitive hardware” (meta-systematic reasoning or higher) to successfully operate meta-modern code [02:59:01]. If meta-modern code is run on lower stages of cognitive complexity, it tends to produce “flattened versions” that look similar on the surface but lead to pathologies [03:30:22]. Examples include:
- Uncritically taking in all perspectives, leading to confusion [03:54:50].
- Misinterpreting “growth hierarchies” as justification for moral privileges and authoritarianism [03:56:04].
- Perverting holistic visions into calls for military coups or fascism [04:02:18].
This makes meta-modernism a “dangerous dream” [03:52:00], but the alternative of doing nothing means societal collapse [02:57:52]. The challenge is not necessarily widespread popularization, but affecting the “knowledge generation trajectories” of a few hundred key individuals globally [01:00:10].
”Wizard of Oz” Strategy and The Yoga Bourgeoisie
Given the cognitive limitations, a “Wizard of Oz” approach might be more effective: subtly manipulating societal structures without being overtly “meta-modern” [01:05:22]. This would be an “open conspiracy” based on ethical principles and transparency, aimed at deepening democracy and fulfilling the Enlightenment’s promise [01:07:09].
A core group for meta-modernism is the “yoga bourgeoisie” (Silicon Valley types), often found around Burning Man culture [01:32:32]. These individuals are often financially successful but seek deeper meaning, engaging in spiritual practices and therapy [01:33:02]. They value spirituality and aim to use their lives for good [01:33:23]. However, they currently lack:
- A “revolutionary faith” to drive political meta-modernism [01:34:05].
- A proper “map” or meta-modern code to guide their efforts beyond “conscious capitalism” [01:34:48]. They often lack the sociological critique that postmodernism offers [01:36:29].
The goal is to mobilize and radicalize this class, leveraging their know-how, capital, and energy to consciously change societal structures, including informational architecture and political systems [01:36:00]. This approach focuses on aligning human agency towards shared goals rather than requiring everyone to explicitly adopt meta-modernism [01:04:10].