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.)

[Wael]

I had the obligation to add more comments on this.

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

I would make a poster of this line and take it every where with me. I feel it is 100% true. We have to find an explanation what it is like this.
Consciousness is life. The breath of life is light.
If you close your eyes and try to imagine how much life is operation in our body, our cells, in our environments and every where, you can have a taste of which dimension it is. We can not create consciousness but we can discover parts of it.

I was recently on a conference and heard a lecture by Kees Hoogendijk about 3rd-Energy-Generation during iSD EuroConFac2008. It was about the energy which is every where and available for every one; light, gravity, sound, Megnatism, Coriolis Force, ..
They are coled "Energy for Life". They support life by life. The are fed by consciousness and produce consciousness. It is a closed circle, which we will have as long we have light.


... 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 ?
Paul, there is so many IT models, systems and concepts for self-governance. But the most are for smaller communities. We need the Dialog SW from oneaim to construct huge cooperation-spots as if the global community is a self-firm.

[Wael]

I have strange stomach feeling to say, I use agree on theory as theory is only an image of its creator.
Many said, that the combination of AQAL and iSD is the best knowlledge we have.
You can check the ciritism here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQAL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3

I know too little to agree on disagree on theories I did not study.


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

My level just map systematic communication possibilities depending on territorial hierarchy, but does not deal with consciousness.
i want to stress that the Global Brain does not filter the "consciousness levels". There will be no consciousness hierarchy. What I think, that Dialog on unaccepted topics for people are in low consciousness levels will be fill with people accessed higher patterns. This is one form of the dynamic alignment.
We need the mix to make sure we close as much as integral feedback-loops in the whole system as possible.

One Notice: If you look to the many ongoing discussion, there is huge amount of "talks" in text format. People talk and talk, but do not concentrate on how to spread and apply knowledge in easy way, which is the main motivation of GBA. Twine community could organize themselves for example and start animation projects for knowledge or alternative video games for peace and life.

[Pawel Klewin]

My data comes from "A THEORY OF EVERYTHING" by Ken Wilber. The rest I shall answer tomorrow

[Pawel Klewin]

This is my overall view on integral networking, inspired by your posts, but mostly by Wael’s statement: “There will be no consciousness hierarchy”. Wael, please, read it, it can build power to break out of a circle! I am not smart enough to make it shorter, sorry.
David, I think it answers your questions – if not, pleases modify them and ask again.

It is long, but:
• Follows many threads and questions of all our discussion
• Responds to our agreement, that AQAL is something important
• From my point of view is kind of open summary.
• I am ready to explain my thoughts, change them, simplify, exclude spam ideas, include suggestions – co-create and agree final manifesto of a seed

1. Consciousness is ability to build coherent picture of the world. The sensual signal channels and brain programs to process the picture are contained in DNA code, are part of natural unity.
2. Our pictures (worldviews) differ depending on geographical, cultural, social location – like photos taken in different places, at different time, by same model of camera. They are identical and compatible regarding input (one world), processing, properties, memory code.
3. Not entering philosophy (nature of reality) our worldviews are virtual presentations of reality around, as products of compatible processing they create “a virtual space” of consciousness.
4. Language and knowledge belong to this space. Knowledge is memory of past worldviews, database for worldview of educated member of living generation.

I am conscious. I didn’t create my consciousness. Above items doesn’t depend on us – they are common virtual reality around us

I only operate the small part inside my “self”:

5. Our behaviors and decision making patterns depend upon 1)original DNA code, 2)socialization and education process and 3)some undefined property to grasp intuitions (maybe it is synergy of super-complex neural system, maybe pattern encoded in principle of life, maybe “spiritual insights”, maybe unknown virtual receiver…).
6. DNA encoded part of consciousness includes tribe (monkeysphere) leadership, knowledge describes its current shape: global distribution of over-crossing and overlapping hierarchies of power. On one hand it is human construct, on the other is part of our natural, DNA programmed, behavior pattern (“operating system”). “I” am born, socialized and educated to suit it.
7. We houldn’t mix up social hierarchy (of power) with complexity hierarchy of reality. The first is human construct, the latter reaches over time and space, is principle of universe, and consciousness is its highest known level.
8. Within consciousness we can classify complexity of worldviews (virtual models of the world around us). Considering item 5 “MY” level doesn’t necessarily depend on education nor knowledge, however metaphor of Spiral Dynamics illustrates impossibility of direct jump between levels.
9. People using different models use different concepts in different contextes, therefore speak different languages., They can communicate only within procedural or ritual behavioral patterns.
10. I am non-wilberian – I only think AQAL model is good common denominator of all human knowledge about conscious self, therefore best to map it and create web interconnections counterbalancing differences of levels, exposing unity and interconnectedness of all life.

P.S. Neri, can you comment, with your practical knowledge of SD?

[David Braden]

I do not find anything with which to disagree. Let me make sure I understand your usages in the following instances:

[virtual presentations of reality] create “a virtual space” of consciousness.

Each of us lives in this virtual space that we create out of the inputs we receive from those with whom we interact. Is it the characteristics of this community “virtual space” that we are concerned with changing? Does that necessarily start with changes in the virtual space of individuals?

3)some undefined property to grasp intuitions

I am thinking there is an inherent ability to see patterns – to project the patterns into the future. This is necessary for the hunter to find game and the basis for trial and error build up of knowledge -> theory and experiment build up of knowledge.

“I” am born, socialized and educated to suit it.

Is this the crux of the issue? So long as socialization and education produce the predicted result there is no pressure to change the pattern of socialization and education for the next generation. Such a state has probably never existed – there always being pressure from those “left out”. This is also the reason that the blue and orange hold 65% of the people and 75% of the power – those sets of relationships produce predictable results for those involved.

metaphor of Spiral Dynamics illustrates impossibility of direct jump between levels.

Would it be useful to try to overlay three dimensional views over the SD levels? From the first human “group” we think mainly in two dimensions – my group against the world (red & blue). The personal freedom drive would have us operate in one dimension – and the every one for himself attitude of the “market” reinforces this first dimensional view (orange). At green we begin to see interconnectedness beyond our monkey sphere but also a rejection of the continuum of human knowledge – making the green world view ineffective at producing a predictable result.

People using different models use different concepts in different contexts, therefore speak different languages

This is where Doug and I are suggesting that we need to focus. There is a commonality across all levels based on human needs and hard wired human responses. If we approach members of each level on that basis of commonality as we invite them to our platform, perhaps we can begin the conversation across interest and expertise.

best to map it and create web interconnections . . . exposing unity and interconnectedness of all life

Please provide more detail on mapping to create web interconnections – how will that expose unity and interconnectedness?

[Pawel Klewin]

Hey, David, you choose most difficult aspects, and many! Unable to answer immediately - if at all. I shall do my best to formulate MY simple answers, but hope soon we start to co-create,

Paul

[Wael]

if we agree to focus on the aspects in Paul overview, we can move further systematically and discuss each one of them seperatly over chat. I will add later the overview on wiki, so that we can edit it together.
David, I will give some answers form my side later.

[Pawel Klewin]

David, I do not pretend to know solid answers to your questions. I believe universe is a process, there is nothing solid. I can only go further with my thoughts:

“a virtual space” of consciousness…. – here I see usefulness of AQAL. You speak about reality we directly see, living in specific locality, about channels close to the surface of self (photographs recently taken, they are different in each camera).
If we draw a map of consciousness we can admit deeper, more unconscious levels. There we find on one side mechanisms of our separateness (different recent memory of pictures), on the other our commons (same model of processor, same object of all memorized photos). They are there, we can not and should not change anything in anybody – to supply manual and motivation would be enough.
If we visualize architecture of self, we can identify the channels within, then create new channels outside – weave the interconnecting web.

Intuitions…. - again you speak about surface of consciousness, current game we play. Same mechanism can be applied to deeper levels – the universal process, eternal game we are inside. That is the essence of my thinking – consciousness that is part of the universe, we grasp only small particle, for short time. The very nature of it remains unknown, but “WE” are the proof it exists.

“I” am born, socialized and educated to suit it. - Here we touch biology – organisms are interconnected with environment, they are born as product of evolution, they are subjects of its current moment, they create new organisms best suited to survive in future.
Present social environment follows the principle – even though consciousness was used as a tool to co-create it. Our challenge is to control the tool by our mind – controlled by our nature it turns against nature as a whole, our nature included. The only natural pressure will be systemic catastrophe – when human creations break out of natural control system of feedbacks.

metaphor of Spiral Dynamics ……….Would it be useful? Yes, from my point of view here you started to use it … to co-create. Let's continue.

People using different models…… Of course, I join you, with one reservation: we have to create intermediate contexts, kind of interface specific for each level we address (by we I do not mean we but “WE” – the possible effect of co-creation).

Please provide more detail on mapping… sorry, I know my limits. Maybe there is somewhere a genius, but I personally do not believe. We have to give natural concept of leadership. Map has to be co-created. Otherwise we are locked in a circle. My actual description of circle:
To create new context we have to think differently. To think differently we need a new context. Is there a way out? Yes, “WE” have to map the way “WE” think

Paul

[David Braden]

to supply manual and motivation would be enough.

For the manual I have proposed for each of us to examine for our selves our silos, assumptions, and the institutional imperatives that we adopt as truth. The belief that our group is good and the other group is evil gives our beliefs about the world righteousness. Better that each of us examine where we are in the continuum of human knowledge and seek to increase our understanding.

For motivation I have proposed a flowering of human systems – but no one believes it is possible because they assume that someone else is responsible, resources are scarce and/or the market can solve all our problems.

Can we overlay these realizations on the AQAL map and develop a specific interface for each level. Or do you propose a different point of contact?

[Pawel Klewin]

David, there is nothing to disagree in your short essay obout our knowledge. But entering link to "Information, Knowledge, Wisdom and Vision" we touch Wael's GBA seed intuitions. I fully agree only with one phrase: The idea of knowledge and wisdom and vision (point of view) is at the heart of the planetary mind's ability to change "common knowledge".

Totality of knowledge is extensive in quantity, volume (first axis) but not in quality (breadth, second axis). There is no continuum, but narrow specialization. We have multiple population, multitude of knowledges, multitude of visions.

"WE" have no wisdom, because wisdom of humanity must be holistic. One world, one consciousness, one wisdom. "WE" have to weave one web, founded on one and common map of existing channels in 6 billions of individual minds, to meet this aim.

[David Braden]

You disagree with my thought that those of us who have reached this level on the continuum can put this superior knowledge to use - demonstrating its superiority - and that the demonstration is what will impact the common knowledge.

I am interested in your thoughts on how we arrive at, or move toward, a "one and common map".

[Wael]

[virtual presentations of reality] create “a virtual space” of consciousness.

David: Each of us lives in this virtual space that we create out of the inputs we receive from those with whom we interact.

Paul: If we visualize architecture of self, we can identify the channels within, then create new channels outside – weave the interconnecting web.

Eric Harris-Braun on Twine explained how inner reality (a "thought space") established.
Quote: ..Perceptual thought integrates a level of external reality, emotional thought integrates a level of internal reality, causal thought integrates an entirely different level of external reality.

David, what you wrote show us the common failure that people used to fill the "virtual space" with our external interconnections over our known 5 senses, which is not accurate according to Eric explanation.
Now I have to remember my school time and a biology lecture, where I have been toled that the sum of plants the roots are at least bigger than the upper parts.
Other said the internal aspects for our "thoughts web" has other sense-mechanism which is emotions, the sensor for "inner reality", which has bigger portion than the "external reality". Within the internal reality we have our capacities as humans for life.
The main interface between both realities is (written or spoken) "Language". It does not mean people with miserable or average language (like me) does not have high “virtual space” of consciousness!