This is fantastic. Very helpful clarification of definitional terms and concepts!
Would be very interested to read your take on the definitional distinctions between the polycrisis and metacrisis too -- although admittedly the latter has yet to see as much academic discussion as the former two.
Jonathan Rowson from Perspectiva has a great post about it, including I think a very pertinent critique of the polycrisis frame insofar as it's too "epistemically, ontologically, and axiologically limited...", which I personally agree with, but would require substantially more elaboration in an (para-)academic context. (cf. https://perspecteeva.substack.com/p/prefixing-the-world )
There are also some very interesting meta-theoretical differences between the poly- to meta- frames, as distinguished in the academic landscape by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens and Nicholas Hedlund in several of their works.
The original discussion on the metacrisis (and extensive discussion on the notion of "metatheory") to my understanding goes back to the 2015 volume: Metatheory for the 21st century: critical realism and integral theory in dialogue, edited by the late Roy Bhaskar.
However, as far as I understand, there has yet to be any real *scholarly* cross-disciplinary discussion between critical realist + integral theory folks on the academic metatheory & metacrisis end and polycrisis systems theory and x-risk/GCR folks on the other end -- though there is much cross pollination outside of academia..
Unfortunately, I haven't read anything about the metacrisis yet, so I cannot really comment on the distinctions, but I'll check out the sources you mentioned.
This is fantastic. Very helpful clarification of definitional terms and concepts!
Would be very interested to read your take on the definitional distinctions between the polycrisis and metacrisis too -- although admittedly the latter has yet to see as much academic discussion as the former two.
Jonathan Rowson from Perspectiva has a great post about it, including I think a very pertinent critique of the polycrisis frame insofar as it's too "epistemically, ontologically, and axiologically limited...", which I personally agree with, but would require substantially more elaboration in an (para-)academic context. (cf. https://perspecteeva.substack.com/p/prefixing-the-world )
There are also some very interesting meta-theoretical differences between the poly- to meta- frames, as distinguished in the academic landscape by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens and Nicholas Hedlund in several of their works.
The original discussion on the metacrisis (and extensive discussion on the notion of "metatheory") to my understanding goes back to the 2015 volume: Metatheory for the 21st century: critical realism and integral theory in dialogue, edited by the late Roy Bhaskar.
However, as far as I understand, there has yet to be any real *scholarly* cross-disciplinary discussion between critical realist + integral theory folks on the academic metatheory & metacrisis end and polycrisis systems theory and x-risk/GCR folks on the other end -- though there is much cross pollination outside of academia..
Thank you!
Unfortunately, I haven't read anything about the metacrisis yet, so I cannot really comment on the distinctions, but I'll check out the sources you mentioned.
This is really good. I've had vague versions of these ideas in my mind, but you've articulated and clarified them really well.
Thank you. Happy to hear that it was helpful!