Very good question and reflection. Now, I have to go back in my mind to the many conversations that led to the various parts of this somewhat "emergent" piece - it was indeed a result of many diverse and interesting reflections. Here, the point was that in the context of "normative holism" many people seem to put their trust in some mystic idea of planetary synchronicity - where the entangled "essence" of "nature" is somehow "good in itself". From an ontological perspective, this implies that there is no single actor who could ever influence the whole, nor are there universal norms of behaviour that could or should be imposed. I think the quote here came from some Varela/Capra style essay and hence "self-organising spontaneity" refers to the notion of structural coupling in autopoiesis, and not to self-organisation which is - ontologically speaking - rather a relational/interactionist paradigm. "Voluntary inititiatives" instead relates to the discussion with Henry Mintzberg of "plural sector" movements. In Rebalancing Society, Henry concludes that the most important challenge is to scale and connect fragmented individual or collective change movements into a wider "reformation". However, that implies a common vision and belief set, a common set of norms - which, again, in the context of normative holism cannot be super imposed. The only "objective" of the system is survival, or equilibrium - which remains self-referential. In a nutshell, we come back to the problem that science cannot solve axiological problems - and by trying to do so, legitimises an allegedly "amoral" societal discourse, which quickly becomes "immoral"...