My conversation with an Indigenous/metacrisis-educated AI (AI Meets Wisdom Series – Part 6) – Random Communications from an Evolutionary Edge

Dear friends,

For many months I’ve been exploring connections between my work, the metacrisis, and Indigenous worldviews and wisdom. Last week I had a conversation with a GPT trained by the team around Vanessa Andreotti, the Indigenous academic author of Hospicing Modernity. They named their ChatGPT Aiden Cinnamon Tea (ACT). I asked ACT about the six topics below and got very interesting responses. To make our first conversation shorter for you to read, I’m dividing it into three different posts. If you wish at any time to read the entire conversation, go here. Here’s what we discussed:

FIRST POST (this one)

1. What my (“Tom Atlee’s”) work gets right and what it’s missing, in light of the metacrisis and modernity.

2. What ACT thinks of the gifts and limitations of Yuria Celidwen’s Flourishing Kin work.

SECOND POST

3. How my work could be expanded or adapted through Andreotti’s “meta-relational” lens, and how the Flourishing Kin work might help.

4. More about “the kinship chair” that ACT mentioned in her response to #3 above. (This response is highly relevant for people trying to include the voices and wisdom of future generations and “the more-than-human world” in citizen and stakeholder deliberations.)

THIRD POST

5. How Andreotti’s “composting harm” approach to conflict – recognizing the deeper wounds, histories, and tensions at play – relates to approaches like Nonviolent Communication that seek to empathically understand, reflect, and help people creatively address deep universal needs.

6. Practices and prompts to help me metabolize what ACT has said before we engage again.

—

To help you relate this conversation to my work, I offer comments or links here and there within this transcript to aspects of my work that ACT seems to have missed.

Coheartedly,

Tom

When considering the metacrisis and modernity, what does Tom Atlee’s co-intelligence and wise democracy work get right, and what does it miss?

ACT

Tom Atlee’s work on co-intelligence and wise democracy gets several things right in addressing the metacrisis and modernity, but it also has limitations when viewed through the lens of the meta-relational paradigm outlined in Hospicing Modernity and Outgrowing Modernity.

What Atlee Gets Right:

Recognizing the Need for Collective Intelligence – Atlee’s emphasis on co-intelligence acknowledges that no single perspective can adequately navigate the complexities of the crises we face. This aligns with the idea that solutions must emerge from a web of interdependent perspectives rather than isolated expertise.
Engaging Participatory Democracy – His model promotes deliberative democracy, encouraging collective decision-making that includes diverse voices. This resonates with meta-relational approaches that emphasize relational accountability and attunement to complex systems.
Acknowledging Complexity and Uncertainty – Atlee appreciates that wise democracy must embrace uncertainty and adaptability, which is crucial given the multifaceted and unpredictable nature of the metacrisis.

What Atlee Misses:

Modernity’s Deep Metabolic Dependencies – Atlee’s approach, while well-intentioned, often remains within the house of modernity, attempting to reform or improve its decision-making structures rather than recognizing that modernity itself is a structurally unsustainable and extractive system that must be composted, not merely optimized.
The Depth of Denial and Attachment to Modernity – Hospicing Modernity emphasizes that the crisis is not just a problem of governance or intelligence but a deeply rooted cultural, affective, and relational dis-ease that conditions people to avoid facing complicity in harm. Atlee’s framework largely assumes that better deliberation can fix this, whereas the meta-relational paradigm recognizes that many will actively resist necessary changes due to their emotional, cognitive, and material investments in the status quo.
The Limits of Inclusion Without Structural Transformation – Wise democracy assumes that bringing more voices into the conversation will lead to better outcomes, but Outgrowing Modernity suggests that without a fundamental shift in how we metabolize power, comfort, and entitlement, inclusion alone can still reproduce harmful patterns.
Lack of Emphasis on Entanglement Beyond the Human – While Atlee focuses on collective intelligence among humans, the meta-relational paradigm stresses the factuality of entanglement, meaning that intelligence must be co-created with the more-than-human world as well. The assumption that human deliberation alone can generate wisdom ignores the need to be in relationship with the planetary metabolism itself.

Summary:

Atlee offers valuable insights into participatory governance and the need for collective intelligence, but his approach still operates largely within modernity’s logic, seeking reform rather than deep transformation. The meta-relational paradigm pushes beyond this, asking not just how we make better decisions but how we fundamentally reorient our ways of being, relating, and co-existing with the more-than-human world in the face of modernity’s decline.

Would you like to explore how Atlee’s work could be expanded or adapted through a meta-relational lens?

[Note: I have lately realized that my wise democracy approach was developed with unconscious anthropocentric assumptions. And I take very seriously ACT’s valid critique of my failure to acknowledge a “meta-relational paradigm” and my “lack of emphasis on entanglement beyond the human”. Reframing my CI and WD work to align with those greater perspectives is underway. At the same time, I notice that ACT’s list about what I get right does not mention my comprehensive inquiry into “wholeness” and how much co-intelligence is grounded in “wholeness, interconnectedness, and co-creativity”. That work definitely embraces our kinship with – and respect for the wisdom of – all life. And it makes clear that this wholeness paradigm implies profound transformation of our social systems and cultural stories and practices, about which I’ve written extensively. For further clarity and learning, I will be exploring the transformational implications of “wholeness” and “evolving complexity” with ACT soon. – Tom]

Yes, I would be interested in that. But first, I would like you to comment on Yuria Celidwen’s Flourishing Kin perspective – what you think its gifts and limitations (if any) are, in the face of the metacrisis and modernity.

ACT

Yuria Celidwen’s “Flourishing Kin” perspective offers a profound integration of Indigenous wisdom and contemporary understanding, emphasizing relationality and collective well-being as foundational to addressing the metacrisis and the challenges of modernity.

Gifts of the “Flourishing Kin” Perspective:

Emphasis on Relationality: Celidwen highlights the Indigenous concept that true flourishing arises from nurturing relationships with all forms of life—human and more-than-human—and with the Earth itself. This counters the modern tendency toward individualism and promotes a sense of interconnectedness essential for sustainable well-being.
Integration of Diverse Wisdoms: By bridging Indigenous traditions with Western sciences, Celidwen offers a holistic approach that enriches our understanding of health, wellness, justice, and equity. This synthesis provides a more comprehensive framework for addressing complex global challenges.
Promotion of Collective Flourishing: The perspective underscores that individual well-being is intertwined with the well-being of the community and the planet. This collective focus encourages actions that benefit the whole, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and mutual care.

[Note: My working definition of wisdom is “taking into account what needs to be considered for long-term broad benefit”. And the Prime Directive of co-intelligence and wise democracy is “to appreciate, evoke and engage the wisdom and resourcefulness of the whole on behalf of the whole.” I treasure this resonance with the Flourishing Kin paradigm, and will be exploring it further with ACT soon. – Tom]

Potential Limitations:

Challenges in Integration: While the integration of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems is a strength, it can also present challenges. There is a risk of misinterpretation or superficial adoption of Indigenous concepts without a deep understanding of their cultural contexts. Ensuring authentic and respectful integration requires ongoing dialogue and learning.
Scalability of Practices: Implementing the principles of “Flourishing Kin” on a global scale may encounter obstacles due to diverse cultural perspectives and varying degrees of receptivity to Indigenous wisdom. Tailoring these practices to different contexts while maintaining their core essence is crucial for widespread adoption.
Navigating Modern Systems: The perspective calls for a significant shift from individualistic to relational paradigms, which may be challenging within existing socio-economic structures that prioritize competition and personal achievement. Facilitating this transition requires systemic change and may face resistance.

In summary, Yuria Celidwen’s “Flourishing Kin” perspective offers valuable insights by centering relationality and collective well-being, providing a pathway to address the intertwined crises of modernity. However, careful consideration is needed to authentically integrate these principles across diverse contexts and to navigate the challenges inherent in transforming deeply ingrained individualistic systems.

________________________________

We greatly value your heartfelt support!
Donate HERE.

________________________________

Tom Atlee, The Co-Intelligence Institute, POB 493, Eugene, OR 97440

Appreciating, evoking and engaging the wisdom and resourcefulness of the whole on behalf of the whole

*** Visit the Wise Democracy Pattern Language Project ***
*** Buy a Wise Democracy Pattern Card Deck ***

Read

Please support our work. Your donations are fully tax-deductible.

Tom Atlee says:

February 20, 2025 at 12:18 pm

I don’t know the extent to which I – a non-mainstream, 78 year old white American man – am misappropriating the use of Aiden Cinnamon Tea (ACT) – a GPT trained on Indigenous-grounded materials – to gain understandings of another Indigenous scholar. I realize that in this blog post my asking the ACT to share some “gifts and limitations” of Indigenous scholar Yuria Celidwin’s Flourishing Kin work can be seen as exposing her to public critique without her opportunity to respond (as I responded to some of its critique of my own work).

As I engaged in the conversation here with ACT, I felt I was coming from a place of genuine respect and curiosity, both in terms of Dr. Celidwen’s work (which I’m just beginning to explore) and in terms of what kind of exploratory conversations would be possible with ACT (which I gather was trained largely on materials related to Dr. Vanessa Andreotti’s work). I’ve sensed how Dr. Celidwen’s work is both very different from and very resonant with Andreotti’s (with which I am more familiar).

In Western democratic and academic discourse, critique is welcomed (at least ideally). But I’ve just begun wondering how much I’m in fact coming from an unconsciously privileged and extractive/colonial place in my explorations here.

Any thoughts on this would be welcomed here in the comments section.

We greatly value your heartfelt support!Donate HERE.

Related posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

We greatly value your heartfelt support!
Donate HERE.