I am certainly oversimplifying the left. Any narrative, indeed any use of language, is going to do that. But I don’t think that I’m missing the mark. In fact, I think this insight is very useful for making sense of the left.
As for critique, if you like. My point is that I’m not comparing the left to the right. I’m looking at the left qua left. And I’m not trying to improve or change the left. Just looking at it and naming what I see.
Now moving to the complicated/complex domain — it sounds like we have a shared language and that helps map. I place the Red Church (obsolete and no longer meaningful) in the “obvious” domain and the Red Church firmly in the complicated domain.
The emergent Red Religion is the first scalable decentralized CI that has begun to operate fully in the complex domain. It is still extremely nascent and isn’t really an “it” as much as a “becoming-it” that might decohere at any moment and for unpredictable reasons.
For just this reason, it is also very hard to predict why or whether it has limits. To do this well, we would need a robust theory of dCI and we don’t have one. By necessity, then, all assertions should have a low degree of confidence until we learn more.
That said, I believe that the ideas of “source of coherence” and “binding forces” that are coming out of Rally Point Alpha are useful — and these would indicate limitations on both the capabilities and coherence of the Red Religion.