The Integral Leadership Review is publishing the series of dialogues that I have been having with Nish Dubashia inspired by David Bohm and J Krishnamurti’s dialogues. The full dialogues can also be found on our YouTube channel. Here is the first transcript in the December edition of the Integral Leadership Review.
Is it possible for climate change and the corona virus to both be real phenomena and there to be a powerful group of people intent on using these developments to maximise their own influence and wealth? Do climate change and corona denial have to go hand in hand with a radical critique of our current structures of governance and economics? Why do they so often seem to?
These are questions that have been running around my mind for the last couple of months, and often I find the best way to sort them out is to try and write down my current thoughts, so here we go…Continue reading
I have recently been reading the dialogues between David Bohm and Krishnamurti and have been particularly intrigued by their interactions around time and thought. A key part of volution theory (www.volutiontheory.net) is that linear time as an experience and construct is an inadequate expression of how life works. The concept of evolution itself is part of that linear mindset, hence my proposal that volution – that integrates linear and cyclical in the spin-based toroidal image – is a more encompassing way to describe our individual and collective development.Continue reading
One of the positive things to come out of the pandemic is some radical questioning of our current economic system. Fundamental flaws have been exposed in terms of what is valued and how money is used. In the Why Work book I identified three main pillars in terms of policy that would set us on a course for a more sustainable economics: Eco-tax reform, Basic Citizen’s Income and Redistribution of Work.
At present it is more economically efficient for a producer to intensify energy use and cut back on human labour, due to the relative expense of the two. The present taxation system encourages the use of scarce natural resources and discourages the use of abundant human labour. Eco-tax reform aims to reverse that situation. It involves:
- the phasing out of taxes on incomes, profits and value added;
- taxing unsustainable energy at source;
- taxing the unimproved site value of land;
- taxing the use of other common resources (e.g. oceans).
Basic Citizen’s Income
The Citizen’s Income (also known as a Basic Income) is, in its purist form, an income, sufficient to meet basic needs, paid unconditionally to all individuals, independent of all other income and without any requirement to work.
The ideal Citizen’s Income would be unconditional, permanent and cumulative. In more detail, it would be:
- tax-free income paid by the state to every man, woman and child as a right of citizenship;
- unaffected by other income, wealth, work, gender or marital status;
- age-related (higher for adults than children, and higher for the elderly than those of “working age”);
- a replacement for all existing benefits and pensions, but would include additional supplements for people with disabilities and for housing for low-income families.
Redistribution of Work
Bertrand Russell illustrated clearly the ridiculous logic of the present system:
Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. … Half the men are idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a source of universal happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
Sharing out the paid work that is available more widely would appear to be the more logical solution. A number of different methods could be stimulated to achieve this. They include:
- shorter working week/year;
- overtime restrictions;
- longer holidays;
- more part-time work;
- V-time (trading time for income in employee/employer negotiation);
- flexitime (employee fixes start and finish times);
- mid-career training;
- opportunities for earlier retirement.
For more on each of these areas see the Why Work book.
See my other post of the creation of a parallel economy focusing on what we can all do at the community level (as opposed to policy proposals like the above).
It has always puzzled me how we seem to accept our current economic system when it is clearly so fundamentally flawed. It only values those things that generate monetary exchange, diminishing the value of non-monetized activity carried out amongst family, friends or community. It externalises the negative impact of any of that monetized activity – such as the environmental or social cost of producing stuff – meaning that the real cost is not reflected in the actual price, and that other people and life on earth have to carry those costs. It has become such an abstract system – another part of the expertocracy – that people feel very little ownership of it. And in crises such as corona, it stops working.
The thing is, it is such a huge system, embedded in all kinds of governance and processes globally, that it feels impossible to change. That is why I think we need to build an alternative economy in parallel to the existing one that better meets our needs as people and planet, and will still function when the next crisis hits – which it will. It should be an economy that reflects true cost, which people have an understanding of and which is connected to our local needs and experiences.
When I wrote the Why Work book, I researched what the various parallel economic solutions were, and connected them up to provide a coherent picture of how each and every one of us could engage in creating an alternative on our doorstep. Here is the summary graphic. I will describe the different elements briefly below.
Currency: clearly there needs to be a means of exchange that enables more flexibility than direct barter (although that can of course play a role). What is important is that the money that is generated keeps circulating as much as possible locally, and isn’t siphoned off to companies elsewhere who have no interest in the community’s well-being. Examples already abound of systems that can be used for this: community banks, credit unions, local currencies and Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS). The Blockchain of course offers possibilities here too.
Business: for our resilience and sense of ownership, we need to meet as many of our core needs as locally as possible. Food, energy and housing would be good examples. All of these can be run through community businesses that make sure the interest of the community is at the heart of the business. The cooperative structure enables that to happen. There can be an overarching community cooperative to focus on the local interests. Community Supported Agriculture where people subscribe to a weekly package of locally grown food supports local farmers and makes us less dependent on decisions taken by large food corporations whose primary driver is to increase the financial return to their shareholders.
Land: who owns the land determines what can be done on the land and at what price. Often land is owned by speculators whose interest is to make as much money off it as possible. Community Land Trusts enable the community to own and govern the land in the interests of the community – be it for housing, recreation or agriculture.
As you can imagine, there are many other areas in which we can reclaim local ownership of currently outsourced domains – e.g. education, healthcare. The three main aspects outlined above and the graphic lay the foundations.
During Humanity Rising our team have become inspired by the Parallel Polity strategy, that emerged with Vaclav Havel and the Charter 77 movement in the transition of Czechoslovakia. The idea is to just get on and build the alternative in parallel to the current system, enabling people to choose which they want to adopt. Once mature enough, the old system that everyone knows is breaking anyway is able to let go. People can withdraw their consent from the old system and channel their resources and energy into the new. This gives us some ideas on how to do that with the economy. Proceed until apprehended!
I wrote this after watching the Bohemian Rhapsody film. For some reason it really grounded me in the essence, and I needed to write something down to remind myself of priorities. When I read it out last night, just as text, people commented afterwards on how much they liked the “poem”, so maybe it’s a poem! And a New Year’s resolution…
(Alex Grey, Galactic Resonance)
The Core (written to myself as much as to anyone else)
We are on the edge of extinction ourselves and are co-responsible for the extinction of thousands of other species.
We have forgotten who we are, what our heritage is, where we are from.
We are born of this Earth, we are this Earth, expressing itself in human form.
This is the Earth talking to itself and listening to itself.
The only thing we should be focusing on is are we, is each of us, doing what we can do to help life on Earth survive and thrive, and enable this great experiment of life as a self-conscious human being to continue?
Are we proud of ourselves, of the human race?
Do we believe we are worth it?
Or have we given up,
choosing to forget,
as remembering is too painful
and asks too much of us?
Nothing is too much, if we truly remember.
We need to remember who we are.
Incredible, creative beings of this mother earth,
with the ability to think, feel, be conscious,
make amazing things,
come up with creative solutions together that no one of us could have come up with on our own.
Are you worried about giving up your old ways,
your job and lifestyle that is part of a dying world?
Are you worried that you might not be able to make a living doing the thing only you can do best to contribute to life?
Isn’t that ridiculous?!
You are life and life is you!
When you act to support life, life supports you.
When you act from trust and compassion you are repaid through unconditional love and support.
Life loves you.
This Earth loves you.
Why would it abandon you if you remembered you were part of it and acted as such?
It is a time to be bold.
Shake off the skin of the deadening world we call normal and come alive!
Believe in yourself!
Believe in life!
Do what needs to be done, now and every moment of your life.
That on your death bed you may look back and know you have lived this life given to you to the highest of your potential.
That your children and grandchildren will draw from your energy and example when they think about you.
There is no other time than now.
Here and now.
The future is forged and the past re-defined by the choices we make in each present moment,
to serve life with all our being,
full of passion and compassion,
wildness and humility,
vision and presence.
Nothing else will suffice.
Our earth mother and cosmic father are testing us now.
Do we believe we are worth it?
Are we going to pick up the gauntlet?
Or just fade away in the annals of history as the generations who chose not to see,
who chose not to feel,
and who chose not to act?
The choice is ours.
Ultimately life will find a way forward, whatever happens.
But shame on us if we don’t put into practice now the millions of years of evolution that have gone into making us who we are.
Shame on us.
And blessings on us if we choose to show up as the great beings we are and bring heaven and earth together in this miracle of life.
Blessings on us.
We can do this – if we choose to.
Culemborg, January 6th 2019
Originally posted at https://www.ubiquityuniversity.org/why-would-a-university-include-self-mastery.
Here is my PhD dissertation on Volution Theory! I had the oral exam on Friday 29th September and was awarded my PhD immediately afterwards. And here is a video recording of the 2-hour defence of the dissertation.
I will be continuing to develop these ideas at www.volutiontheory.net so keep a track of things there!
[Note – this article references the Spiral Dynamics model – see http://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/ for more background].
Trump was always going to beat Hillary. His energy (strong Spiral Dynamics Red Power Gods wrapped in successful Orange Achiever-self) resonates with the US population much more fundamentally than hers (Spiral Dynamics Orange-Green smart political correctness). Now Bernie would have given Trump a run for his money, due to his access to the more fundamental value systems. But the democratic leadership was blind to that reality. It is also part of a trend – disillusion with a cognitive elite that has lost touch with people’s need for simplicity, identity and deeper meaning.
Before a system makes a major leap, it often has to regress in order to gather more fundamental energy from the past that it has left behind, split with or repressed. Think of bending your legs before you jump. In the Netherlands that happened a number of years ago when following political murders, the country regressed to an order-driven party (Spiral Dynamics Blue) and Prime Minister (Christian Democrats with Jan-Peter Balkenende). He got in on a return to core values. The Netherlands is a more feminine we-centered nation than the US. The US is more masculine, individualistic and expansionist, so a regression in the US was far more likely to express itself through an “express-self” value system (e.g. Red Power Gods) than a “sacrifice-self” value system (such as Blue Order). Hence Donald Trump.
The good news is that the Netherlands then went on to elect the most Integral Prime Minister in their history, Mark Rutte. Having re-stabilised and integrated the earlier Blue order-driven value system (which had been largely suppressed by Green egalitarianism), it had the energy to push beyond Green in Yellow Integral. Whether that is the promise in the US remains to be seen, but it might help to see it in this perspective.
From a volutionary perspective (www.volutiontheory.net), what we are seeing is indeed “regress to progress”. This will amplify the polarities. When you stretch the poles, it increases the flow of energy in between. The implications are that we can expect increased instability and turbulence, but that means increased energy in the system that can create more fundamental change. It also brings more risk of course. Will the system be able to hold it and ultimately channel it constructively? Will decisions on for example climate change taken by a republican-dominated US led by Donald Trump damage our ecosystem to an extent that massive human conflict and suffering become unavoidable?
We will see. Life will continue its quest for a dynamic balance and general directionality of increasing differentiation and interconnection. We are a resilient expression of life. Let’s stay as centered, clear and compassionate as we can, and keep taking the next natural step towards the kind of future that sings in our hearts. Life will take care of the rest.
This is a section that I wrote as part of my PhD on volution that had been brewing in me for a while. I was puzzled why in the world of energetics some people talked about nature spirits, devas, angels etc, others about energetic functions, and others about their inner experience of energy in clairvoyance / clairsentience. It dawned on me that it had to do with three fundamental perspectives – I, We and It. (See here for the references.)
From a volutionary perspective, between the undifferentiated oneness and the personified I-ness, or the wholeness and the “partness” of a system, there is a large range of dynamics that go on in the relative space. People use many different languages to describe the work they do and the theories that underpin it. To help clarify the relationships between these different practices and frameworks, I will refer to three main perspectives that end up creating different languages and cultures in this area, so we have a code for deciphering the various ways of describing the same context. These perspectives are based on the three persons – 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person. The 1st person is the “I” and is the subjective experience and perspective. The 2nd person I will refer to as “We” (in the tradition of Ken Wilber 1995), because it is really about the interaction between “I” and “You” in a “We” space. The 3rd person is the “It” and the apparently objective perspective on something.
Here are some examples of the way these show up in theories and practices around energy and information. In a third person perspective one would talk about energetic functions, the way information and energy works, similar to the way I have described volution above. It is all seen as a system with different elements and processes that interconnect. Richard Leviton (2005, 2007) describes the various functions that he encounters at specific physical sites on the planet – such as connecting different sites and functions to each other, channelling information into matter, protecting certain areas, providing access to certain informational realms. Hans Andeweg (2009, 2011) describes specific parameters of a system, such as orgone (life energy), oranur (stressed energy), dor (blocked energy) – these last three coming from the work of Wilhelm Reich – grounding, bovis (integration of concept and realization) and POA (Percentage of Organization and Adaptation). In Andeweg’s ECOintention practice, these parameters are measured and used to influence the kind interventions that are made. The third person perspective tends to focus on making pro-active interventions – such as healing a place in Leviton’s work or balancing an organization in Andeweg’s work.
In a second person perspective, one would talk not about functions but about other entities or beings that one interacts with – nature spirits, angels and devas, for example. Leviton (2005, 2007) links the functions he describes to certain entities, such as gnomes, angels and dragons which you engage with when looking to activate certain functions (Merry 2011b). Small Wright (1997) describes ways to work with devas, nature spirits and angels to help co-create a reality that connects your intentions with what is best for life as a whole. She also assigns certain functions to the different entities. The second person perspective tends to focus more on co-creativity with other beings and aspects of life.
In a first person perspective one would talk more about the inner experience one is having. This is seen more often in receptive practices where the task is to pick up information intuitively from various channels. In Leviton’s workshops, for example, he has people focus on certain locations and report what they feel. Although people may use slightly different language, there is usually a common theme. Gnomes for example create quite a different felt experience than fairies or sylphs. Andeweg also has people feel different energetic qualities and then compare notes inter-subjectively, as part of his four year vocational training in ECOintention. The first person perspective tends to focus more on receptive practices.
Different people and different schools tend to have different preferences for the three perspectives. One will talk in more “objective” third person terms about the functions of an energetic system, and may get irritated by “new-age waffle” about angels and fairies. Others may feel more comfortable with a second person perspective in the realms of beings and entities, and find the third person too cool, heady and disconnected. Still others may say it’s all subjective anyway and you just have to feel it in your own body-mind, a first person perspective. More often than not, people and schools combine these perspectives to some extent, as we have seen in the examples above. However, it is important to be able to see them as different yet complementary perspectives on the same reality, and it is in that spirit that I will go into more detail on some practices below that are exploring how to access a fuller spectrum of the volutionary process.
The First Person “I” – Receptivity, deepening ourselves, acting on ourselves
“Can you coax your mind from its wandering / and keep to the original oneness?” the Tao te Ching asks (Lao Tzu, 1999). This points to the place of inner stillness from which we can access field intelligence. The field is a field of information and potential energy, as described in quantum physics. The moment that we observe this “quantum” field with our cognitive mind, the potential wave form becomes a coherent wave form, meaning that we can never actually access the quantum potential state with our cognition (Talbot 1991). This is why we need to still our analytical mind and light up our more intuitive senses to be able to access this field (Andeweg 2009). When our attention is focused on the world of things around us, we are paying attention to the disorder and amplifying it in our experience. To generate more order in our experience we need to go inside and pay attention to the generative reality. Greater presence creates greater order, allowing life to close the loops of the cycles between order and disorder more quickly, integrating action and awareness, or doing and being, in more rapid feedback loops. The Tao te Ching is essentially a guide to accessing that inner state of being present.
This concept has been popularised in the world of organisational development in recent years by the work of Joseph Jaworski, Peter Senge, Otto Scharmer and Betty Sue Flowers, as what they call “presencing” (Senge et al, 2004). It is what Scharmer calls the “blind spot of leadership”, that ability to find inner stillness and deep knowing that guides us to take wise and better informed decisions.
In Ervin Laszlo’s understanding of what he calls the Akashic Field (Laszlo 2004), there is a field that holds all the information that has ever existed and information of the dynamic potentiality of future possibilities. We can access any knowledge we want by attuning ourselves to this field and asking clearly what we want to know. To do this however requires that we activate our intuitive dimension and quiet our rational mind.
The rational mind does have a role in working with information gathered from an energetic field. Information from a field can come to us in many different forms. Sometimes in words, but also in images, feelings or other sensations. Each individual needs to work out what their intuitive language is, and what different sensations actually tell us. This is where the rational mind comes in. Energy has many different qualities and functions, and to be able to interpret, communicate about and work with energy, we need to be able to discern those diverse qualities. Working with a shared conceptual framework of energetic terms, such as that developed by Hans Andeweg in his ECOintention practice (Andeweg 2009), enables us to work together in the energetic domain, exchanging our experiences and drawing conclusions.
It is important first to access the sensation through intuition and only after that engage the analytical mind to discern, translate and communicate the experience. This was one of the main lessons learned by Dr Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne in their 28 years of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (Jahn & Dunne 2005). They emphasised how important it was to apply their analytical filters only after all the subjective intuitive data had been completely relayed.
Serena Roney-Dougal (2010) lists out the conditions she discovered in her research that enhanced people’s success in accessing information fields. They include:
- Quieting of the analytical mind
- Openness (don’t sensor any impression that comes in)
These are first-person qualities that create the conditions for someone to be able to receive information more accurately from the informational fields. There are many practices in the realm of personal development that help people to develop these qualities, most of which involve some level of directing your attention to your inner experience and noticing and accepting the busyness of the mind and the world outside while not getting caught up in it.
The Second Person “We” – Co-creativity, en-acting with others
Working with attention and intention is one of the main ways people can co-create with life. The first part of this section explores how that can look when working with other people, and the second explores more examples of co-creating with other entities.
The formative force of life, the force that shapes our material reality, comes out of a process of giving something attention from the heart and bringing in creative intention from the higher mind (Andeweg 2009). If a leader is sensing well from the field, then they have an intuition about which general direction the community is destined to go in its journey to contributing the piece of the puzzle that it holds. With that general direction in mind, it is possible to co-create with life to bring it into form, through the conscious use of intention. In this sense, “leadership” is very much grounded in a perspective of co-creation, a continual cycle of sensing and acting.
In his most recent work, The Universe Loves a Happy Ending (Andeweg 2016, 207-215), Hans Andeweg names ten principles for leading an organisation or looking after a piece of land in resonance with the energetic architecture of that system:
1. Check whether your conviction is free and independent – are you really the steward of the entity you lead or are you dependent on others?
2. Develop inner tranquility
3. Become conscious of the whole – having your awareness on all the different parts of the system that you are leading
4. Have a sense of what is happening – a heart-felt connection to the experiences of the people and other life forms in your system
5. Put your wheel in the spotlight and practice Tonglen – a practice of holding your system in the light of love in your heart, including any pain that may be present
6. Affirm and visualise your goals – paying regular attention to your goals, and visualising their realisation
7. Use knowledge and expertise – knowing about the content of what is being worked on in your system
8. Go with the flow – understanding and working with energetic time (such as that described in sacred calendars like that of the Maya, or other fractal systems such as the Elliott timewave)
9. Transform your burdened past – being aware of what traumas from the past may be holding the system back from manifesting its purpose and releasing the energy that is held there
10. Be here now, consciously and with joy – don’t take yourself too seriously…
An important area to explore in the co-creative qualities is that of working with tensions and seeming polarities. The information fields often show themselves to us through creative tensions. As the intention that we hold as leaders for our system meets the current reality, tensions emerge that invite us towards greater wholeness and coherence. Those tensions can be in the field of relationships between the people in our systems, or around material issues. I like to think of these three architectures in our living systems:
As we start to align ourselves with the informational and energetic fields, our relational and material architectures are called to come into resonance with them. That is likely to create tensions in our organisational systems which we need to learn to work creatively with. Practices such as Holacracy’s Integrative Decision Making (Robertson 2015) is one example of how people in organisations can treat tensions as information from the field, and work with that information in such a way that it can be of greatest service to the organisational entity that they are leading. The ability for a leader and community to be able to work creatively with tensions is critical, particularly in the increasingly complex and challenging times we live in. In holding a tension open, we keep the probability waves open, and invite in information and insights from the informational fields to literally in-form how we transcend them.
The remainder of this section of the second person “We” looks at co-creation with non-human elements of life. The best example I have encountered of this is Machaelle Small Wright’s work on “Co-creative Science” (Small Wright 1997). Small Wright has developed a practice that she trialled with a garden, inspired by work at the Findhorn eco-village in Scotland, that involves explicit collaboration with entities in the angelic, devic and nature spirit realms.
I described the Perelandra process in the previous Section. In the co-creative process, different players have different roles. The humans set the intention and vision. This is related to the longer-term human transformation process that is held by an angelic family she calls the White Brotherhood. Together, the humans and the White Brotherhood are focused on holding an intention for the future so that life moves in that general direction, the e-volutionary process. On the other hand, there are the devas who hold the blueprint of how to implement such an intention in this reality for the greatest benefit of all life, and Pan and the nature spirits who are responsible for pulling all the pieces together – the in-volutionary process. Small Wright developed a set of protocols for interacting with these partners to help develop a physical garden or an organisational project (a “soil-less garden”), as well as to support healing processes (the Medical Assistance Program).
The Third Person “It” – Active, acting on third-party systems
This perspective is maybe the one most popularised due to people’s natural tendency in the scientific-rational mindset to orient through the third person. Although the framing of the examples of practices below is in the third person, as we shall see, they include first person and second person practices.
The practice that I am most familiar with is that of ECOintention, developed by Hans Andeweg and Rijk Bols (Andeweg 2009, 2016). This practice was originally known as ECOtherapy and grew out of resonance therapy, which itself emerged from radionics, that was developed in the 1920s at Stanford University in California. All three methods use treatments (or “balancing”) at a distance through a map or photograph. I choose this one to focus on not only due to my experience of it, but also due to the 20 years of application and the related research they have done around it. From the various practices I am aware of, it is one of the most developed and researched in terms of impact on larger scale systems such as natural parks and organizations. Towards the end of the section I will mention some other practices in this area.
The different methods that developed into ECOintention have become increasingly less technical with each step. In radionics only radionic equipment was used. In resonance therapy symbols and fractals (mathematical images and formulae) were added. An ECOintention practitioner doesn’t use radionic equipment at all, but has a self-assembled energetic toolkit with colours, crystals, homeopathic treatments, Bach flower remedies, symbols and an orgone beamer. What is also important in ECOintention is that the owner, manager or guardian of the project is intensely involved in the balancing process. That is neither the case in radionics nor in resonance therapy. [The PhD goes into more detail on ECOintention in this section]. Other practices with similar intentions are well documented by Currivan (2005, 2017), Hardy (2008), Radin (2013) and Roney-Dougal (2010).