Crisis and development together. Part 2.

We can try to understand how we can see in the world that economy, in a general way, have some level of stability, even with some apparent belligerence among countries, and, at the same time, people are complaining more and more.

We see that the most part of countries are improving economy, even under several kinds of “globalization” that, in true, reinforces that level of economy. Nevertheless, the people of those countries are poorer. The countries are richer, the people are poorer. How can it be?

Under the postmodern times, it was developed a distance between state and people, even in democratic countries. Now, in after-postmodern times, it is possible to see the consequences of that growing difference. Sometimes it is like two worlds, state and people. And we are not necessarily speaking of corruption.

This heritage of the 20^th century, together with the recent crisis, resulted in this bizarre condition of distance between state and people.

Someone can show figures, tables and other general data, but those doesn’t represent individual conditions. There is also a distance between those data and individual data of citizens.  

Crisis and development together. Part 1.

     Around the world there is no satisfaction. 

     Rebellion is a growing condition.

     Even with progress. Cybernetic progress. 

     Life expectation arises.

     International cooperation still exists. 

     At same time there are wars.

     People are unhappy, more and more, 
     even in supposed welfare condition.

     There is rebellion even with progress. 

      Is really progress?

     What is progress in after-postmodern times?

     Maybe there is something missing.

     Maybe we do not understand the after-postmodern people.

     In after-postmodern times, something is disconnected, 
     in a different rhythm.

     How to be in tune?

     

A disruptive globalization, or a globalized disruption…

The globalization of everything suffered a kind of “disruption” at its concept and practice, if we keep the strong innovation of cybernetics as the only globalization that got wright even with the dissemination of fake news. At the same time the idea of disruption sprawled through many fields and innovation is now disruptive in many ways, in many startups, dealing even with life and death, to the deep of the culture. One have to be careful with some “dehumanizing disruptions”…

The Everest reached the after-postmodern…

Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay could not imagine the famous congested line to the mountain these days. Is it an after-postmodern phenomena?

While many refugees are trying to find peace in a place far from their homes, many people are trying to reach the top of the world to fulfill a dream, maybe to find an inner home…

Someone could say that there are more rich people in the world with money to reach the Everest. Anyway, it is not an easy task, and they dream to reach the top, and some of them die over there, even with the current technology…

All of these is also a symbol of the search for meaning. They could be sitting on the sofa, watching the Everest on TV. But they try to find meaning of life in the hard climbing.

How could it be? So many people in a cold, dangerous line with rarefied air?

It is also a symbol of the humanity nowadays a little lost in the common things, trying to find hope in an unusual achievement.    

Disruption, Crisis and Transdisciplinarity

Disruptive innovation gives impression of something good.

Maybe not always… It can bring unemployment, together with progress.

The after-postmodern notion of progress is not the same as in the 19^th century.

Today, the paradox concomitance of progress and crisis is possible.

So technical advance is not the same as “human” advance.

Transdisciplinarity can be a way to bring balance to this equation.

Transdisciplinarity is different from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity.

Each one of these visions has its own context.

Transdisciplinarity deals with paradoxes without forget humanity and culture.

It can be a new tool to find exits and answers to the chronic crisis of the world.

Is “disruptive” an after-postmodern word?

In the last decade of the 20^th century, Clayton M. Christensen wrote about “disruptive innovation”, launching a new and specific kind of “paradigm changing” and a new vision of “invention”, in first place about market and development of technology in our days, in a complement, or even opposition, to the “sustaining innovation”, that is the innovation that just keep the things as they be. But “disruptive innovation” could also be applied for some discoveries in history of science and technology.

In the second decade of the 21^st century, almost in the third, the “disruptive” word has been used more and more in any circumstances, approaching the word to the “disruption concept” in the dictionaries. But it also reflects some after-postmodern visions. In postmodern times that was a certainty and a pragmatism that directed everything. Nowadays it seems that is a new way to “break the rules keeping the rules”.

In the sixties and seventies, it was a time for “deconstruction” of everything, combining with the “counterculture”. At the same time, pragmatism and certainty grew.

In the eighties and nineties, the pragmatism and certainty of postmodernity dominated.

The “disruptive” word started with “innovation”, but in the Macro-Shift of Erwin Lazslo, it became an amplified concept, together with the “liquid” of Baumann, the “transdisciplinarity” of Morin. They and others were visionaries of the future. And now we are in the after-postmodern times.    

“Slow food”, “Slow Medicine”, etc. It is all “about time”.

When we hear or read some qualification as “slow”, we can think: “why slow in the digital era?” In after-postmodern times this question is “about time” to be focused… And it is about time that we are talking.

In Postmodern era we thought that life was becoming faster and faster and that this acceleration was good. Well, if someone is thinking about “go to Mars” maybe it still sounds wright… or even in some circumstances as digital communication, emergency care, etc.  

But we are talking about a “state of mind”. The “slow state of mind” does not mean to be slow in everything. You can eat in a good restaurant in a “fast way”, or you can be in a “fast food” place, but in a “slow state of mind”.

In a similar way, someone can work in an Emergency Room with a “slow state of mind”, and vice-versa in another condition.

So, a “slow state of mind” means to have a peaceful mind, even when we are in a turmoil.

So, we have a “inner time” and an “outer time”. Inner and outer time can influence each other, but it is not absolute, although it can be a tool to do a kind of “in and out discipline”.

The Slow Movement is a way to bring balance to our use of time and of “our times”.

In after-postmodern era, to use the time well is not just about acceleration, but also about a “humanized time” open to the Complex Thinking and the complexity of life.