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]

“Before we can create the world we want we must understand where the power to change the world can be found – and it is in your choice and mine - not in a government or a corporation” - David, it’s you on Swadeshi two days ago.

No individual can change the world, whatever you mean by “change” and by “world” both are part of evolutionary process. We are part of it, our growing knowledge is a part of us, we use it as tool to satisfy the naturally evolved needs we are born with. Governments, corporation and total set of relations based on money flows is current shape of a process.

As long as individuals have the power to decide (natural leadership) they will follow their natural needs and natural evolutionary process will continue. Delegating our power to leaders we recognize their knowledge as superior – even if, on the other hand, we know it is not (useless knowledge?). We follow the natural pattern.

I wrote this after studying knowledge on wikipedia – I didn’t find any support - within knowledge - to classify and valuate it.

Understood as a tool it is easy to classify - first we (individuals) choose activity best to satisfy our needs, then accessible knowledge best suited to minimize effort and maximize gains. If we choose political activity or corporate management our tool is PR knowledge – how to make others delegate power to us.

From here one can continue on meaning of "transcending tribal hierarchy", but we differ too much, I think it is no use before you address what I wrote above.

[David Braden]

No individual can change the world

I disagree. Each of us creates the world through our choice of bridges. Change may seem slow, because it is in our nature to follow the patterns set out by those who came before us, but the pattern itself is not solid in any way. Compare the pattern of today with the pattern of our agrarian past – then imagine the pattern that you would like for the future. Let's change the world to that one.

how to make others delegate power to us.

I think about sitting in a tribal council and imagine a discussion about what move the tribe should make next. Every one expresses their opinion but, in the end, the opinion of the wisest (most experienced) is followed. When we talk about state institutions – not to mention global – we delegate power without full knowledge of how their decisions will impact us. The power is delegated too far. We need to exercise more of our power closer to home.

This is in accordance with network theory, chaordic theory and modern “leadership” theories. Large complex structures require stable component structures. Our current structure is like a few mainframes trying to control the world – and when one of them crashes we all have problems. The structure we need is more like millions of servers connecting billions of computers – and when one server crashes we just shift to the next one.

Understood as a tool [knowledge] is easy to classify

Yes, knowledge is a tool. I think the critical question here is “who is we”. In two dimensions, the we is always the group to which I belong – because, in that dimension, we are all in a struggle between groups to control scarce resources. In three dimensions WE is all the people, plants and creatures on the planet. WE are integral to a single pattern of exchanges. Understanding the world in three dimensions is superior knowledge.

I propose to develop the knowledge to make the pattern more stable by stabilizing the local components. Within any locality there is unused human and biological potential. If we extend new bridges to realize that potential we create stability within that locality – and change the world.

[Pawel Klewin]

it is in our nature to follow the patterns set out by those who came before us

That is essence of the problem as I see it. It is our nature that decides - it estblished pattern, and makes us follow it. In spite of common knowledge, that our consumption of resources exceeds productivity of ekosystem.

Understanding world in three deimentions is not nature, understanding happens within causal thinking, within our minds. What is the use of classifying that knowledge as superior, accepting at the same time superiority of nature over mind?

[David Braden]

Understanding aerodynamics is superior knowledge to not understanding aerodynamics. We know because the one lets us design and build airplanes while the other does not.

There was a pattern of exchange - that changed only slowly - based on our nature to follow previous patterns - prior to the knowledge of aerodynamics and a different pattern of exchange after the knowledge of aerodynamics. It only took two people to design and build the first airplane - but once it was built the pattern changed in response to this new choice in the system. Because individuals chose to fly instead of take the train the pattern changed.

I do not accept the superiority of nature over our minds - our hardware and software are both integral to system function. I want to include the effect of natural tendency in the design of superior systems. That our consumption of resources exceeds the productivity of ecosystems is the result of a two dimensional understanding of the world. Understanding the world in three dimensions we can understand the potential to design integrated human and natural systems.

You will not see the possibility if you only understand the world in two dimensions. In two dimensions "the Other" is responsible, resources are scarce and our choices are limited by the mechanisms of the market.

Science teaches much knowledge about each of the parts of our world and we apply that knowledge without regard to the effect on the pattern as a whole. This new knowledge that we seek is about how the parts fit together. And my point is that we choose how the parts fit together now - we are just ignorant of the alternatives to what we think are our only choices.

[Pawel Klewin]

"I do not accept the superiority of nature over our minds".

I do not either. That is why I tried to join global networking, because up till now my understanding tells me nature is superior - consumption is most basic natural need and it still drives us to actions filling our lives.

We consume more than we need, we consume too much, we must change consumption pattern.

There is no knowledge superior to above statement. So what drives us - if not Nature?

(I agree with you, after study of wikipedia, that knowledge modelling the world closer to reality is superior to one producing less precise model. I agree with you that your knowledge is superior. I do not agree, that promoting it is enough. Thousands do it since at least 40 years, more than thousand of ecovillages and ecohousings function in sustainable way, ran by groups of passionates – with hardly visible effect on general pattern of consumption growth).

[David Braden]

We consume more than we need, we consume too much, we must change consumption pattern.

This is the classic statement that resources are scarce - humans are the problem. How do expect to change behavior telling people that they must give up that which they need and desire? Give them better choices and they will jump at them.

In 40 years we have made progress - limiting pollution, banning chloroflurocarbons, alternative energies . . . this is growing awareness in the planetary mind about the dangerous consequences of our two dimensional thinking. But our thinking is still limited by this belief that resources are scarce. That which we need to thrive - food, clothing, shelter, education and health care - are only scarce because the market is incapable of producing abundance.

As I keep saying, in three dimensions resources are not scarce. But we will need to design and build integrated systems of production. That will require a set of bridges to realize the unused human and biological potential in our communities.

[Pawel Klewin]

"This is the classic statement that resources are scarce"

Yes, indeed it is. It reflects principle of nature - selection of the best specimen winning the fight for scarce resources. Your knowledge is superior, but useless - we follow nature anyway.

(Do not forget, I share your knowledge, mine is roughly the same, my worry is that I do not now what to do with it, how to use it)

[David Braden]

So you are convinced that nature is a competition and not a cooperation? That it is impossible to design systems of production that heal nature and produce abundance?

Then you do not share my thinking about the power of three dimensional thinking. Nature, before man's interruption, and except for interruptions like the comet that killed the dinosaurs, is a continuously upward spiral, increasing complexity, culminating in what we know as human consciousness. Because we see only the competition part, we have created a temporary downward spiral, decreasing complexity.

If you want to start the spiral up again, you might at least be curious about how we might improve the way the pieces fit together.

[Pawel Klewin]

David, let's relax for to-day.

Tomorrow I shall answer your last post, thinking over what we said, and why we can not agree.

I think harmony of nature is most wonderful thing in the world.

Discussion with you is priceless for me - people in Poland usually regard me pitiable, after I express my opinion no discussion is possible. I hope strongly, you may help me to understand why. I still hope, however not so strongly, that our agreement is possible - and strongly again, that if we reach it it will be of great value.

Thank you, Paul

[Pawel Klewin]

To re-start differently something personal:
When you began organic gardening 28 years ago, I was unofficially participating and helping to create polish organic farming (my best friend was one of three persons to create “Ekoland” – first polish bio farmers association). I am very close with the movement, dedicated consumer of organic, instinctive nutrition using natural products is my (practical) philosophy of health care.

I entered global networking after discovery, that eastern Europe, along with political transformation, destroys huge areas of healthy nature, both natural and cultivated in traditional sustainable way. Although I did never reach your level of presentation of coherent, clear and plain system based on 3D concept, I spent 5 years trying to join or organize in Poland the movement for better understanding of bio- and eco value of polish tradition, partly writing essays similar to yours. With no success – many shared detailed statements, nobody was ready to view problem integrally. My study of integral view using Wilber’s theory, SD and AQAL is logical consequence – I see it possible foundation to move on. (End of personal).

So when, after over 4 month of understanding, we start to quarrel like children and you say:

“So you are convinced that nature is a competition and not a cooperation?”

I can not simply feel offended. Obviously it must reflect very deep, subconscious or unconscious level of mentality, from the perspective of our previous discussion it must be possible to generalize.

My interpretation of our quarrel:

You: automatically classify anybody disagreeing with your higher level of understanding (superior knowledge) as advocate of 2D view (lower level).

I: try to understand natural core of consciousness (2D view) on one hand, and causal thinking level, where you operate (3D), on the other. My intention is to transcendent – create new level (remember our discussion about platform) where both views could have been considered.

I have no intention to sound superior, but symbolically one can say it is 4D view:
• 2D: humanity, nature - fighting (for resources) using mind as a tool.
• 3D: humanity, nature, mind - mind understands nature and designs new pattern, following natural harmony
• 4D: material reality, conceptual model, inside, outside form 4 quadrants of AQAL model.

P.S.
Current event in Warsaw, practical example of human nature: Dec. 11 Dalaylama’s lecture , 5 thousand people will attend, some waited from midnight yesterday to get free invitations. LED video screen will be installed for more people to watch. Lecture title “Common responsibility in modern world”.

First we believe (in) leaders….

To make this thousands join Wael in creation of GBA would be transcending tribal hierarchy.

[David Braden]

The comment you reference is in response to your statement:

Your knowledge is superior, but useless - we follow nature anyway.

How can I interpret that except in the way the Wright Brothers would have interpreted the statement about if God had wanted man to fly he would have given us wings?

I understand your frustration - I actually gave up and spent 20 years learning how the existing system works. People I was working with at the Bioregional Congess in 1984 and 1986 told me that my proposals were unacceptable because "profit is evil".

I like "4D: material reality, conceptual model, inside, outside form 4 quadrants of AQAL model". Let us explore that further.

The planetary mind is what it is - I am interested in the efficiencies that might come from a Global Brain Application - accelerating the processes in the planetary mind - particularly if it brings people out of their silos - and we can engage across interest and expertise. (which is why I am posting on so many different forums) However, the flow of knowledge through the system is only one aspect of the integral set of changes we hope to accomplish.

I do not think we are looking for thousands to join Wael in creation of GBA - as you say just us three and then three more. It is more about what I try to describe as "new viable choices". A farmer cannot plant a permaculture and expect to make a profit in the market. In addition to the requirements for government subsidy, the farmer must employ economies of scale to reduce the unit price. That drops the price of food below the cost of production and makes necessary the government subsidy.

We can employ permacultures in economies of integration but not if we try to produce for the market - where we face the same problem as all other farmers. This new viable choice will require a different form of ownership and a different channel of distribution.

You might be interested in this comment at the sustainopreneur's discussion.

[Pawel Klewin]

You did not answer my most important question yesterday:

We (productive part of mankind) know that we produce and consume too much. Yet we set as a leading goal of human activity to produce more, to replace products with new ones faster.

Our behavior is against our knowledge.

What conclusion is better:

Planetary mind is what it is? Or: Planetary brain did not yet create channels to control natural behaviors?

(Do you know Gerald Zaltman’s “Mind of the market” concept? Do you mean it equals planetary mind? For me market is product of human nature. Though I agree mind of the market is real, it’s for me example of nature using mind as a tool.)

I shall understand if you do not answer – we seem unable to move on.

But if you do, please understand the most deep sense of my obstinacy and persistence:

I came to global networking to find answer to “I feel responsible, what can I do?” You say you have the knowledge. But upon your knowledge I still do not know the answer.