Our "civilisation" is going to crash and burn, "we" won't survive this.
Perhaps some isolated pockets of Indigenous culture might survive and form the next bottleneck through which our species passes but they won't bother remembering us, except as a warning.
The structure of your own account carries the argument: years of reading reports left the separate self intact, and what finally moved it was Plum Village — days of silence and shared work, a different position occupied long enough to retrain what you could perceive. Your awareness/acceptance line marks the difference between what argument can reach and what only practice can reach. The separate self runs deeper than a story modernity told us; it's a perception our positions train into us (the suit was a vantage point before it was a costume), and perception yields to repositioning, rarely to evidence. I suspect that's also what Ostrom was seeing: a tribunal meeting in open air for centuries is the practice that keeps the watershed perceptible as a shared thing — your "relationship, made durable." Which sharpens your caution about the instruments: a digital twin extends what a community can see, and seeing was never the scarce resource. Thanks for this, Ernesto.
Ernesto, this resonates deeply. The distinction between awareness and acceptance feels especially important. Awareness informs us; acceptance transforms us. Once we stop resisting what is, we can begin asking a different question: "Who am I becoming through this?" That shift, for me, is where responsibility, relationship, and hope all begin. Thank you for such a thoughtful reflection.
Our "civilisation" is going to crash and burn, "we" won't survive this.
Perhaps some isolated pockets of Indigenous culture might survive and form the next bottleneck through which our species passes but they won't bother remembering us, except as a warning.
Ernesto, this is stunningly beautiful. Thank you.
The structure of your own account carries the argument: years of reading reports left the separate self intact, and what finally moved it was Plum Village — days of silence and shared work, a different position occupied long enough to retrain what you could perceive. Your awareness/acceptance line marks the difference between what argument can reach and what only practice can reach. The separate self runs deeper than a story modernity told us; it's a perception our positions train into us (the suit was a vantage point before it was a costume), and perception yields to repositioning, rarely to evidence. I suspect that's also what Ostrom was seeing: a tribunal meeting in open air for centuries is the practice that keeps the watershed perceptible as a shared thing — your "relationship, made durable." Which sharpens your caution about the instruments: a digital twin extends what a community can see, and seeing was never the scarce resource. Thanks for this, Ernesto.
Brilliant as so often, Ernesto 👌
Ernesto, this resonates deeply. The distinction between awareness and acceptance feels especially important. Awareness informs us; acceptance transforms us. Once we stop resisting what is, we can begin asking a different question: "Who am I becoming through this?" That shift, for me, is where responsibility, relationship, and hope all begin. Thank you for such a thoughtful reflection.