ARE WE LOCKED IN A CIRCLE?

[Pawel Klewin]

By Paul Raskin, Great Transition Initiative Director, Harvard University, 2006
© 2006 by the Tellus Institute
Starting (with Orion Kriegman) new GMS conversation. Fragments of 25 pages text, one of 3 essays recommended to participants
................
Before the crisis
.......The burning uncertainty is whether a strong GCM (global citizens movement) can emerge in time. That may seem improbable. These turbulent years apparently cause more resignation, complacency, and anger than hope, engagement, and idealism. Nevertheless, experience suggests that there is a growing, albeit often latent, hunger throughout the world for a positive vision of the future and sense of global identity. This is the cultural energy upon which a GCM could coalesce. It would not be the first time that an effervescence of popular will arrived unexpectedly to torque the direction of history......

Seed crystals
If the possibility of a GCM is latent in the contemporary cultural matrix, focus must
turn to strategies for crystallizing it. Three key arenas are understanding, vision, and
action. This triad corresponds to the basic psychological elements of a whole person—
knowing (the cognitive), feeling (the affective), and acting (the intentional).
.....................
The systemic framework clarifies Margaret Mead’s dictum: “Never doubt that a small
group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing
that ever has”. At transitional moments, such as ours, small actions can have big impacts.
The efforts of an engaged few can ripple through the cultural field, amplifying and
influencing the global trajectory………

Epilogue
The shape of the global future rests with the reflexivity of human consciousness—the capacity to think critically about why we think what we do—and then to think and act differently.

Conversation starts tomorrow and is full. The hosts are well known in the world's citizen movement and very experienced, nonetheless it seems to me they start from the same point as you, Wael, 5 months ago.

Anyway I can't find any output co-created by us, to be input for them to move on. To help the next conversation to continue the process..... On the other hand I think they didn't look for it.

Are we all locked in a circle, with no way out? (All content of their essays is nothing new.)

[Pawel Klewin]

I would rather say we know what we are - it is the content of lower quadrants and this knowledge is reaching different SD levels for individuals.

The orange and green levels (the highest present in common knowledge) contain lower levels - therefore we are all thinking (more or less unconsciously, depending on level we reach) in terms of tribal hierarchy and power gods on top of it.

We have to transcendent this knowledge using GBA, to create new model of "WE", able to be interconnected on holarchic principle.

[David Braden]

We need to transcend the model of the world based on tribal hierarchy and power gods - that we unconsciously employ when interpreting information from the world.

We need better maps.

[Wael]

with my comment here ( I can not open the page) I tried to explain how I see GBA navigation-system as nested "geographical" rings pressing certain content in one point (level 9: common knowledge used in building any living system (lower right)).
Level 1 is (upper right) ; level 1 is always connected with level 9.
2-8 any variant of WE, optimized on locality-geographical aspects.

[Pawel Klewin]

David, your “better maps” essay says:

… I write about a different model, that I find more useful. I find that human systems function in ways similar to ecosystems. Modeling world function in this way allows us to see new pathways out of the impasse (of prevailing model).
Finally, I suggest that We can start to apply the understanding gleaned from this new model on a community basis.

I (and multitude of others) agree with you 100%. The problem I try to address with my idea is the starting point itself. Obviously “WE” can not start. That is not my opinion, that is the solid fact. Are we locked in the circle?

Wael, I can’t open the link from your last post. I looked however in “How to build the GM” on “My Public Twine” and found the following:

…creating consciousness is impossible. The best we can do is somehow channel the consciousness that is already there in the substrate of the universe. In fact, that may be what the human nervous system does.

I am conscious. I didn’t create my consciousness – I only operate the small part inside my “self”.

Since some time I don’t understand what your idea of GB application is. Are we discussing application programming code, or who and how will control and operate it? Who will set basic assumptions and general aim, a context or model to analyze reality and process the decision-making ?

[Wael]

Hi Paul,

I am really sorry that I not able to write down my squeezed thoughts to assist your building up the platform. Lets have regular chat 1h/1week to refresh the starting point tell we find the step to move forward straight a head.

The link is working now. What I wrote in correspondent to the above it the following:
I like the idea of the inverted pyramid.
I am not good in graphic and flash, but I looking for pictures for such models: I have one model based on "presence" would be nested rings of segmentation:
1 ring: individual: Every one a lone.
2 ring (inside 1): local: active with individuals in locality
3 ring: .. regional
4 .. state
5 country
6 sub-continent
7 continent
8 global
9 universal

The presence and action participation of each individual is like the spread of the electro-magnetic wave through the rings, especially for fine tuning operation through personal meetings on sensitive topics.
The middle point (ring 9) is our commons.

the geographical segmentation is needed for example to map personal interaction beside the virtual. It is also needed to transform the humanity from national-states into global community.
We need to map our interactions: In ring 1 I am with my own. In ring 2 I am with my friends planing the next BBQ etc. In ring 8 I may take part on a discussion like why the "Big Bang" took place and use existing documentation in ring 9 (Global Brain Memory)
I will use ring 9 also for BBQ planing to guide me to the best location/weather/.. in my locality.

My idea about the web-user-interface to the "Global Brain"-"One Machine" supports the combining and fusion as much existing consciousness as possible to develop collective new patterns of consciousness and knowlledge ..

Every day I think about the architecture of it.
This morning i asked what will be the ultimate imagination for how to connect people.
Can the technology one day support the communication of thoughts and intuition? Can we plug in directly to our brains to get pure "thoughts and ideas" in light speed without going over the "translation"-methods of them (language, text, presentations, multi-media, ..)
One of the backgrounds for these motivation is my language (talking and written) inability. So can I share my self in our ONE organism "totally" without any "obstacles" ?

I have to jump and leave again .. :)

[David Braden]

Integrating thoughts . . .

I (and multitude of others) agree with you 100%.

There is a percentage of humans at a level on the continuum of human knowledge who can grasp this concept of interrelatedness. Some of those have not grasped it 1) because their silo is so narrow 2) because of erroneous assumptions, 3) ???

“WE” can not start . . .

“WE” cannot instantaneously change the common knowledge so that all of humanity suddenly agrees with me – agreed. What about that percentage that can grasp the concept? Can 'we who understand' begin to have an impact on the common knowledge?

We need to map our interactions . . . In ring 2 I am with my friends planing the next BBQ etc. In ring 8 I may take part on a discussion . . .

We can design new ways of interacting amongst ourselves and with nature through a ring 8 or 9 discussion but actual implementation, the construction of actual bridges in accordance with the design, is necessarily a level 2 activity. It is the actual experience with such designs which will bring understanding of how they work into the common knowledge.

[Pawel Klewin]

Do we agree to go along with integral theory? I do not want to comment your posts directly before you answer this question. I personally think it is the only model of consciousness complete enough to build any web application on it.

Wael, in your post consciousness levels are freely applicable depending on territorial hierarchy of complexity. David, your comment suggests we can switch between levels.

It is not that easy. The link to “My Public Twine” explains very deeply we do not know what consciousness is. Human nervous system channels it beyond our control. Each complex self is very strongly seated in the level it reached becoming adult.

Verbal communication is possible between people on the same level, possibly with big effort, between neighbor levels. Levels described by colors in AQAL model are spread evenly in global population, do not depend on knowledge, race, geography nor social position.

Estimates of population share between levels (amount % / power %):

Beige 0,1/ 0 (infants or pathologies only )
Purple 5 / 1
Red 20 / 5
Blue 40 / 30
Orange 25 / 45
Green 10 / 15
Yellow 1 / 5
Turquoise 0,1 / 1

Integral co-creation is possible for yellow and turquoise only. Once created integral worldview is accessible probably for green and orange levels.

Wael, can you ask Neri to comment on it? I have no knowledge about practical application of SD and AQAL.

[Doug William]

I'm listening, Paul.

Hoping for more clarity. Ask me again specific questions or restate these ideas again.

This might be going in a completely different direction--but, I think most people are far more influenceable than we usually think. Here in the United States, when advertisers know how to make messages stick, they are very, very good at changing people's behaviors---and usually at a level that people don't even acknowledge. Their behavior changes but they continue to deny the advertisers had anything to do with it.

And again, I'm not sure how it fits-- but I know our brains create delusions that we steadfastly believe. Our experience of our conscious selves is really made up from biological substrates. We always feel that we must be more, much more than just our biology. And the development of self is much molded by the cultural environment. Our hereditary establishes strong dispositions for certain ways of thinking and behaving. Inherent in all our brain biology is this undercurrent of unknowing or unconscious which really does run the show. We just don't like that idea. So the idea of 'self' and 'I' and what maintains that in the brain is really very interesting and very much unknown.


Anyway-- again-- I need more clarity, more simplicity, please.

-Doug

[Pawel Klewin]

Myself, I can be very clear and simple.

I think we should weave the web connecting yellow self levels (Spiral dynamics sense) of all people able to reach the yellow. It will be extension of consciousness channels present in our minds - Global Mind's first stage.

On the other hand I am personally convinced, that it is possible only using AQAL model and SD. I do not fully follow Ken Wilber's thinking, I think the model can by strongly simplified - anyway some basic knowledge about conscious and unconscious parts of self should be reached and agreed between initiators. I think what you write fits such approach, but otherwise nobody is ready to follow AQAL model.

- Pawel

[Pawel Klewin]

I still think chat would be of any use once we agree basic approach.

After the one we had with Don I understood we should include metaphysical experience of mankind (or as you said signals from the heart). Trying to introduce it in our discussion I saw we differ too much in our understanding - chat didn't help.

I also thought about inviting Kenan Branam, who posted with you to "Twine", but since we still are locked in the circle and can not agree way out.....

- Paul

[David Braden]

Paul, where do the number/power percentages come from? They seem about right to me but that would only be a guess. 65% of the people hold 75% of the power - based on loyalty and self-motivation.

SD makes sense up to green because we all know these people. I have less confidence with the second tier. On what basis are we to assume that we must repeat the pattern? Perhaps there is a basis and I just do not understand it.

Do we agree to go along with integral theory?

Is this Wilbur's AQAL? Then yes, I think we can say that our discussion is strongly influenced by Wilbur's work. Perhaps the more important question is about the goal of our discussion.

I sense from you, Paul, that this is about gathering those who have progressed to yellow or turquoise so that we can explain what we see from there to those who are operating from orange and green?

How to describe my goal in a new way? If we designed a set of interactions that gave every human being the opportunity to progress through all the levels we know and those we do not know, then many of the problems we face would be solved. Once such a set of interactions is "co-created" then knowing the level of understanding of our participants can allow us to "sell" it to them.

What good is it to be able to communicate with lower levels (sounds sort of elitist doesn't it) if we have nothing to offer? But both are important.

[David Braden]

Every “I” (upper left) has the right to make their own choices. It is up to “WE” (lower left) to see that every “I” has the choice to maintain a healthy body and absorbent mind [growing understanding] (upper right) within a healthy environment (lower right).