My main current conundrum seems to be this human. This creature that is me, you and us too. Form early childhood I learned that love would heal everything. It remains an important message in the fragmented society. I have believed this and therefore always heavily invested in this. And all my long term relations suffocated anyway. I now still suspect it is true, but it seems to be what I call a half truth. The unseen part is missing and so the whole concept fails in the long run. I was blind to the other part.

The other fundamental part is the very personal unique individuality we also have. My hunch is that a healthy relation between togetherness and being alone with ‘myself’ could be my most important lesson now.

a first rough draft. work in progress. published to evoke enriching comments.

Many things. And they deserve to be worded and documented.

1. Dreams do not influence gravity. Nor any other law of this universe.
2. Interaction between energy and matter form waves. Waves form patterns. The interaction between patterns expressses as turbulence.
3. This unavoidably will keep harmony and peace to be temporary states.
4. Serve not lead evolution. I am just one expression of the whole.
5. Truth is that belief that is strong, convincing, coherent and consistent enough to base my actions and decisions upon.

So how can this standing wave known as Harry help existence? How can life express itself at it´s best in Harry? How can learnings and consciousness be past on between beings without having to start from zero at birth? Our externalized memory in writings and buildings and art and culture prove to be helpful. I suspect we need standardization of conversation and dialog to bring it beyond the personal exchanges.  So we need to augment both the very personal individual bonds between humans and the unpersonal exchange of thoughts, ideas, ideologies and arguments. The first is the kind of practising we do in the GCC Zoom sessions. Presencing and practising our mutual respect, space holding. lisening and acknowledgement. The second still needs to be made. I imagine a ditributed kind of argument map. Alle contributions are anonomous to avoid bias.

My hunch is that we humans need to be kinder to each other without becoming weak or indiscriminate. People are aware of the chaos and they are terrified. In times of change people always have unconsciously acted out new behaviours in a chaotic way, following their felt sense of how things should be better. My generation railed against the rigid structures of society en today still disruption and innovation are the next big things. Any for a good reason. There is a general felt sense that the old competitive  ways of doing business is leading to destruction of humanity. The global collapse of our ecosystem is happening. Driving the economy through competition and growth has become stupid.  The extraction of the limited resources of the planet has to stop. Technological solutions need complementary cultural development.

Society requires new behaviours that we as humans do not have yet.  Many feel that we need to be and do differently and our feelings guide us to experiment. And it is an unsafe and heroic journey following the kind of inner truth he so values.

In spite of what JP suggests there is no well organised postmodern conspiracy of enemies of clear thought. He should know the open lefties are not that orderly and conscientious. I think what is happening is exactly what he observed in the historical development of human society. I assume he misses this, because he frames his narrative within the combative frame we need to step out of. But he assumes that those who stepped out of the rat race are resentful and desire the downfall of the rich. That flattening the dominance hierarchy is a bad thing. And downplaying competition too. And that winning is by definition more attractive to men than cooperation. All ideas outside his frame are explained that way. And there are enough people that oppose him exactly on that level of engagement. Which is sad, because it taints his great analysis of many developmental patterns. I agree with JP that ideas are always at war. Any political game is a war in which there are no rules and fair play is irrelevant. Hence my rejection of ideologies

From the perspective of my personal truth I can say that I have gone to great expense to stay faithful to my own beliefs. Well that is not entirely true. In some sense my convictions changed dramatically over time.

Our future lies in the pursuit of a more benigne cooperative society. Yes laced with some romantic belief that life would be more pleasant and peaceful. But willing to do the effort and sacrifice that comes with any heroic pursuit. In my case it meant stepping out of the rat race and face my inner demons first. One of the deepest was the horror of castration. To what led my grinding away in hell other than the loss of ego and from that overcoming the primitive desire to win by overpowering others. It is not about me anymore. It is just about contributing to our collective survival. That has little to do with abstract idealism.

The point seems that it is not about being against any of the old structures as such, but to superimpose a better more generative way of doing that will help us counter the current survival challenges.

And for that even men have to learn to cooperate and communicate in more constructive ways than ever before. I can feel that many men perceive this as a loss of their masculinity and reacting from that look for an enemy to overpower. Well we found the enemy and it is us. We have learnt to conquer the world. Now need to conquer ourselves.

The only real danger

that exists

is man himself.

Carl Gustav Jung

The new behaviour requires a consciousness mastering of superior ways if engaging between strangers. Non violent generative communication over debate and other power rituals. Just like physical fighting had to give way to intellectual debate, in the same way debate had to give way to generative explorations and collective problem solving. We have collective systematic design thinking for defined challenges.  We have appreciative enquiry. The parts are all there.

We are collectively becoming conscious of the existence of the unconscious and the way it rules our day

Alöna invited me to this new group Soulfie. I watched the recorded Hangout. 8 people seem to conceptualise an AI feedback algorithm that will help users callibrate their current state of being to their highest state. The users should own their data. Those are  securely saved on a distributed platform.
The trust in the developed product will depend on the reputation of the brand. The value of the neurofeedback will grow with the use and spread of it. All data will be aggregated to build a collectively validated trusted source.
Listening to this I think the ‘business case’ is rather straight forward. As long as the propriety core processes stay sound people will trust their data to be processed by that service. Every abuse would collapse the trust based structure immediately. So I see a small group of stewards/guardians dedicated to protect this system against abuse and corruption. Forks wil be abundant, which is fine.

Today once more the news reached us that bankers wilfully exploited complex constructions to steal form the collective. I feel anger about this which motivated me to understand at least those two points:

1. The driving principles behind it.
2. How this is possible today.

The principles are simple. Selfish behaviour is a given natural trait. If I do not have my intake I die. Eat or die. Take or perish. It is the first principle.
This primal survival program is moderated by an almost equally powerful pattern: The need need to fit into our tribe. Within the boundaries of the in-group certain habits rule. Because ‘we all’ behave in that certain way, it appears normal and ok. They are not consciously designed, nor explicitly stated. But if you break or openly disobey these unwritten rules, you will be certainly cast out.

Here also the first sins appear: If it goes by unnoticed, nobody objects unfair advantage. We are not totally honest by nature. The first selfish principle trumps over the social one. Research and game experiments have proven this beyond doubt. Honesty is situational.

The dynamics between those very fundamental natural human traits define the very root of the bankers behaviour and are not limited to those people. We all have it.

The banking world is by nature a exploitation scheme, that is not new. And only quantitively different from other transactional institutions. So summarising,  other than the scale, there is nothing new or different in what banks do. It is basically business as usual. It ‘only’ grew out of proportion because no effective natural or cultural counterforce seems to exist.

So the anger I feel is simply the emotional realisation that some guys are robbing the tribe and hence threatening my safety and comfort.

The point is that their self serving natural trait does not get any push back from society.
So how is that possible? I now reason from the standpoint that a healthy society is defined by the total health of all parts of that society. All people are in their optimal state. Their needs and contributions are balanced and effectively translated to their responsibilities and assets. In a simple model it would be possible to know who owns what and what responsibilities to the larger community come from that.

Yet that is not the case in todays society. Secretive ownership enable many to escape their fair duty towards society at the cost of those who can or will not cheat that way. Even this is a simplifications. Good willing people are part of this practise too. Most of us experience little choice about the use of their savings in the bank for example.
Risks and obligations are spread and hedged in such a way that at the end of the day it becomes impossible to discern who is accountable for what.
It is this vague and ambiguous domain that attracts the parasites, free riders en more deliberate profiteers that relentlessly exploit any possible weakness in the system.

The immune system of society needs updating.

My first attraction to the GCC had little to do with this promise of possible funding that created the momentum for it’s birth. Tammy’s ambitions were more inspiring, but I mainly participated following my need for better conversations. It was and still is my conviction that better conversations are a crucial part of a healthier society. So I need to understand what defines a good conversation. A complex quest it turned out to be. And the journey led me into many unforeseen experiences.

 

First it was all about surviving until the next day, then it was all about winning and to hell with the consequences, then it was all about succes at any cost!

And then you realize, OK…

Fine! So… And..?

Well…

… to really make it in the long run, I need a whole thriving planet around me.
The whole system should function well, if  humanity really wants to sustain existence.
That realisation changes the whole story. Externalising costs does not work anymore and all consequences need considering. A whole new ball game!

This Monday morning I invited Tammy to do the word SENSE using the Alphabet Code. Just to get a deeper sense of it.

I recorded it, so you can witness the decoding. Here it is:

Our economy is organised around maximising profit. Never enough. Winner takes all. As a result of that value system a handful ‘winners own’ half the planet. That is utter nonsense to my common sense. And as is shown, counterproductive to a thriving humanity. I know from experience value is naturally differently attributed. My smallest economy is my home. There it turns out other rules apply. They emerged as mechanisms to minimise the efforts necessary to fulfil my needs.

The frame is simple and straight forward. Every choice comes at a cost. Maximising profit today will have it’s price later. No externalising possible, nothing to extract from elsewhere. During my lifetime it turned out that the same truth ought to apply to the global economy. To me it makes sense that the natural economical laws that rule my household should ultimately rule the world. 

The current economy is based on an open model. Humanity exploits the world to it’s maximum. With the successful extraction of millennia old natural resources and externalisation of all costs we now threaten our own survival. We are littering and destroying our very own habitat. 

We need to invent a proper circular economy. And in order to do that, we need to redesign the old model. It is based on competition. That needs some fundamental rethinking. Collaboration is at least an essential counterweight. My current guess we need at least a healthy balance between those two extremes of this dichotomy. And different measures. Inside well organised companies it is all about minimising costs while maintaining at least the minimal viable output. That logic seems identical to the one that applies in my very own household.
So it would be interesting to think about how this can be scaled to the world economy.

The main message of Philip Shepherds book “Radical Wholeness” is gradually sinking in. With  innumerable effects and consequences. This one I want to note here: My body feels how my mind jumps around in response to the many impulses I become aware of.
I can now consciously perceive reflexes that have ruled my life so far. Like the dissociation when confronted with all sorts of bullshit and other things that are just ‘off’, just not in sync with the wholeness of the situation. I have labeled this sensitivity as my crap detector, but it seems to be more than this rational analytical faculty. Now I can also feel that this mental perspective is a result of a fear based reaction. It is like instinctively instantly jumping away as far as possible from this threatening unsafe experience. From the perceived wrongness. Leaving the body behind and observing from the ceiling. OMG. Breathe Harry…