|
Point, Counterpoint: A Subscriber Differs With My View
By John Renesch
The email below was sent by
Dr. John Armstrong, a London-based engineer, in response to my July 2010 editorial, “The New
Human: Stepping Into the Next Evolution of Our Species” which was adapted
from my forthcoming book. Below John’s email is my response. - JR
From John Armstrong:
A great read, your latest editorial - it made
me think enough to write the following.
I loved the distinction you draw between content
and context, and the analogy of the seabird in oil, which I hadn't heard
before. (I don't actually believe 'context includes form', but more that it
includes as you say the underlying assumptions, conscious and unconscious,
attitudes and beliefs - in short one's world view).
Looking in this way at your article, what you write
seems to imply a number of world views that you hold:
1. Evolution is something we can influence ('stepping
into the next evolution of our species')
2. We can change the context, ie we can each
personally take a decision to change our world view ('free choice will replace
desperation')
3. There is something we need to do now, and it is
up to each of us individually to decide, and if we fail to do so we
will be disadvantaged ('we are at another such milestone... let us
not squander the opportunity').
I would like to suggest an alternative world view:
1a. Evolution (transformational
change) happens unconsciously through selective benefit - we can only be
aware of it afterwards
2a. We cannot change context: the most we can do is
notice what is happening now... or to be accurate, what has just happened
3a. There is nothing we need to do now, except
notice our process.
Your final paragraph reminds me of the Hunger
Project, part of the EST movement in the 1980s, when a group believing very
much in the power of context, declared that the global ending of hunger by
1990 was an idea whose time had come. If enough people could be persuaded to
sign up to a commitment of their belief that the ending of hunger was indeed an
idea whose time had come, then it would happen. Of course, it didn't.... one
would suppose because there was insufficient selective benefit to those who
were not hungry. On the other hand, there was enough selective benefit to end
the Cold War, bring Mandela to power and so on.
For me, talk of lofty visions, the Great Dream
or the next evolution is not only pointless; it is actually a distraction
from noticing what is going on and the appreciation of the present
moment, which is the gateway to real transformation.
Kind regards
John Armstrong
My response:
John, thanks so much for your thoughtful comments
concerning my July editorial, a view which will also be expressed in my new
book when it comes out.
We definitely disagree, and thankfully with respect,
on all three points you raise. So let me respond point by point.
Evolution has mostly happened unconsciously as you
suggest. But the past need not dictate the future. We humans possess the power
to choose and, as addressed in the book, we can make the choice to evolve
consciously – on purpose. Is it unprecedented? You bet! It will not occur if we
remain passive and can only occur if sufficient numbers of us choose to move
ourselves and our communities into full adulthood.
Secondly, we cannot only change context we have
precedent. History is loaded with examples where people have brought about
shifts in context, from Copernicus to Mandela, Gandhi to the Magna Carta, the modern
democracy movement, and public attitudes about drinking and driving here in the
U.S. in addition to others. Is this shift in context I’m addressing a larger
scale? Yes, indeed, but that does not preclude it occurring. Again, this is a
matter of conscious choosing.
Thirdly, your point that there is nothing to do but
“notice our process” rings of resignation, perhaps even cynicism. I recognize
this is also the view of many Eastern teachings about acceptance. My view is
that the times call for responsible action. As the “Serenity Prayer” says (in
part), “…the serenity to accept the things I cannot change and the courage to
change the things I can…” Besides being in our nature to explore and expand our
horizons, most people I’ve polled or seen polled realize we are still in our
adolescence as a species, having avoided full adulthood with the
responsibilities that accompany this higher level of maturation. It is not only
our destiny to grow up but also what many highly functioning adolescents want.
Regarding your mentioning the Hunger Project, that
was over thirty years ago when the idea of context change was in its infancy.
Since then we have grown two generations of academics, consultants and leaders
who are informed on this subject. We know a lot more than we did in 1980.
Again, John, I thank you for writing and allowing
me to share this exchange with my subscribers.
All the best,
John