Worth the wait, A! Wow, I’m only a little into it and it is so right that I can’t wait to read more!! I’ll sum up what I get so far. Existence is a verb.
To echo Bob's point, I love the way you take a philosophical concept and explain its application in the real world. This is truly expansive thinking in a time when horizons are diminishing to the here and now.
There is so much more to say, though, and impossible to cover in a comment. These are some of my random thoughts having just read your essay.
From an ecological perspective, this approach would require slowing down to the pace of natural change. Decisions that are sensitive to consequences would not necessarily endure and a kind of purdah would ensue while evidence of those consequences transpired. I don't have the references but I do think that in medieval life, and no doubt before as well, those close to the land would have acted in this way in their communities understanding the interdependencies and determining action or restraint on that basis. That is not a call to return to those times but a recognition that our current reliance on sovereignty as a legal basis has not alway been so widespread.
The slowing down bit would also have a huge effect on production and technological change. What is already in train will greatly reduce productive capacity and may set the scene for this more deliberative approach to decision making. As you point out, there will be much contestation and commerce will be at centre of is't. I have no doubt that these slower processes you advocate will be ignored for quite a time in the periods of crisis that are building and rippling out. But this does not stop local action which may, in the wake of the chaos, provide a much more appealing and popular way of moving forward.
My first thought, as I started reading, was around the implications for criminal law. The vast majority of offending is acquisitive crime and a relational approach, coupled with idea that human systems only work if all humans are able to function properly - or, more relationally, we recognise the value of everyone, the majority of crime would be on the way to being eliminated. A good deal of violent crime is also a result of social disfunction aided by alcohol and drugs so a lot of this type of crime would also tend to abate. Imagine if 80% of crime was eliminated! And that is a conservative estimate.
Family law and the flow of misery that it deals with is intimately related to conditions of living and the inability of parents to satisfy their own needs - often as a generational pattern of poor attachments that are socio-economically related - never mind their children's needs. The more equitable outcomes that a relational approach implies would do much to reduce the tensions inherent in deprivation and allow parents to value each other and their children in a way that strengthens bonds in and out of the family unit. The breaking down of the idea of discreet units would of itself broaden the support that parents need to navigate the sometimes arduous process of shepherding their offspring into the world.
The transition is a crucial period and I have been a strong advocate of Universal Basic Income and more recently of Universal Basic Services in preference to UBI. This could be an effective bridge from the failing system to the new one. This would need to a state wide intervention initially but a more commons-focussed system would decentralise this function and embed it in the local structures that evolve.
There is so much more but enough for now. This needs to percolate for a bit!
There's this feeling that I only ever get in one very particular situation. It's possibly the best feeling in the world to me, and it only happens when someone understands what I'm saying enough that they are able to go further and take it to the next steps.
Thank you so much for this comment Richard.
There is so much more that needs to be said on this subject. The essay isn't just the tip of the iceberg, it's only the tip of the tip... and it's a very big iceberg.
Brilliant essay, complex thoughts conveyed with clarity. I find parallels in what I know of Buddhist thinking as well as the approaches used in indigenous cultures in what is currently called British Columbia, Canada. You are articulating ideas in the air here (and more needed) what with debates about indigenous rights and title, industrial development, our current national treasure PM Carney, and the economic warfare being brought to us by our neighbours to the south. Exhilarating times! Thank you for sharing your insights.
The North American continent would make an insanely insightful case study. So many different angles from which to approach the study of interdependence ontologies.
Great essay! was a very enjoyable read. I've been dwelling within similar questions lately and is refreshing to find interesting aproaches to them.
Have you checked out the work of anthropologists like Marisol de la Cadena, Keith Hart o Elizabeth Povinelli? Starting from understanding the ontological incompatibilities between modern western cosmology and indigenous ones may hold some key insights. The question on how to build institutional frameworks for a relational onthology isn't neccesarily new. Peoples with alternative ways of being in and conceiving the world have offered us several examples for coordination beyond sovereignity.
As an aditional line of inquiry I would add how economic systems may be reimagined from a relational onthology. Property, for once, doesn't make much sense in a world without sovereign entities. Our current understanding of monetary systems of exchange should be disrupted as well
You're absolutely right that these questions aren't new, and that indigenous peoples have lived relational ontologies for centuries. I've tried to be careful not to appropriate those traditions. My essay works entirely within Western cosmology to show where Western law fails on its own terms. But I appreciate the reading list and will follow up on it for my own education and possibly to expand for future essays.
As other commenters have said, I read this and all I could think was that this sounds pretty much like indigenous law. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is tikanga, which indigenous legal scholar Ani Mikaere calls “the first law of Aotearoa“. It comes from the living world, not “the divine right of kings”. There are extraordinary Māori legal experts here who have deep knowledge of this way of understanding law that comes from the land. Your beautiful essay feels like a reason to ask ourselves, “what legal systems were already here?” before we overlaid ones based on another ontology entirely. I agree that Western law fails on its own terms, and that is really the point isn’t it. That we can’t base our legal system on an ontology that is insufficient to meet the biophysical reality of a (complex dynamic) living world.
I'm eager to keep coming back to this: it's a gorgeous big picture outline and solid case, behind you all the way. We're doing similar work, at different scales but ontologically convergent- mine is from using my cafe as a case study so kitchen table, interpersonal, "transaction" based feedback loops provide interpersonal data in real life scenarios that match everything you're writing about. And now that Ive read this, the comment you left on my harm reduction fragment has even richer context.
One solution/antidote I'm playing with is heterarchy- I'd love to discuss with you/hear your thoughts on that as a framework sometime (it's echoed throughout the comments here in multiple ways, particularly the thread of pre-colonisation governance and leadership, as described in the work of Carol Crumley)
Looking forward to metabolizing this more fully, and grateful to see this in the world 🙏🏻
And yet, it's so straightforward 😅 but that's where we humans like to create additional layers of complicated phenomenology and bicker, instead of oh, rolling up our sleeves and practicing being good to each to build those muscles… anyhow, actually printing this essay to highlight and cross reference, I'll reach out again in dm, I know our times zones and safety levels are different 🫂 so obv no pressure or demand energy here, appreciate your consistent generosity of spirit 🙏🏻
Worth the wait, A! Wow, I’m only a little into it and it is so right that I can’t wait to read more!! I’ll sum up what I get so far. Existence is a verb.
To echo Bob's point, I love the way you take a philosophical concept and explain its application in the real world. This is truly expansive thinking in a time when horizons are diminishing to the here and now.
There is so much more to say, though, and impossible to cover in a comment. These are some of my random thoughts having just read your essay.
From an ecological perspective, this approach would require slowing down to the pace of natural change. Decisions that are sensitive to consequences would not necessarily endure and a kind of purdah would ensue while evidence of those consequences transpired. I don't have the references but I do think that in medieval life, and no doubt before as well, those close to the land would have acted in this way in their communities understanding the interdependencies and determining action or restraint on that basis. That is not a call to return to those times but a recognition that our current reliance on sovereignty as a legal basis has not alway been so widespread.
The slowing down bit would also have a huge effect on production and technological change. What is already in train will greatly reduce productive capacity and may set the scene for this more deliberative approach to decision making. As you point out, there will be much contestation and commerce will be at centre of is't. I have no doubt that these slower processes you advocate will be ignored for quite a time in the periods of crisis that are building and rippling out. But this does not stop local action which may, in the wake of the chaos, provide a much more appealing and popular way of moving forward.
My first thought, as I started reading, was around the implications for criminal law. The vast majority of offending is acquisitive crime and a relational approach, coupled with idea that human systems only work if all humans are able to function properly - or, more relationally, we recognise the value of everyone, the majority of crime would be on the way to being eliminated. A good deal of violent crime is also a result of social disfunction aided by alcohol and drugs so a lot of this type of crime would also tend to abate. Imagine if 80% of crime was eliminated! And that is a conservative estimate.
Family law and the flow of misery that it deals with is intimately related to conditions of living and the inability of parents to satisfy their own needs - often as a generational pattern of poor attachments that are socio-economically related - never mind their children's needs. The more equitable outcomes that a relational approach implies would do much to reduce the tensions inherent in deprivation and allow parents to value each other and their children in a way that strengthens bonds in and out of the family unit. The breaking down of the idea of discreet units would of itself broaden the support that parents need to navigate the sometimes arduous process of shepherding their offspring into the world.
The transition is a crucial period and I have been a strong advocate of Universal Basic Income and more recently of Universal Basic Services in preference to UBI. This could be an effective bridge from the failing system to the new one. This would need to a state wide intervention initially but a more commons-focussed system would decentralise this function and embed it in the local structures that evolve.
There is so much more but enough for now. This needs to percolate for a bit!
There's this feeling that I only ever get in one very particular situation. It's possibly the best feeling in the world to me, and it only happens when someone understands what I'm saying enough that they are able to go further and take it to the next steps.
Thank you so much for this comment Richard.
There is so much more that needs to be said on this subject. The essay isn't just the tip of the iceberg, it's only the tip of the tip... and it's a very big iceberg.
Brilliant essay, complex thoughts conveyed with clarity. I find parallels in what I know of Buddhist thinking as well as the approaches used in indigenous cultures in what is currently called British Columbia, Canada. You are articulating ideas in the air here (and more needed) what with debates about indigenous rights and title, industrial development, our current national treasure PM Carney, and the economic warfare being brought to us by our neighbours to the south. Exhilarating times! Thank you for sharing your insights.
The North American continent would make an insanely insightful case study. So many different angles from which to approach the study of interdependence ontologies.
Thank you for your kind words.
Great essay! was a very enjoyable read. I've been dwelling within similar questions lately and is refreshing to find interesting aproaches to them.
Have you checked out the work of anthropologists like Marisol de la Cadena, Keith Hart o Elizabeth Povinelli? Starting from understanding the ontological incompatibilities between modern western cosmology and indigenous ones may hold some key insights. The question on how to build institutional frameworks for a relational onthology isn't neccesarily new. Peoples with alternative ways of being in and conceiving the world have offered us several examples for coordination beyond sovereignity.
As an aditional line of inquiry I would add how economic systems may be reimagined from a relational onthology. Property, for once, doesn't make much sense in a world without sovereign entities. Our current understanding of monetary systems of exchange should be disrupted as well
You're absolutely right that these questions aren't new, and that indigenous peoples have lived relational ontologies for centuries. I've tried to be careful not to appropriate those traditions. My essay works entirely within Western cosmology to show where Western law fails on its own terms. But I appreciate the reading list and will follow up on it for my own education and possibly to expand for future essays.
As other commenters have said, I read this and all I could think was that this sounds pretty much like indigenous law. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is tikanga, which indigenous legal scholar Ani Mikaere calls “the first law of Aotearoa“. It comes from the living world, not “the divine right of kings”. There are extraordinary Māori legal experts here who have deep knowledge of this way of understanding law that comes from the land. Your beautiful essay feels like a reason to ask ourselves, “what legal systems were already here?” before we overlaid ones based on another ontology entirely. I agree that Western law fails on its own terms, and that is really the point isn’t it. That we can’t base our legal system on an ontology that is insufficient to meet the biophysical reality of a (complex dynamic) living world.
I'm eager to keep coming back to this: it's a gorgeous big picture outline and solid case, behind you all the way. We're doing similar work, at different scales but ontologically convergent- mine is from using my cafe as a case study so kitchen table, interpersonal, "transaction" based feedback loops provide interpersonal data in real life scenarios that match everything you're writing about. And now that Ive read this, the comment you left on my harm reduction fragment has even richer context.
One solution/antidote I'm playing with is heterarchy- I'd love to discuss with you/hear your thoughts on that as a framework sometime (it's echoed throughout the comments here in multiple ways, particularly the thread of pre-colonisation governance and leadership, as described in the work of Carol Crumley)
Looking forward to metabolizing this more fully, and grateful to see this in the world 🙏🏻
Thank you kindly. I am, as always, very open to discussion. Heterarchy is a good subject, with more nuance and complexities than people often realize.
And yet, it's so straightforward 😅 but that's where we humans like to create additional layers of complicated phenomenology and bicker, instead of oh, rolling up our sleeves and practicing being good to each to build those muscles… anyhow, actually printing this essay to highlight and cross reference, I'll reach out again in dm, I know our times zones and safety levels are different 🫂 so obv no pressure or demand energy here, appreciate your consistent generosity of spirit 🙏🏻