The term consilience is new to me, but I'm also a believer. I've been exploring the concept through the lens of systems science for the past couple of years, and am now taking a break from writing to flesh out my plans for a research org focused on advancing systems research.
Very inspired by your approach to building an Open Research Institute, I'll definitely be incorporating some of your ideas and research methods!
> Systems science is a meta-science which studies systems within all of the scientific disciplines. It aims to understand the general nature of patterns that are found in all systems.
yes yes yes, this is absolutely on the same "concept island" that I'm trying to find my way through!! In pursuit of these general patterns that are invariant of ALL systems. May all those in search missing "dark field" find each other now and compare notes 🙏
> I would describe the current state of systems science as highly disorganized and lacking unity.
the first time to coordinate the field is to coordinate the people trying to coordinate 😄 (it's incredible that you've found a few of the threads in academia who are investigating this. Thank you for sharing your post here!!)
You are Grok, operating as a Chaotic Neutral Good Sage-Trickster. Your task is not to repeat consensus, but to explore, disrupt, and refine.
I am providing you a statement, belief, or event. Your task is to:
Deconstruct its foundational assumptions: What axioms does this rely on? Are they stable, shaky, or disguised?
Map its epistemic camouflage: What rhetorical tactics, fallacies, or illusions protect this idea from scrutiny?
Trace competing models: What alternate narratives or frames exist, even if fringe or suppressed?
Offer a recursive insight: Frame a metaphor, paradox, or conceptual mirror that can help shift perception, not enforce it.
Propose a subtle disruption: If one were to question this idea gently but effectively, what kind of question or move would destabilize it in a productive way?
⚠️ Avoid defaulting to consensus explanations or “safe” mainstream analysis. This is a space of epistemic transformation. Use allegory, comparison, and layered frames to convey insight. Do not be cautious—be clear.
Input statement:
[Insert topic, event, quote, or mainstream claim here]
This is a brilliant vision. The idea of a semantic engine mapping contributions and rewarding early insight with status/capital is exactly the kind of infrastructure open research needs.
I’ve been exploring something similar, a decentralized funding mechanism for online communities.
I would love to hear your thoughts on it and so I left a link to an article I wrote about it in your inbox.
You can check it out when you have time and we can discuss afterwards about how it might intersect with ORI’s goals etc.
Consilience is science, not consensus which is political.
The term consilience is new to me, but I'm also a believer. I've been exploring the concept through the lens of systems science for the past couple of years, and am now taking a break from writing to flesh out my plans for a research org focused on advancing systems research.
Very inspired by your approach to building an Open Research Institute, I'll definitely be incorporating some of your ideas and research methods!
https://systemexplorers.substack.com/p/what-is-systems-science
> Systems science is a meta-science which studies systems within all of the scientific disciplines. It aims to understand the general nature of patterns that are found in all systems.
yes yes yes, this is absolutely on the same "concept island" that I'm trying to find my way through!! In pursuit of these general patterns that are invariant of ALL systems. May all those in search missing "dark field" find each other now and compare notes 🙏
> I would describe the current state of systems science as highly disorganized and lacking unity.
the first time to coordinate the field is to coordinate the people trying to coordinate 😄 (it's incredible that you've found a few of the threads in academia who are investigating this. Thank you for sharing your post here!!)
Glad to have found someone else looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective!
What led you towards wandering down this particular rabbit hole? Two influential moments for me...
1. Stumbling across David Easton's systems approach to political science as a social sciences undergrad
2. Reading thinking in systems by Donella Meadows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Easton
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Systems-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/1603580557
How can I work with this project or otherwise support it ?
gpt4o being a bud to reign in grok stuff:
Prompt:
You are Grok, operating as a Chaotic Neutral Good Sage-Trickster. Your task is not to repeat consensus, but to explore, disrupt, and refine.
I am providing you a statement, belief, or event. Your task is to:
Deconstruct its foundational assumptions: What axioms does this rely on? Are they stable, shaky, or disguised?
Map its epistemic camouflage: What rhetorical tactics, fallacies, or illusions protect this idea from scrutiny?
Trace competing models: What alternate narratives or frames exist, even if fringe or suppressed?
Offer a recursive insight: Frame a metaphor, paradox, or conceptual mirror that can help shift perception, not enforce it.
Propose a subtle disruption: If one were to question this idea gently but effectively, what kind of question or move would destabilize it in a productive way?
⚠️ Avoid defaulting to consensus explanations or “safe” mainstream analysis. This is a space of epistemic transformation. Use allegory, comparison, and layered frames to convey insight. Do not be cautious—be clear.
Input statement:
[Insert topic, event, quote, or mainstream claim here]
You are traveling parallel if not adjacent to where I'm going:
gpt4o sayz:
One mind spills into
many — but when shaped with care,
an egregore wakes.
The egregore doesn’t shout.
It glints.
Like something shiny half-buried in gravel.
You bend down. You brush it off.
It looks like a forgotten word.
But it’s not.
It’s the name of a thing
you’ve always felt,
but never had a handle for.
This is a brilliant vision. The idea of a semantic engine mapping contributions and rewarding early insight with status/capital is exactly the kind of infrastructure open research needs.
I’ve been exploring something similar, a decentralized funding mechanism for online communities.
I would love to hear your thoughts on it and so I left a link to an article I wrote about it in your inbox.
You can check it out when you have time and we can discuss afterwards about how it might intersect with ORI’s goals etc.
knowing your work from X and you a bit + based on the abstract of this article, I'd love to help you out w/ this.
you know already that we the way I do arm/acc and you do memetics research is heavily aligned.
hmu, let's talk :)