Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Christine's avatar

I have recently returned to an old interest in the Hermetic principles, particularly the Law of Correspondence — *“as above, so below; as below, so above.”* Very simply, I understand it to mean that the same underlying pattern is expressed throughout a whole, with every part affecting and being affected by the rest.

As an experiment, I have begun testing proposals for political and social change against this principle. Vision 2061 produces an interesting result.

Much of what you propose seems, whether intentionally or not, remarkably consistent with the Law of Correspondence. You recognise that intelligence is already distributed throughout society; that housing, health, education, economics, infrastructure, demography and governance cannot sensibly be treated as isolated problems; that expertise is valuable without being omniscient; and that conclusions must remain capable of changing as information moves through the system.

But I think there is an inherent risk at precisely the point where all this distributed intelligence is *brought together*.

Who chooses the questions? Who selects the experts and evidence? Who synthesises what comes back? Who determines which conclusions become action? Most importantly, can information arising anywhere within Vision 2061 change not merely its conclusions, but its organising framework — its priorities, principles and even its “direction of travel”?

If it can, you have created something very interesting: a genuinely responsive system in which no part stands outside the feedback loop.

If it cannot, there is a danger of inadvertently recreating the structure we are trying to escape: a hierarchy at the centre receiving information from everyone else and deciding what to do with it. Participation then becomes consultation.

I don't know whether the Law of Correspondence can provide a sufficient organising principle for political renewal. That's the experiment I'm conducting. But Vision 2061 strikes me as already embodying a surprising amount of it.

Perhaps the crucial test is simply this: **can every part change the whole, while remaining open to being changed by the whole?**

Build the conditions under which answers can emerge.

And then make damn sure that the people who built those conditions don't acquire ownership of what is allowed to emerge.

4 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?