I like the shorter format! Something to digest and reply to more quickly, very suited to Substack. Question then is, how do you (does one) get meaningful engagement with much longer pieces? My working hypothesis: the longer (and more complex) the piece, the more specifically defined the audience needs to be. And, the trickier it is to find them, and them to find you, amongst the noise. I don't think "the algorithm" will hack it. Here's a piece I wrote a couple of years back. I appear not to have made a note about the stimulus, but I think it may have been prompted by dialogue with Anna-Marie. https://wiki.simongrant.org/doku.php/ch:words
And perhaps you've heard my critique of Substack (and all the other commercial writing platforms), but for the benefit of other readers … yes it looks benign enough at present. But … it's hooked into a shareholder capitalist economic model, which inevitably means, sooner or later, that instead of serving us the writings that are most likely to be beneficial for us, the private reader, they will serve us the writings that those who pay want us to read. And heaven knows what that will result in — one of the most subtle forms of propaganda you can imagine.
What I want to see is a cooperative platform owned by the writers … and writers who subscribe to the principle, not wanting primarily to get more reads (we really don't want to compete in the attention space) but instead, serving the readers by trying as well as we all collectively can to serve up the best fitting read to the best fitting reader. And … a platform that makes it easy, not difficult, to copy text; and perhaps even, instead of asking for individual monetary support, invites supporters into a human circle of care for the writer, each offering what they are called to do.
Though I wish that no one had to ask for support to write and share those ideas that are intended for the common good.
I am feeling that this important nuance is sorely missing from understanding in permaculture concepts around "ethics" (as one who identifies with the core concept of a durable culture, but sees much more potential in such a design system concept).. thank you for the clear provocation to take an intra-active/nested/field/agential/processural point of view.
"Ethics, from this view, is not a universal law applied from above, but an embodied response offered from within. It’s a practice of attentiveness.
The answer wasn't waiting in my head or in a book, it was waiting in the hotel, ready to be co-created through our intra-action."
I read, and then scrolled, anticipating more... But, in alignment with your intro, that was it!
I'd love to talk a little about this in some of our upcoming episodes.
The first thing that comes to me is that it's more inter- than inner-creation. It's somewhat of a transjective living process, a process that occurs 'between' (or in other words, relationally). Although, it's not often framed this way.
Luis and I were talking last night about 4E cognition, and the way in which the CIPHER model, that centres around enriches realities, maps to this (where embodied maps to person, embedded maps to earth, enactive maps to work and extended maps to society. Luis, I hope I got that right... I think embedded and extended are a tad interchangeable, because we are embedded in society, and our cognition extends in / as earth). I really think there's something very exciting in this frame, and would love to do more work here because I've often used 4E to describe what ethics actually is (getting at the nature question more than the function question, largely as a way to encourage movement beyond the whole, "ethics is a rational process with no place for emotion etc. etc." Often folks that say this equate rationality to 'cold calculation', but this too seems deeply misguided).
I am also very drawn to the aspirational process of character building, and the specific ways in which our moral deliberation-whether 'formal', or heuristic-can be grounded in a deep commitment to who we most want to be / become (and where this process is in fact core to our becoming, at all the levels i.e. person, work, society, earth...). If I had to pick one ethical lens through which to decision-make for the rest of my life (and I know this is a big call), as of right now, and for quite some time, I'd be going with the virtue approach...
Anyways, I'll just leave that here for now. See you Thursday :)
Love this take on applied ethics! A specific and useful reflection for our modern world, where folks come to interactions with different norms and less ability to take the others’ viewpoint: “What does this specific situation…ask of me right now?"
Love the idea that the”right” answer always has to be co-created, allows space for personal differences and common ground. Thanks for this!
I really appreciate your article, Jessica. Both for the reflections on format as well as the application of your new format to your ethical quandary. The quandary felt tangible to me, touching on similar personal dilemmas, whilst also helpful to briefly reference some of the theoretical underpinnings.
Not sure about the attentiveness word...it doesn't quite hit the nail for me in this scenario. The sensitivity arises initially from values inculcated in childhood..and religion has a bit part in this input.
I like the shorter format! Something to digest and reply to more quickly, very suited to Substack. Question then is, how do you (does one) get meaningful engagement with much longer pieces? My working hypothesis: the longer (and more complex) the piece, the more specifically defined the audience needs to be. And, the trickier it is to find them, and them to find you, amongst the noise. I don't think "the algorithm" will hack it. Here's a piece I wrote a couple of years back. I appear not to have made a note about the stimulus, but I think it may have been prompted by dialogue with Anna-Marie. https://wiki.simongrant.org/doku.php/ch:words
And perhaps you've heard my critique of Substack (and all the other commercial writing platforms), but for the benefit of other readers … yes it looks benign enough at present. But … it's hooked into a shareholder capitalist economic model, which inevitably means, sooner or later, that instead of serving us the writings that are most likely to be beneficial for us, the private reader, they will serve us the writings that those who pay want us to read. And heaven knows what that will result in — one of the most subtle forms of propaganda you can imagine.
What I want to see is a cooperative platform owned by the writers … and writers who subscribe to the principle, not wanting primarily to get more reads (we really don't want to compete in the attention space) but instead, serving the readers by trying as well as we all collectively can to serve up the best fitting read to the best fitting reader. And … a platform that makes it easy, not difficult, to copy text; and perhaps even, instead of asking for individual monetary support, invites supporters into a human circle of care for the writer, each offering what they are called to do.
Though I wish that no one had to ask for support to write and share those ideas that are intended for the common good.
I wonder how to turn your idea into reality...
Simon, as always, I so much appreciate your take on things. And I fully agree - such a platform would be amazing.
I am feeling that this important nuance is sorely missing from understanding in permaculture concepts around "ethics" (as one who identifies with the core concept of a durable culture, but sees much more potential in such a design system concept).. thank you for the clear provocation to take an intra-active/nested/field/agential/processural point of view.
Thank you, Adrian - that's super interesting. Maybe you can bring this into the permaculture context ...
Oh gosh! You got me... Hehe.
"Ethics, from this view, is not a universal law applied from above, but an embodied response offered from within. It’s a practice of attentiveness.
The answer wasn't waiting in my head or in a book, it was waiting in the hotel, ready to be co-created through our intra-action."
I read, and then scrolled, anticipating more... But, in alignment with your intro, that was it!
I'd love to talk a little about this in some of our upcoming episodes.
The first thing that comes to me is that it's more inter- than inner-creation. It's somewhat of a transjective living process, a process that occurs 'between' (or in other words, relationally). Although, it's not often framed this way.
Luis and I were talking last night about 4E cognition, and the way in which the CIPHER model, that centres around enriches realities, maps to this (where embodied maps to person, embedded maps to earth, enactive maps to work and extended maps to society. Luis, I hope I got that right... I think embedded and extended are a tad interchangeable, because we are embedded in society, and our cognition extends in / as earth). I really think there's something very exciting in this frame, and would love to do more work here because I've often used 4E to describe what ethics actually is (getting at the nature question more than the function question, largely as a way to encourage movement beyond the whole, "ethics is a rational process with no place for emotion etc. etc." Often folks that say this equate rationality to 'cold calculation', but this too seems deeply misguided).
I am also very drawn to the aspirational process of character building, and the specific ways in which our moral deliberation-whether 'formal', or heuristic-can be grounded in a deep commitment to who we most want to be / become (and where this process is in fact core to our becoming, at all the levels i.e. person, work, society, earth...). If I had to pick one ethical lens through which to decision-make for the rest of my life (and I know this is a big call), as of right now, and for quite some time, I'd be going with the virtue approach...
Anyways, I'll just leave that here for now. See you Thursday :)
Very much looking forward to talk to you about this.
Love this take on applied ethics! A specific and useful reflection for our modern world, where folks come to interactions with different norms and less ability to take the others’ viewpoint: “What does this specific situation…ask of me right now?"
Love the idea that the”right” answer always has to be co-created, allows space for personal differences and common ground. Thanks for this!
Thanks for the kind words Stacy 🖤
Fun moral dilemma and learning from it.
😊
I really appreciate your article, Jessica. Both for the reflections on format as well as the application of your new format to your ethical quandary. The quandary felt tangible to me, touching on similar personal dilemmas, whilst also helpful to briefly reference some of the theoretical underpinnings.
Thank you so much Katherine 🙏 - happy to hear it resonates.
Found that an interesting quandary and it highlights the complexities of some simple? moral issues. Thank you
Not sure about the attentiveness word...it doesn't quite hit the nail for me in this scenario. The sensitivity arises initially from values inculcated in childhood..and religion has a bit part in this input.
Good point. I’ll take this into account.
Thanks Catherine.