Help
Sign In
john heron
March 2009 
Basics of a Truly 21st Century Spirituality
Posted on Jun 5th, 2008
by 
Mushin
Mushin
An interesting new conversation has started up on a year old blog entry of mine called, "An Amazing Question" and this afternoon I was interviewed around the topic of 'pluralistic spirituality' - so I guess it's worth to look at some of these matters again.
And so I thought that it might be helpful to state some of the basic premises I'm coming from in this regard:
Present day spirituality is mostly (actually almost entirely, but not quite) structured vertically - like a pyramid: at the top are the realized, enlightened, etc. and at the bottom are the (very) unenlightened masses; the goal/aim of a spiritual life is to get as close to the top of the pyramid as possible, and once you 'made it' help those below to rise.
Almost all of the vehicles (organisations) of spirituality do have a 'feudalistic' organisational structure where the (enlightened) person at the top is both worldly and spiritual leader and decider; usually advised by a 'court' of 'far advanced' students/disciples.
This is the basic 'reason' why real collaboration between the 'spiritual stars' (as I called them in some of these comments) will not happen, just as it is hard to imagine Kings and Queens coming to a realistic collaboration - they put their kingdom at risk.
Because of the feudalistic and often authoritarian social structure of spiritiual groups and movements - however benign they flesh out their activities in the world - no real dialogue can happen, and true dialogue is the basis of authentic collaboration. True dialogue is only possible if we reckognize each other as deeply and intrinsically equal; and if it is to become real collaboration in any sense that I can see (I'm not talking about cooperation which can also happen in vertical social relationships) we not only need to trust, honor and be utterly open to each other, we must also be willing to be convinced by the other and change our behaviour according to our (now reformed) convictions.
I know, I'm making this awfully short, but nevertheless I have concluded from seeing matters this way that:
All of this together has led me to let go of those paths and move on what I've called cooperative spirituality in the beginning to drop that term in favor of pluralistic spirituality, it is similar to what John Heron has named Participatory Spirituality or what can even be called P2P-spirituality.
It seems those are some basic premises that can be mentioned now; over time it might become clearer as more of us are practising and dialogue about that...
And so I thought that it might be helpful to state some of the basic premises I'm coming from in this regard:
- The universe (Kosmos) does not have a center (or ground or basis or what-have-you)
- There is no beginning (Big Bang)
- The universe (Kosmos) does not have a goal (that we could possibly know about)
- The universe (Kosmos) does not make sense (we do)
- Spirit and matter are two (of an unknown number of) ways of interacting
- Gurus, masters, enlightened beings, etc. are not authorities by reaching the level or state they're on/in but by the grace of us (you and me) bestowing authority and trust upon them.
- Consciousness and unconsciousness relate to each other like a tree's crown and roots (connected by the trunk)
Present day spirituality is mostly (actually almost entirely, but not quite) structured vertically - like a pyramid: at the top are the realized, enlightened, etc. and at the bottom are the (very) unenlightened masses; the goal/aim of a spiritual life is to get as close to the top of the pyramid as possible, and once you 'made it' help those below to rise.
Almost all of the vehicles (organisations) of spirituality do have a 'feudalistic' organisational structure where the (enlightened) person at the top is both worldly and spiritual leader and decider; usually advised by a 'court' of 'far advanced' students/disciples.
This is the basic 'reason' why real collaboration between the 'spiritual stars' (as I called them in some of these comments) will not happen, just as it is hard to imagine Kings and Queens coming to a realistic collaboration - they put their kingdom at risk.
Because of the feudalistic and often authoritarian social structure of spiritiual groups and movements - however benign they flesh out their activities in the world - no real dialogue can happen, and true dialogue is the basis of authentic collaboration. True dialogue is only possible if we reckognize each other as deeply and intrinsically equal; and if it is to become real collaboration in any sense that I can see (I'm not talking about cooperation which can also happen in vertical social relationships) we not only need to trust, honor and be utterly open to each other, we must also be willing to be convinced by the other and change our behaviour according to our (now reformed) convictions.
I know, I'm making this awfully short, but nevertheless I have concluded from seeing matters this way that:
- The traditional and modern vertical spiritual paths offer no real solutions for the challenges humanity is facing in this Century
- These paths are our heritage and as such can help in developing a healthy sense of ego (in the sense of "it's me"; not in the misunderstood new-agey way of 'repository for everything we can think of as obstacle inside ourselves; obstacle to ascending to the pinnacle of being human)
- Traditional spiritual paths only reveal what they teach about reality before it is experienced (ask a Buddhist medtitator if ever he has a vision of Virgin Mary; or ask a Christian Mystic if he sees the Buddha or Shiva or some such in his meditation); traditional and modern spiritual paths are really co-creating the "basic, deep truths" that they think to have independent existence.
- 99% of the spiritual paths are vertical in nature, and vertical paths and structures have helped manouevre us into the state we're in world-wide; put in a different way: there is no reason to believe, that these paths offer any possibility to have the kind of change we need on a world scale.
All of this together has led me to let go of those paths and move on what I've called cooperative spirituality in the beginning to drop that term in favor of pluralistic spirituality, it is similar to what John Heron has named Participatory Spirituality or what can even be called P2P-spirituality.
- It's basic governance structure is the circle of equal and unique individuals.
- It's teaching structure is 'mutual apprenticeship'.
- It's practise is - when done with others - consentual and 'we-full'.
- It's practise from an individuals perspective is guided by non-judgemental openness and a 'holding of the space', an intense presence, so that who and what is can unfold its authentic way of being.
- It is embracing imperfection.
It seems those are some basic premises that can be mentioned now; over time it might become clearer as more of us are practising and dialogue about that...
Access: Public
Mu, my dove, this was the perfect breakfast companion this morning!
I would like to ask you why it is important to you that the universe has no beginning - (I intuitively agree with you on that) - in particular why you think the big bang didn't happen. I know there was no one there to witness it at the time (well, arguably we were all there, but not with eyes to see or a mind to go “wow!”). But this is science's best shot at explaining the phenomena it is observing, like space expanding (although presumably that, too is an interpretation)… I'd love a more detailed account of how you see things, if you don't accept the current state of cosmology.
I love your description of P2P spirituality, and am moved to add a few more impressions:
* the circle of its governance structure is a reflection of the personal practice (here I can do no more than describe my own felt sense) of 'leaning into the edge of the unknown', which can be imaged like a circle - each person is like the centre of a ripple radiating outward.
* its practice is profoundly embodied - the body is an indispensable instrument of sensing and intuiting, relating and communing.
* spirit is balanced by source, as the crown of the tree by the roots - the trunk is the body.
* authentic being is a moment-by-moment unfolding which is deeply contextual, where the individual blends seemlessly with that which is unfolding. The paradox is that an individual must be essentially whole in order to engage in this participating with the whole.
Time to go - I'm eager for more on this, dear one!
Dearest Helen, sister of my heart, happy to have been of service to you this morning!
Regarding the Big Bang. I find it significant that the theory came up around roughly the time when the first atomic bombs where created. Bright men fascinated with big bangs…
Apart from this cultural background, there is much in physics that speaks for the Big Bang theory (cosmic background radiation etc.); but that doesn't mean too much, as there were, for instance, lots of evidence for the universal ether before Einstein et al proved that theory non-necessary by finding better suited concepts for the observed data.
I cannot not quarrel with the Big Bang idea on physical grounds, I'd loose that argument any time. It's on aestetic and spiritual/philosophical grounds that I drop that idea/theory. It's a bit pathetic, I think, to require a beginning for what is here. It is, of course, part of our cultural heritage to believe that all things have a beginning, a middle and an end - but I don't buy into that. Everything changes, raindrops to brooks to rivers to lakes and the ocean to vapour to raindrop etc. Now where is the beginning of, say, a river: is it the bang of a thundercloud?
And actually more and more exotic 'things' are being invented to make the Big Bang theory hold true - what about “dark matter”? That was a difficult one, but we need something like 80% of the matter of the universe to be dark to fit with the Big Bang theory, and then we have an energy problem so the latest shoot of that theory's tree is “dark energy”. Nobody really knows what it means except that it accounts for all the missing energy (that is missing according to the BBt).
My basic objection is, in a way, that the whole theory is too much of the dream of an adolescent guy dreaming of fireworks, like I said, “Bright men fascinated with Big Bangs”. And what's more it really covers up that we don't know where we came from, and we have no idea where we're going to (even though spiritual people often say otherwise).
And thank you for the additions to the premisses of what might turn out to be 21st Century Spirituality.
Love,
Mushin
Helen asked the very question I had! Lovely answer, lovely blog (and your comment too, Helen).
Sent this as many 'seeds' as I was allowed.
Nothing to say, just a nice 'hummm'.
Oh yummy, I do love it when blogs turn into conversations!
OK, so Mushin has grown out of fireworks… :-)
But don't you think it's a bit daft to divorce aesthetics, spirituality and philosophy from our best guesses around cosmology? I totally agree with you that ideas come and go - I think of Fred Hoyle's steady state theory (I quote from Wikipedia):
“While having no argument with the Lemaître theory, (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be philosophically troubling, as many argued that a beginning implies a cause, and thus a creator (see kalam cosmological argument).[4] Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in World War II), argued for the universe as being in a ”steady state”. The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a “steady state” in the same manner that a flowing river is - the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same.”
“In the end, mounting observational evidence convinced most cosmologists that the steady state model was incorrect and that the Big Bang was the theory that agreed best with observations”. Of course, even Einstein had his hairier moments, where he was convinced he had blundered (I'm thinking of his cosmic constant) only to be borne out by the evidence as our technological advances enabled new kinds of observation.
What is most striking on this context is the inescapable challenge of having to interpret what we observe! This fact is really where I see the validity of Wilber's four quadrant model, with the inner world of both individual and collective spontaneously co-arising with the external world that we observe. And that is where I have trouble divorcing spirituality/philosophy from science. Clearly, none of the big three “the good, the true and the beautiful” can be reduced to the others, but still we consider one without reference to the others at our peril, which is where scientific reductionism has so much to answer for.
As for exotic theories to make the big bang theory work - Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams have written a book called 'View from the Center of the Universe” which tackles all that dark matter and dark energy stuff. There's an article on it in the current issue of What is Enlightenment Magazine. I was intrigued enough to buy the book, but have not yet had the time to sit down and read it. A holiday job, methinks!
Mushin, I enjoyed reading this blog as well as the comments of everyone else here very much! I have to say I learn so much here in our community, and am humbled greatly by the level of some of these conversations, and know that I am way under educated to even try to begin to communicate with most of this. However, I just wanted to let you know that I do appreciate it, and the whole time I was reading your views I couldn't help but think simply of the Native American way of the circle and the intrinsic spiritual nature of all around us, and of each one of us.
Thank you again for sharing.
Hmmm, Helen, interesting that today I stumbled upon an article on dark energy - and now I understand it just a bit better (and understand better what I don't understand).
“Although cosmologists have adopted a cute name, dark energy, for whatever is driving this apparently antigravitational behavior on the part of the universe, nobody claims to understand why it is happening, or its implications for the future of the universe and of the life within it, despite thousands of learned papers, scores of conferences and millions of dollars' worth of telescope time.
It has led some cosmologists to the verge of abandoning their fondest dream: a theory that can account for the universe and everything about it in a single breath.”
What I find so fascinating, and it gives me some underpinning to my 'denial' of the Big Bang (and I read all that beautiful stuff on BB in Wikipedia) is that apparently there is something in the universe pulling/pushing everything apart very fast; a kind of anti-gravitational force (what Einstein had taken, partially as we now know, account of in proposing a 'cosmic constant').
So yes, behaviour needs interpretation, and we do that all the time. Our whole tool use is guided by our amazing capacity to form theories from interpretations of behaviour which are pretty adequate (in that they help us predict behavior of people, situations, things, processes enough so that we can take advantage of them for whatever is our purpose in doing so).
And yes, it's not overly nice to insist on aesthetics and philosophy and somehow divorce it from science. But actually I didn't - I used, I think, an aestetic argument to underpin more like an intuition than a properly thought through understanding.
One of the big questions cosmology wants to come up with an answer to is: “How come the cosmos we observe?” And the answer the Big Bang Theory gives is simply very non-elegant interpretation of
- the redshifts which suggest expansion (and now with the new findings that led to the 'dark energy' ideas the expansion is even greater that what we know through the red-shift; it has been suggested that some of the galaxies are flying away from our point of view even faster than light…)
- the cosmic microwave background radiation which is regarded as the final echo of that Big Bang (actually meaning that we can still measure some of the heat of that BB)
- the distribution and abundance of hydrogen and helium
Now I do not want to belittle these phenomena (redshift etc.), and I think it is a mighty advance from having 7 spheres and behind that heaven, as people used to see the cosmos in the Middle Ages, but really, there are other more appealing theories/ideas of how to start a universe.
I personally have always loved Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker ever since I read it as a very young man ages ago. It's more concerned with the life of the cosmos and who dwells therein, and places beginning and end in a truly maginficent context…
I don't think setting up the “Steady State Theory” of the cosmos agains the BBT makes much sense. I would much rather go for the “Fluid Non-State” of the cosmos, allowing for living suns and planets (like Giordano Bruno used to believe; matter to him was intelligent and alive), continual influx of creativity and 'new matter' and most of all an influx of spaciousness.
But really, I don't think cosmology is a science anymore if it wants to answer the deep human questions of where from and whence. I think those are intrinsically spiritual questions. I like it that some scientists chip away the ovious 'rubbish' answers spirituality and religion give (the cosmos was created some 6000+ years ago by Jahwe, like the creationists believe, for instance).
So maybe there was a Bang, a Pretty Loud Bang at some moment in our cosmic development and region of the cosmos (maybe a proto-galaxy cluster chainreacting into loud fusion). But I simply won't accept that as a valid statement as to our cosmic beginning.
I do think the AQAL matrix is a helpful tool to see that if we interpret a phenomenon from the outside that there is always also an inside. AQAL is slack on relationships and collectivity as reality shaping forces, but you can't have an all-encompassing or perfect matrix for interpretation and explanation of what goes on, can you?
So my ad hoc theory of the cosmos would be: It's a conversation and confluence. We come closer to it's coherency when we align our consciousness with its 'togetherness', as we come closer to each other by opening up and tuning in to each other, having meaningful and we-full conversations.
Hi Jami, happy you enjoy the blog and conversations. I don't know much, if anything, about the circle in native American culture, apart from the romantic Hollywood versions thereof. But I'm sure that it is a powerful structure wherever it has or is appearing.
And thank you for dropping in here with such fine feedback.
Today’s spiritual practice (apart from my workout - ☺) will be adding another grain of sand to our collaborative sand castle, Mushin my dove…
I have been focusing this weekend on a study of dialectical thinking according to Otto Laske, who is doing very complex and stimulating work in the field of interdevelopmental theory and practice. I will be attending (with a number of other mutual friends) a workshop he is leading in Brussels next week on cognitive development (as opposed to socio-emotional development, which is also a key component of Otto’s work).
Relevant in the context of our conversation are the four categories of dialectical thinking:
• Context (reality seen in terms of objects, forms, static systems, linear causality and generative mechanisms)
• Process (reality seen in terms of unceasing change, presence of past and future in the present, the world of ‘preservative negation’, where the existence and definition of A is bound to what is not A…
• Relationship (reality seen in terms of figure and ground, a totality comprising entities that mutually constitute each other, reciprocity and limits of separation, common ground…)
• Transformative system (reality seen in terms of living systems, movement through forms – this is “the fullest expression of things real and imaginary appearing in static form in the guise of context, forming the common ground (totality) of relationship, and brimming with the absenting of absences through process negativity…)
We are clearly looking at a developmental phenomenon here, as context is subsumed by process is subsumed by relationship is subsumed by transformative system.
The reason I mention this is because it seems to me that cosmologists are looking at the universe through the lenses of context and process, while you, Mushin, are intuitively speaking of a living system, affirming that the Kosmos is intelligent, and god alone knows what else! Which, of course, makes me very happy! But a truly rounded inquiry will always be illuminated and remediated by all four of these lenses that help us to think holistically. The joy is, of course, that knowing what these categories are can help us shine a light on what we are not seeing…
And speaking of American Indian culture and circle - how intuitive of you to bring that in, Jami - I would love to share with you something written by host and intervener-in-complex-living-systems extraordinaire Chris Corrigan, after an ‘Art of Hosting’ training with the Navaho people in February – called “In the land of K’e”. Somehow, it links in nicely with what we are speaking here.
Interesting blog again, Mushin. I am going to read the comments; but thought I'd put down what it reminded me of.
At first, we think of spirituality as the means towards something:enlightenment, or one of the ions- liberation, connection , actualization or annihilation…
To reach there, we begin to raise our energy in that vertical way of the chakra system; or Maslow's heirarchy; or becoming better, growing, and so on. Going, as you say, in the vertical way. Everything seems vertical to us too, and is perhaps needed to get us out of the labyrinth.
At some stage, we realize that what is happening, is not vertical growth; but all-direction expansion. That is the inter-connection of all our chakras of energy, of our past-present-future self, of that me with the we to become that awesome I. We can then be “great with the great and lowly with the lowly.” [quoting one historian's description of Emperor Akbar]; in other words, connect not only with those of like mind or even like-vibration, but just..connect.
The connection is not new; but the journey of each of us, probably is; and possibly just for the fun of it.
I had a vision today of all the spiritual leaders you talked of [yes, your earlier blog was on my mind!] as continents that seem to have drifted apart or aren't drifting back together. But then let's not forget the water around them! And the core of the earth on which both water and land float. And then the universe, however it “started”, and wherever it was before it started, that is holding it all together.
Which is possibly another way for me to say..we're separate in oneness; but one in separateness!
And if we make those stars; let us see that they are exactly where they need to be right now.
And now I get off the soapbox and read the others' comments.
Great observation, Meenakshi! It mirrors my experience quite closely!
:-D
O my dear Helen,
Laske's dialectical thinking…
Today I'm in a “fuck all differentiated perspectives” mood. So probably I shouldn't reply to that.
The only thing I can reasonably say is, that I don't really care enough about the kosmos' beginnings, and I don't care too much about theories (today, and maybe more persistently); these days I'm often in a situation where well-meaning people who are really bright are 'fucking each other up' (and themselves)… and I don't seem to be able to do anything about it.
So I take a back-seat and hold the space and leave it up to them to 'grow up'…
And maybe, just maybe, we don't all need to learn to look through these different lenses, and maybe learn to look through 'my lense' and let others look through theirs, and then remain open for honest exchange… (Don't wanna think holistically today…)
And thank you for again posting the link to “In the land of K’e”. I love it.
Lovely Meenakshi, most poetic as well.
Not thinking about oneness and separateness I am taken into whatever this moment is unfolding to being, and then asking myself what holds things together - I think of flocks and swarms.
When I was in the States some months ago I saw an amazing flock dancing in the air, then separating, reuniting, some birds flying away, desynchronized it seemed. I could watch flocks for hours and hours.
The same goes when scuba diving - only there I can even see if I can participate in a swarms movement (it never really worked out, the fish didn't recognize me as one of them ;-)
So swarms, flocks and maybe even human groups sometimes are very much in synch with each other so that they might be actually transcending oneness and separation. Since as human beings we have very little experience with that it's not even recognized as a transcendent perspective to the oneness and separate theme that is so paramount on the traditional spiritual path; a path that we apparently need to travel some length of before letting go of the vertical longing makes any sense.
hehehe!!!!!!!!!!!! Mushin, remember when we talked about my workplace being the Bondi beach of samsara surfers? All that dialectical thinking stuff simply is great gizmos for staying upright and ahead of the game in that world.
I am totally with you (you almost sounded hormonal, my dear!) about leaving them to grow up. Only my hubris button gets a bit sore when I do that, sometimes. So I enjoy being part of the furniture in that environment that rubs people up the wrong way and perhaps stretches them out of shape.
We have different vocations - but I'll lie on a hillside and watch the flocks with you any day!
love ya!
Hi my dear, my first try at a response was swallowed by my computer. I thiunk what I did was to acknowledge that I was responding pretty hormonally ;-)
Moreover I went on and on about how I admire/appreciate your art of knowing all these incredible differentiations - and that I'm glad you point them out to me and us here. I think those perspectives are important to be mentioned.
And finally I posted a quote of Chris Corrigan and said that it somehow revealed my bias of the circle to me (because apparently I'm seeking to get some hierarchical guys to like the circle):
“Within the Art of Hosting community of practice, we have been looking at a fifth organizational paradigm, which is something like a combination of hierarchy, circle, network and bureaucracy. Some of us have been looking at what these four paradigms have to offer, for examples, hierarchy offers order and clarity, circle offers an equal reflective space, network offers an immediate ability to connect with whatever is needed, and bureaucracy helps channel resources where they are needed, “irrigating” initiatives or parts of an organization.”
Love to hang out with you on the Bondi beach of samsara surfers”
I had the same problem, interestingly with exactly that comment of mine that provoked your hormonal response. Patterns in the kosmic weave?
Having spent two days with my cognitive brain in a spin drier, there's a lot to be said for simplicity! But these models can be powerful, provided they are not worshipped in isolation. One of the participants in the workshop was extremely well versed in various cognitive models (most of them integrated into the highly complex and complete Laske model) that he uses to great effect in his professional life. However, his words and behaviour suggested not only a high degree of complex thinking, but also a high degree of identification with that capability - displaying a rather less developed socio-emotional sense, with little empathy or detachment.
So there's nothing like soaking it all up, but hanging loose and holding it lightly!
What you are describing from Chris is also available (described by Tim and Peter Merry) on Art of Hosting TV: Click here for part 1, and here for part 2.
Mushin, like you, I am fascinated by flocks of birds and their flowing together in air.
Dear Mushin,
I am happy to differ again:):) You say:
“It's basic governance structure is the circle of equal and unique individuals.
It's teaching structure is 'mutual apprenticeship'. It's practise is - when done with others - consentual and 'we-full'.
It's practise from an individuals perspective is guided by non-judgemental openness and a 'holding of the space', an intense presence, so that who and what is can unfold its authentic way of being. It is embracing imperfection.”
So how to define “Elite” , “Leadership” within this egalitarianistic context?
The big global holons like EU and UN…need for example very clear updates and upgrades in this regard. They demonstrate medicore performanxce right now..
Groups of spiritual practice ( I do not use the word sangha anymore…)need lots of discriminative intelligence for measuring progress in practice.
Non-Judegmental..participatory..mutual appreciation….it all works when orange-green minimum standards are already in and on place. When strong blue is securing the basics….
In reality however…):) we need to pull off the kid gloves…in all coordinates of reality strong clarity and even punching power and strong focus is needed. Communities are embedded in nations…..and we seee in the irish decision regarding EU how sub groups are pulling back to earlier holonic constellations. These drifts can be observed in all large scale systems..
So truly 21st century spirituality….WHO is defining it? Check out the situation alone in Germany. Or German speaking countries….Who is referee in this game? Who is score striker? Who makes the rules…?:):)
Its wonderful for me to see such a variety of spiritual approaches here. And I see too that lots of aproaches are acting undercover:):) Not even necessary to label it this way..
So my simple uestion to all gurus, ex gurus, guru haters and gate keepers in this discussion is:
How do you define leadership?
How do you define elite?
I love thes questions….
:) Best, as alwas,
Albert
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!
This conversation is turning into a real humdinger. Albert, dearest, I don't know how I'm going to answer you as I start here - but I feel the urge to respond.
What Mushin is talking about is a peer-to-peer phenomenon. Nobody is defining it. There are no leaders or gurus. It is a spontaneous arising at the edges of emergence. The fact that it is popping up in bubbles all over the globe is, in my mind, evidence of this.
The first thing I would like to say, though, is that I would not call what we are talking about 'spirituality'. It is an emerging form of 'governance' that integrates and honours spirit and source, and does not have them in any way separate from daily life. Every collective act incorporates spirit and source in its deliberation.
Leadership has two aspects in this 'new paradigm' (for lack of a better word)
* there are no 'leaders', but 'acts of leadership' abound. The leader is the person who asks the question and calls the conversation.
* leadership is collective. Those who participate in the conversation mould the outcome - which will typically be wise action because of the multiplicity of perspectives woven into the decision to act.
* there is collective dynamic steering. As action unfolds and the consequences (intended and unintended) become clear, a person or group will call another conversation.
In this context, the elite are those with the depth of consciousness it takes to ask the deepest and most evocative, generative questions. No one need be turned away from the conversation. But let us make no bones about it. Wise action can in some cases mean physical coercion - we're not talking about some utopic shangri-la, but how we can act with collective clarity of purpose in the world we have inherited from history.
In answer to your question “who is defining it?” I would say - the conversations are defning it. The fact that if you show up for the conversation your contributions will be incorporated is an emergent form of empowerment that we underestimate at our peril.
Turning to your comment about the EU and the UN, the jury is of course still out about whether they will survive to embody the new governance. Since I am working inside the EU Commission, I am having a ball experimenting with the approach. It goes without saying that I am engaged with a “we” in this context, and that the We is growing organically but exponentially, so that we are having to find new ways of gathering to take account of the scaling up. Most of the seeds we are planting are taking root, and I am witnessing the transformation of many of the individuals who are joining us. There is energy for this, and no opposition in this non-violent environment.
If the Irish voted down the reform treaty (I am not worried by this - it will serve to keep us on our toes) it is because they do not feel concerned by Europe and they perceive the institutions to be aloof and apart. This kind of rejection is pointing clearly to the path to take. We must find ways to engage the nation states and regions AND the men, women and children in their own governance, where the European dimension supports them in their own identity and is strengthened by their diversity and contributions. That is the deep vocation of Europe and its contribution to the world. It's not a vision that can be held by an individual, or even by a group of invidivuals (the college of commissioners, many of whom don't get along) - I believe that only a collective practiing this new type of governance can do it.
Dear Albert,
Helen beat me to it - and what a wonderful and amazing way she did answer your concern, a very real concern indeed. So thank your for voicing and thank you for that response again, Helen.
I'll ad this: It's easy, looking at the circle as the basic form of governance, to conclude it to be egalitarian. But as Helen already said the circle we're talking about is more a peer-to-peer (P2P) happening which means that it is incorporating the hierarchical, the ‘elite’, the ‘leadership’ already.
The circle as an embodiment of governance, the circle we are speaking about here, has basically already gone through a process in one form or another that Otto Scharmer describes as U-process. Scott-Peck describes it as ‘community building’ and says about this process that it begins with ‘artificial community’ and moves into a phase he calls ‘authentic community.’ Only in 'artificial community' and most of all in the phase after that, adeptly called 'chaos,’ clearly designated elites or leaders try to take hold of the process and steer it in the direction they feel is the one that needs to be taken. (This statement also says something telltaling about the kind of society we're in!). That is felt by all as a painful happening, in a way. People jostling and doing all kinds of things (I have a long list of the strategies taken somewhere) to gain control over the circle and its participants. Not, I highlight ‘not’, because of any bad will, quite the contrary, but nevertheless ultimately futile as ‘true community’ or what has been called the ‘circle being’ does not come about through any type of leadership in the sense we now understand it – actually what mostly happens is a kind of death or deep, sad silence; sad, because everybody realizes that it is ‘out of our hands’… actually out of anybody’s individual hands. So the ‘real circle’ or ‘true community’ is coming into being from this kind of process.
So having experienced this process many times I can say that what comes into being in a circle is beyond hierarchical, networked, bureaucratic, egalitarian, communitarian or in fact any form of x-ical or x-ian. I've called this 'deeply we-full' but any term suffices that shows that the ecology of the circle after a community building process or U-process has taken in all of the individuals present as its intrinsic 'organs.’ That means all conversations in such a circle are being both utterly truthful (authentic) and integral in that every perspective is regarded as 'our own'.
Leadership, if we want to call it such, is utterly momentary, as Helen already pointed out and I might add felt to be really in service of the furtherance of the whole. And, mind you, we're not speaking about some airy-fairy ideals here; we're talking about a natural practise that is being surfaced all over the globe.
Now when people from the circle encounter other systems of governance it seems they will at first try to get a similar connectability with these other people going, and then, if that doesn’t work might return to any kind of structure (authoritarian, hierarchical in the benign sense, networked, distributed or whatever form of government prevails) adequate to furthering the ‘spirit’ of what has been arrived at in a circle.
I’m having little experience in this (the interface between circle-being and other systems) but some I do have. The one that is most important for me, of course, is that the sheer force of the circle-experience and my reflections on its meaning brought me down from my guru-pedestal. But I’m having experience these days with getting Gaiaspace – our software baby – going in Germany and this is a huge learning on what needs to happen on the interface between a already formed wonderful ‘we’ and ‘ordinary’ business structures.
I’ve not yet looked at that interface closely to see what are the patterns I can discern there and what can be done to help, but I’m sure that in due time Helen will come up with a study on these matters (that was a little nudge, my dearest).
So thanks again for moving the conversation in that direction.
Tkx to both of you for some clarification. Now I feel quite drawn to all of it, knowing only smallest fractions of real world constellations can make use of it.
EnlightenNext is a wonderful context to prove all of it…):)as evolutionary spirituality is defined here very clearly.
However I sense some differences in approaches in different parts of Europe. No idea whats happening in US….And once again I refer to hundreds of groups and approaches alone in German speaking countries. As long as P2P remains in wet, soft networks its radiating these qualities.
Most exciting and relvant however will be the transition into organizational structures. As Lewis Mumford always demonstrated 1960 in his book ” Myth of the Machine” this shift demands forms which are described in holocracy and similar aproaches. Once again, stable blue/orange/green basics are required.
Wherever this is not the case…more classic forms of leadership are in demand.
Regarding spirituality:
Not even the Buddhist orbit -with roundabout 400 groups alone in German speaking countries - has consensus about the new spirituality. In fact, infights, as known in integral circles too, are dominating these peaceniks. Sorry for polemics, but right now I see nowhere real breakthroughs.
P2P is double edged. Though obviously its spreading around..something is missing for me. A certain deep emotion.In its form its webby. But hwere is the cuttiing edge of it in public? Where is the meat? Where is the real thrill?
Now will see some football:):)Germany -Austria Please notify me when something REAL EXCITING is happening in P2P:):)
Albert