An open space for global conversation
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” This quote goes along with, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."
12-2p PDT | 3-5p EDT | 7-9p GMT
Click here to register
It's not really due to fault that we go round and round. Cyclical iterations are a function of consciousness evolving itself. It's why systems tend to change slowly, outside of revolutions, that is. However, how many revolutions might be true revolutions? How many revolutions might actually express a radically [Latin for radical=radix=root] new dynamic? How might we escape our reiterative cycles?
Consider how many times you reenact behaviors and circumstances in your personal relationships before you: a.) notice you're doing or being some way that is less than optimal; b.) catch yourself in the moment; c.) identify what you can do differently; d.) begin to actually do that different thing; e.) do that different thing on a regular basis; f.) have that new behavior become a seamless, automatic part of your life. (I oversimplified this process quite a bit so as not to belabor the alphabet.) How often, might you guess, do individuals succeed in a making a complete shift in any one behavior in the course of their entire life? Now consider the vision we have for our global community. (This is fun, isn't it?)
Yesterday, I spent time with Barbara Marx Hubbard and a group of 70 intrepid travelers as we explored the possibility that something radically new is at hand, preparing to emerge in a surprising form. To consider making radical change the way we've always done it can feel daunting. Finding our way outside the box of current thought into fresh perspectives is energizing, creative and positively uplifting.
A week ago, commenting Jim Macdonald’s blog post, you said:
I think the questions we must ask are: Is there a global solution that can end most global injustice in less than 5 years, what is it, how can it be made to happen?
Can it be made to happen any other way than through our/human common decision = conclusion? (equals sign following wiktionary definition of conclusion)
Please, no apologies for disturbing my thinking. That's the purpose of this forum—to purturbate each other's thinking. We could go many times around in the discussion as to what has or has not evolved in the past 2000 years, never mind right here in the forum over the past 9 months ;-)
My feeling about the past 2000+ years covers an entire spectrum from: quite a lot has changed, to not much has changed at all, depending on the context. Also, being inside the forest of present time, I have a very limited perspective with which to gauge the difference between past and present evolution as the trees of current circumstance are thick. I can only go by the evidence of historical legacy and my own intuition and direct experience of the field of consciousness in which this play is arising.
(I hope my words translate adequately. I was just wondering if I might need to speak more plainly to
Multidimensional conversations are incredibly challenging on flat printed pages. I could use an an entire page to describe all the angles to each sentence I write, either that, or simply ping pong back and forth with our impressions as they arise, such as we're doing now.
I noticed your later comments about thinking and new thinking. What you highlight for me is how imprecise my language has been here. However, I don't have the time to be more precise, while actually accomplishing the work I have before me.
"Thinking" occurs on a near infinite scale of inclusion, from the most self-interested, narrow thought to bigger-than-the-universe-sized considerations. The principle of "new mind" can likewise span a gamut of relativity, from a perceiving a novel way of assembling an old framework or intuiting a completely novel framework all together.
That's why I like to consider this entire exploration/conversation as an experiment. In fact, our entire human experiment we call existence seems to be a mind boggling array of attempts to translate the infinite realm of potential in which thought arises to the explication of material forms.
With regard to these conversations themselves, I surrender to the unseen processes behind them, which seem to serve connecting us to have contact across the globe, sharing the spirit of our commitment to change, which may be more important than whatever content we exchange.
Perhaps this is an inkling of our new economy, where we value the spirit of deepening our connection at least as much as any apparent gain or loss of material/informational exchange.
Thanks for sharing, Pawel.
The mind is most complex appliance, thinking is most complex process, and the data feeding it is transmitted from (or through?) most complex universe.
I read your post as an attempt to present the complexity as an argument for not deepening our/any(?) conversation. I really like your ping pong with impressions - marvelous expression describing the alternative you/we practice on the OC forum.
Considering current state of science, practicing reductive approach, you certainly are right. But, on the other hand, the possibility of reaching simplicity through complexity should be considered.
I do not think “new mind” is possible. Understood as hardware of consciousness mind has been given to us – no matter how we imagine the donor we have no way to change it. One cannot lift himself up pulling own hair.
So let’s leap forward to your conclusion (if I am allowed to use the concept;-) …value the spirit of deepening our connection.
You say we should value it at least as much as gain of material/informational exchange. I think we can invent new experimental conversation integrating both. We should not forget the fact that material/informational exchange has provided us with real, instant and global connectivity.
Your expertise concerns unseen processes behind our conversation – you continue long tradition of spiritual teaching, using new medium of communication. I am no expert and there is no tradition to support my position. On the other hand my four years’ experience with social networking allows me to say that (hopefully) I represent European attitude towards understanding the whole: information received through perception and cognition is as important as information coming from unseen internal processes. Or maybe you are right and it is less important, but anyhow cannot be ignored.
The trees of current circumstance are thick and we desperately seek the framework to order the apparent chaos. Personally I am convinced that integrating faith and system logic we can define the primary flaw (original sin) of our cognition and intuite novel framework all together to reset the common knowledge (and common sense).
Nice. I'm with you on roughly 95% of what you're expressing here, Pawel. You inspire me to qualify any and everything I've said to this point with "so far". In other words (in case "so far" is strictly an American idiom), I am prepared to have a different experience with regard to any previous assessment at any moment.
As limited as our typed sound bytes may be, I am still typing. Better to exchange incomplete or imperfect thoughts, than exchange none at all (Well, usually. I'm not an advocate of abusive exchanges in the name of free speech, for example.)
My lone point of contention is that I do believe in the possibility of new mind. I say that with the caveat that new is perpetually relative and highly subjective. I use the term "new mind" to describe access to thought fields of possibility the that orbit outside current dominant memes. Another expression of new mind is analogous to beginners mind, when we access spaces beyond our reactive, reductive, analogous mind; which, as I write this, that territory which goes further and further outside of consensus reality to the point where language breaks down. The moment one begins to speak, "old" mind often reasserts/re-forms.
That's why new mind is experimental, a budding possibility on the leading edge of evolutionary emergence. The character of true emergence is novelty, something new and previously unknown.
I think the fewer the people that understand us, the greater the likelihood we're encroaching on new mind, psychosis withstanding.
Personally I am convinced that integrating faith and system logic we can define the primary flaw (original sin) of our cognition and intuit novel framework all together to reset the common knowledge (and common sense).
We may debate semantics, but it seems we're pulling on similar strands from the same cloth.
I appreciate and value your sharing, Pawel. Thank you.