This page contains tanswers I received to an email survey about wisdom and what might constitute a wisdom society. Each answer is separated by a solid line.
With several respondents, I had a bit of correspondence, which I've included here, with each note separated by a * * *.
All respondents are from the U.S. unless otherwise indicated.
THE ORIGINAL LETTER FROM TOM ATLEE
Dear colleague,
I'm writing you in search of insights regarding the vision many of us call "a wisdom culture." I'm also interested, more generally, in the social role of wisdom. I think of you as one of the transformational thinkers most in tune with this realm. So I'd be grateful for your responses -- brief or extensive -- to the questions below, and/or anything else you'd like to share along these lines.
In mid-January I'll be writing an article about this, and would love to reflect on your comments before then. I will share with you what I learn from the answers I receive. Your responses will also influence a book I'm writing, and help frame some projects being considered at the Co-Intelligence Institute.
If you know of anyone else who should be consulted on this, please do pass this message to them.
I know you are busy and that this comes "out of the blue". That makes me all the more appreciative for any consideration you can give this. Thank you for your ongoing work for the world.
Coheartedly,
Tom Atlee
This letter was sent to about three dozen people who I believed had some connection with significant efforts to understand transformational work as the creation of a wisdom society. As Bob Stilger noted, they were all U.S. citizens, so he sent the survey on to a number of transformationally oriented associates of his in other countries. Below are the responses of those who agreed to share their thoughts publicly.
Thanks for the opportunity to ponder these questions....
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
I can't answer the question as asked. It assumes "we" (I assume society in general) are engaged in "collective decision-making". Since I believe that we are NOT engaged in collective decision-making, there is nothing in which to bring "more wisdom". I believe we are engaged in a collective process Vaclav Havel called "auto-totality", a totalitarian state on auto-pilot. No collective decisions are being made. We are bound by invisible ties to each other. All of our individual movements pull each of us closer to the chasm. We aren't DECIDING to do this, collectively or otherwise.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
Technology is intelligence about THINGS. Wisdom is intelligence about RELATIONSHIPS. We live in a technology-rich and wisdom-poor society. Wisdom is not generally valued in this society. We don't have success models based on what happens if I get more wisdom (I know what I get if have more technology).
One of the three main purposes for Commonway is to build tools for social-cultural engineering. Another way of saying this is that Commonway builds wisdom tools, the actual mechanisms by which people build and maintain relationships with each other.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
Again, I think your question is presumptive. Except perhaps at the most local of levels, we lack collective decision-making processes. While we talk about democracy, there are very few instances where an average person actually gets to practice it.
So, the question should be: What should we do to create wise collective decision making processes?
The answer to THAT question:
1. In general, have all power processes managed at the lowest possible level. By "power processes", I mean anything that involves access to information, access to resources, or access to the decision-making process. 2. have all public schools operate on democratic principles, so that children have a real experience of democracy at an early age. 3. have all corporations provide voting and equity shares to all stakeholders. 4. have citizen oversight of all legislative and executive power.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
The biggest single factor is cultural. In general, those of us who are attempting to create a global wisdom all look alike, act alike, and think alike. This has all the makings of a "wisdom elite". For us to create a true global wisdom society, we must build empowered relationships with all cultures, all ideologies, all peoples, and all beings.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
Tom, I have a 20-page paper coming to you, hopefully before the end of the week, that addresses that question.
* * *
Thanks for your answers, Sharif. I LIKE the distinction between technology and wisdom. (I've heard "indigenous science" described similarly). And I look forward to your paper.
The "auto-totality" dynamics are certainly major factors in what's going on (although I think we can still usefully use the concept of "decision-making" which is even used in automated systems like computers). Do you know of anyone who has articulated a model of auto-totality dynamics in American/Global society?
It might be useful to distinguish between collective and participatory decision making. My impression is that most Americans believe that collective decision-making goes on (through representative systems, particularly) -- even when they don't feel they have much of a voice in that -- i.e., decisions that determine social policy and behavior are made by those authorized to make them on behalf of the whole society. They might want that decision-making to be more participatory or at least more representative or reflective of the public interest, but when Congress or the President decides something, I think most Americans think that a collective decision has been made.
If this is true, than telling them they live in an auto-totality would, it seems, serve to marginalize us from them, increasing the "wisdom elite" factor. We need a constant effort to translate our understandings of what is going on into terms that are real to the majority (yes? no?). That's why I'm working along the lines of "adding wisdom to our democracy" as a formula. Early indicators in my world suggest that most folks fully agree that we need more wisdom to guide what we collectively are doing -- not more knowledge, but more wisdom. They can see we're headed for trouble and we need wisdom to avoid it. And, since most Americans believe we live in a democracy (as problematic as it may seem to them, cf Churchill's famous quote), I'm hoping I can put 2 and 2 together to make 4 -- a wiser democracy. There are LOTS of tools to make that possible, and I'm hoping to help weave them into a coherent movement/vision...
More later. It's a hot subject.
Coheartedly,
tom
* * *
Howdy--
I really, really tried to put aside your email and work on what I'm "supposed" to be doing today... If I don't get my assignments done, it will be all your fault.
You said:
> > My impression is that most Americans believe that > collective decision-making goes on ...
But, isn't our problem that "most Americans believe" things that are somewhere between foolish and insane? Most Americans believe:
-- anything that makes more money is good -- we have a benign foreign policy -- we can burn fossil fuels and drive SUVs forever -- there are no cons equences to having two centuries of slavery and a century of apartheid -- we won the Vietnam War -- we can cut down all the trees without negative consequences
From this viewpoint, saying "most Americans believe that collective decision-making goes on..." doesn't say anything. Our problem is the American mythological belief system. Mythology is okay, as long as it helps you deal with reality in a positive, sustainable way. Ours doesn't.
Another way of looking at it: does the person who "decides" to purchase a Lincoln Navigator also "decide" to waste fossil fuels? I think not. I don't think fossil fuels are part of the decision process, not as much as air conditioning, leather seats, exterior paint and the perceived "safety" of sitting behind four tons of steel.
And yet another way of looking at it: my 20 pager starts from the premise: what would I do if I were President in the days following September 11th? We all know what Bush did. Most Americans agree with him, some reluctantly or out of a sense of "what else could we do". A vociferous minority do not agree with him, but do not articulate what they would have done if they were in his shoes. They play armchair quarterback, without ever putting on their cleats and walking on the field.
So, the 20 pager started out as an exercise in personal decision-making. I would add that it started as an exercise in "wise" decision-making, but that would make me a "wise man", something I don't believe one can claim for oneself....
Remember John Anderson, who ran for President on the basis that the federal gasoline tax should go up to $5.00 a gallon, and the money used for mass transit and alternatives? Think about what this society would look like if we had put that in place decades ago. If we had the POWER to put in place the things that we knew would lead to a better relationship with the Earth and a better relationship with all beings?....
The only evidence (that I know of) of an attempt at a "wisdom state" is the Czech Republic under Havel. My experience is that people are inspired by him, but vote their fears. And, the Velvet Revolution has seriously eroded over the past 10 years.
Commonway's experiment with the Three Valleys Project (3VP) yielded an interesting model for an evolution of democracy. We called it "weak consensus" or "democracy-with-a-veto". Everyone in the community gets a vote, and everyone also gets a veto. Usual majority rules voting, but after every vote, the group is polled: "can everyone live with this decision?" If ANYBODY says "no", the vote is thrown out and the process starts again. It means that majorities are forced to take into consideration the position of the minorities. It also means people can feel very strong about positions, knowing that they have the power to stop the process when it gets out of hand. (There is great social pressure NOT to exercise the veto: stopping the train can be very unpopular.) This process worked great for 3VP, dealing with 2-3 ethnic groups with very different agendas.
Anyway... this has rambled on long enough.
Peace,
Sharif
* * *
These are all excellent points, Sharif, but I don't share one assumption: That democracy is primarily about voting and majority rule. Democracy is about "rule by the (ordinary) people". Voting is one approach. Majority rule is another. Representation (republicanism) is another. Our system is allegedly based on those three. There is MUCH more to democracy than that, both in practice and in theory/possibility.
For example, once you START from the fact that we can generate considerable wisdom among groups of 12-1200 ordinary people IN THE RIGHT CONDITIONS (which you already know about and work with), then the questions (to me) have become (a) how can such a group fairly embody (reflect) the real diversity of the community/country from which it was selected and (b) how can the wisdom it comes up with actually influence public policy, institutional practices and mass behavior? A LOT of work has been done on (a). People are just beginning to figure out how (b) might be done. This is a different adventure.
At the point where the people can generate real wisdom and that wisdom can be empowered to govern, you can have your cake and eat it too. The people become the wise dictator and you don't have to kill your opposition to pull it off. The "democracy doesn't look like such a good idea" problem fades away.
At least that's what I'm gambling my life on.
Coheartedly,
Tom
A worthy inquiry. Thanks for including me!! A few quick thoughts of some things that I might say that the folks on your list might not touch on.
I think that there are many who are becoming adept at stimulating collective intelligence and wisdom. We at Fetzer are concerned with assuring that there is a deep spiritual element and foundation to this intelligence. The founding fathers of this country shared a deep spiritual underpinning to their deliberations. The separation of church and state, as essential as it has been, has resulted in much of our public policy discussions being held without the presence of the most essential ingerdient--spirit. Our only hope in discovering the spiritual wisdome we need for the challenges ahead is to tap into some higher intelligence that comes from spirit. Most of the people on your list, if not all, operate in this domain, and know about creating containers for spirit to become manifest. How do we describe this element without scaring people away?
* * *
Thanks much for this, Tom. I'm so delighted to hear from you.
If you can give me a bit more about WHY you (and Fetzer) consider
the spiritual element critical -- and/or how you think spiritual-based
wisdom and non-spiritual-based wisdom differ -- that would be
immensely helpful to my efforts to weave all this together. But
that's only if you have the time, which I know is very limited.
Coheartedly, Tom
* * *
Hi Tom, Not sure you can tell the difference between spiritual and non-spiritual based wisdom. I do know that we've been talking at Fetzer about the difference between folks who are utilizing spirit in service of a certain agenda that they have, and those who are serving spirit and following the agendas that it sets. We are wary of activists or anyone for that matter who use spirit and the gifts of spiritual practice for their agendas. The Nazis did this very effectively. Sports teams use meditation and collective practices all the time. The difference is in the process and the intended outcome. At Fetzer we try to focus on developing a container, and a process for bringing forward wisdom, and a diverse group of folks, and the right focusing questions. And we let go of outcome and question the assumptions and agendas we have. And if we do these things effectively, if we make enough of a clearing, then I'm convinced that what comes through is spiritual guidance and wisdom. It doesn't look any difference from the outside perhaps from something that's been cooked up strategically by some other means. But vibrationally I think there is a difference, and that vibration has a ring to it that lives inside of people's hearts. So, at Fetzer, we're intent on studying those conditions that help this process to happen, vs. what the wisdom looks like.
I hope this helps.
* * *
Well, hello again Tom!! I'm delighted with this interchange. I think Fetzer's inquiry described below is a very powerful one.
I hear your distinction between process and outcome, and that Fetzer is primarily interested in processes that will facilitate opening to spirit, aware that outcome-orientation can restrict the free flow of spirit or subjugate the power of spirit to egotistical or ideological agendas. In contrast, when a group is unattached to outcome (i.e., living in the present) and open to each other and to deeper/higher realms, you trust that what comes through will be spiritual wisdom, and that its guidance will transcend egoic/ideological agendas. You see the clean spirituality of the resulting wisdom as more a property of the process and the openness which invoked it, than of the final statement -- except that such a statement may have a certain resonance with human hearts, that can't necessarily be analyzed, but which can be very potent. Fetzer would like to gain greater insight into how to dependably generate the kind of group openness that invokes the flow of spiritual wisdom. Am I understanding you correctly?
On the chance that I understand so far, I have two thoughts. One regards the effort to collectively contact spirituality that is free of egoic or ideological distortions. The other regards the use of such small groups for the generation of wisdom useable by a larger community to address its collective problems.
My introduction to collective spiritual guidance was during my rearing as a Quaker. I suspect you know that Quakerism is one of the few Western spiritual traditions that believes in and practices seeking collective spiritual guidance without the intervention of human authorities of any kind. They use a spiritual form of consensus process for their "meetings for worship for business" <http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-Quakerbusiness.html>. And yet many Quakers have questions about whether certain aspects of such collective seeking are spiritual or not. They ask: What are the signs that spirit is present, and what are the signs that ego and culture and presumption are shaping what comes through? Sometimes they joke that spirit coming through a person is like water coming through the pipes: it tasted like the pipes! I can't help wondering if there may be value in questioning our assumptions (in a dialogue sense) about the spirituality of what comes up in such group efforts, and if there might be things we can actually LEARN and KNOW about this through some kind of experimentation. This last sentence is not an assertion, but an inquiry. If you're interested in this realm of possibility, I'd be happy to share further thoughts and would love to hear yours.
Regarding the usefulness of wisdom-finding groups for addressing community or societal problems, I've been inspired by the Tom Hurley section of CENTERED ON THE EDGE, pages 35-44 (e.g., "People...enter the cauldron with the truth of their experience and then collectively simmer until something new is created for the whole community -- not just for those inside the container" and "Institutional change is the key variable and central means by which larger culture is shaped") and by your letter inviting response to CENTERED ON THE EDGE, where you spoke of "applying collective intelligence to real problems and real situations and communities around the world."
It seems to me that Fetzer is focusing on the spiritual wisdom-finding (or generating) capacity of small groups. If Fetzer is indeed interested in having that capacity benefit whole communities and societies, it seems worthwhile to explore how that might happen. Here are a few of the many explorable possibilities:
a) The work of the group affects the esoteric collective field in beneficial ways (as in the Maharish effect or Arny Mindell's worldwork).
b) The participants were chosen because they had connections or status that enables them to personally impact the society/community outside of the group, so they take the wisdom they discover out into their high-impact community work.
c) The group comes up with something that is (1) well publicized and (2) resonant with the hearts and minds of so many citizens that it transforms their consciousness and/or behavior in ways that beneficially transform the community's problem(s). For this option, should we attend to all the factors that foster legitimate resonance (such as spiritual wisdom AND the group having diversity that reflects the diversity of the larger community AND evidence of impartiality, etc.).
d) The group comes up with something that influences political authorities (either by effectively advising them or by popular pressure or vote).
e) The group IS the authority. What it says goes. (This is the least desirable option, probably -- a bit too theocratic for democratic tastes.)
I offer these five possibilities just to sketch out some areas of exploration that might be addressed IF, indeed, Fetzer truly wants to explore empowering the group wisdom to influence a larger community than the immediate participants. Any of these approaches would benefit from further research.
I want to note, however, that all of them require some attention to outcome. Thankfully, the participants and facilitators directly involved in the group don't have to attend to the outcome of their process, so they can be free of that spirit-restricting factor. However, the designers or choosers of the process would need to CHOOSE a process that will generate a TYPE of outcome which has been DEMONSTRATED to have the capacity to INFLUENCE the community in some way. If this is not attended to, then we cannot be sure we're actually having a beneficial impact on community problems. When we are "applying collective intelligence to real problems" is it not germane to inquire about the outcome of our application?
So I would recommend an effort to separate "attention to outcome" within the group process from "attention to outcome" from outside the group process. For example, I can imagine that three processes are found that are particularly effective at facilitating group connection to spirit. It would be valid to ask (and test) which one had the greatest potential for serving one of the functions in (a)-(e) above -- or to explore contexts that best allow them to generate spiritual wisdom that was both authentic AND useful to the community.
I would value hearing your thoughts on all this -- AND I am aware that these issues could draw you into a deeper correspondence than you may have wanted, given that it all started out with a mere survey. You went off email earlier for good reason and I don't want to presume on your time and willingness. Feel free to bow out if you need to. And, if you find these inquiries useful, know that I am very happy to continue the exploration for our mutual benefit.
Be well.
Coheartedly,
Tom
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
I'd put it up around a 9 or 10. However, I see it less as something that we have to "make happen" or "DO", and more a matter of inviting such wisdom to emerge from the depths of our hearts and minds, in our speech, and as a natural response to what our times seem to be calling for.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
I see wisdom, in part, as collective best thinking about the whole and our relationship with it in all its parts. It has more to do with the quality of relationships than with knowledge or facts as such.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
Lobby for direct democracy, promote wisdom councils, facilitate conversation cafes. Keep widening the conversation.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
A "culture" that embraces and ritualizes "The Great Story" - an inclusive, scientifically satisfying, spiritually nurturing narrative that powerfully moves and inspires people from all walks of life, and empowers us to find and fulfill our own unique role(s) in the "Great Work" of ensuring a just, healthy, beautiful, and sustainably life giving world for future generations of all species.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
Giving people an inspiring, empowering vision - a big picture that engenders trust and inspires commitment, love, and compassionate/passionate action.
Teaching skills of heart sharing, democracy, consensus, conflict transformation, dynamic facilitation, non-violent citizen engagement, etc.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
Waal, I guess I'd give it a 10. Co-stupidity is a hard thing to survive. But wisdom culture is going to be vastly wider than just collective decision-making. I'd see the role of wisdom in collective decision making as of great practical importance, but vastly narrower than what's required for the future.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
My hit on "wisdom" is that when we use the term, it reflects different situations:
In general, wisdom is the more inclusive term than its alternatives.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
I think that many of the things you document point in the right direction in terms of the processes that can and should be adopted. The first problem is simply to raise the issue of wisdom, and to demand that it be present. We live in a profoundly unwise culture, however, and that fact needs a public airing, getting conversations going about it. And many different institutions need to reflect back and forth to one another a demand for wisdom and an insistence that others' processes and one's own processes be more wise. Negative feedback is always needed. Many decision-makers want to avoid criticism and ridicule from others at all costs, and if others keep pointing out that they have behaved unwisely, will soon start adjusting their behavior, and adjusting the output of their organizations and institutions to the rest of society.
Getting a demand for wisdom, and a discussion of what it is in different contexts is thus an essential part of the process. The harder issues seem to me to center on collectively creating various "holding environments" for development processes that support the natural unfolding, and the teaching, of wisdom, both at the personal level and the cultural level.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
I see 5 huge sectors of society and culture that need to become wise, and would arrange them in a kind of fat-cross-shape:
I see the Wisdom Culture as a whole system idea.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
This is a whole book, and that is what I'm writing. But take it for granted that I see Civil Society as a key part of what needs to be made wiser (because it creates culture), so that it can take a co-equal place with the Polity and the Economy, and that it will be located across the Community, Noetic and Lifeworld sectors, and that it will not only try to change those sectors, but also The System and the Ecology.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making? 11... but i now realize that this is a 100-year project, not a 10-year one. we must lay foundations now, but there's so much momentum for debate, endless unresolved discussion, polarization, conversation-to-win, etc. that building this wisdom capacity will take time.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom? in the conversation cafes i've been learning about the 'magic in the middle' - that wisdom seems to be what arises from the synergy of a conversation where there's listening, inquiry, reflections, etc. like jim [jim rough, creator of dynamic facilitation] says, it's transformational rather than transactional (which is where i'd put knowledge, understanding, rightness). wisdom happens 'upon reflection'. wisdom arises from beneath the rational mind - it has heart sewn into it. wisdom nourishes everyone, not just the people who 'win.'
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times? i'm doing what i can see. what WE SHOULD do is still beyond me.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"? love, intimacy, caring, slow-time, intuition, capacity to receive and send and influence subtle energies, poetry, critical thinking, discernment, participation in many circles of inquiry and support.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.) again, this is too big for me now. perhaps a starting point would be to train people in the known practices that open you up to wisdom: "your money or your life" NVC [nonviolenct communication] Dialogue permaculture mindfulness enneagram wisdom traditions, including the great western religions, the great eastern religions and indigenous wisdom knowledge of the living mantle of the earth knowledge of our evolutionary journey dynamic facilitation consensus process world cafe meeting facilitation organic gardening slow food yoga poetry singing - especially with others - playing 'new' games simulation games sitting with 'the other' - through travel or diversity experiences conflict resolution skills well, you get the picture...
* * *
dear tom, a couple more thoughts. rambling.... these are intimations in the early morning, not considered opinions...
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
i am now suspecting that wisdom arises as one knows that "there's always more to it than that." It arises in humility, knowing there is no 'right' answer, only the best one can see at the moment. it rests on the paradox of the basic oneness of the universe and the fact of differentiation, that all elements in the oneness have a unique history and destiny. it rests on knowing we must act with partial understanding. it may seem that 'great teachers' speak with certainty, but as you befriend them, you know that they know how difficult it is to have certainly about one's interpretations or actions. knowledge can help, but it is also partial.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
there is a strange disjunct between wisdom and decision making. wisdom seems to require deliberation, either internally or with others. perhaps that's the function of the supreme court - courts in general. they are to be the wisdom component of our collective decision making. yet the quickening pace of life, the need to ACT, does not allow time for a wisdom process. is there such a thing as 'fast wisdom.' or is that just another american pop psych notion? this isn't trivial. 9/11 has shown me that at an animal level we MUST have safety - it's deep biology to protect one's territory because territory = survival. this is the muscle function: to react, protect, take a stand, be firm, fight. when the body has been traumatized (the physical body, the body of a people or nation), deliberation isn't always in order. triage is. staunching the flow of blood is. one has to deal or die. so there is a function for protective force - as well as for wisdom.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
tom, i'm not really answering your questions but rapping on wisdom... i also think wisdom arises from surrendering to mystery - that there is an inner dimension of life that cannot be controlled and may only in moments of grace be apprehended in full glory. the 'separation of church and state' and of 'science and spirit' has unleashed material creativity among humans - and most of us would not be without some of the outcomes of this creativity, from hot water to indoor plumbing to computers to public health to... - but the cost has been to marginalize wisdom. i wonder if we can sneak up on a 'wisdom culture' through techniques for inviting wisdom - circles, dynamic facilitation, meditation, chanting - without addressing the core assumptions about the place of spirit. wisdom cultures exist on this planet... indigenous people LIVE IN SPIRIT. so the western assumptions are wiping out wisdom cultures and we need to take a stand for spirit from which techniques can help. and then we've opened a deep fear and deep wound. theocracy. taliban. falwell. the church of england. we equate spiritual law with dominator societies. without this work, i think wisdom as technique or process will continue as a spice but not the meal.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
As my kids used to say, "Easy ten, no ties, no beats" (No problem giving this one a ten, nothing ties it, and nothing surpasses it).
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
Yes, wisdom goes to the intuitive, non-verbal depths of our knowing and if we are to realize the potentials of our self-given name of homo-sapiens-sapiens (or the beings that are doubly wise or "know that we know"), then we need to claim the importance of the intuitive dimension of our lives which goes beyond the analyzing intellect.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
Work on both the local scale, face-to-face conversations about our common future as well as regional, national, and global electronically-mediated conversations about our common future. We need to pay attention, both to our own lives in our local communities, and to the life of our nations and planet. We need to mobilize the immense power of the communications revolution for the purpose of becoming a species that learns its way into a sustainable and compassionate future.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
A wisdom culture pays attention to what it is doing--a wisdom culture is reflective, conscious, witnessing, observing. A wisdom culture reflects on its choices, chews on them, digests them into its very soul, and then chooses on behalf of multiple generations. A wisdom culture uses all of the tools available to achieve the highest level of dialogue and understanding about our common future.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
Television programming dominates the communication and culture of modern societies. As a transformational initiative for change, an extraordinary cultural shift could occur if communities came together and began using the public airwaves to communicate publicly to television broadcasters about their strict legal responsibility "to serve the public interest." Non-partisan, community-sponsored, televised forums could be developed to hold the mass media accountable in the court of mass public judgment. Using live polling of a pre-selected, scientific sample of citizens,"Feedback Forums" could use the power of publicly expressed views to promote a more mature and balanced diet of television programming. With the public declaring its interests publicly and regularly, it could incline the television industry (and thus our entire culture) in a more healthy direction of communication. Work for Citizen Feedback Forums is being launched in the San Francisco Bay Area by Our Voice a non-profit and non-partisan organization.
Other thoughts: see my website and the report, "Collective Consciousness and Cultural Healing" which is filled with relevant materials.
Here are a few quick thoughts per your request. You questions are too embracing to answer with any depth -- but here is what comes most quickly to mind.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
Our future well-being and likely our survival depends on it. But we must be careful how we use the term. I more often speak of "cultural maturity" simply because the word wisdom is so often used to points toward a sort of philosophical or spiritual idealism that won't get us to where we need to go. But in its full meaning, wisdom is a grand term -- and with regard to your question, the answer is clearly ten.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
With regard to knowledge and understanding, wisdom is about more than information however elegantly put together. Wisdom is a kind of rightness, but not all rightness is wisdom. A child feeling the impulse to hug his father may be not just right, but particularly beautiful in his rightness. But that is not wisdom. Wisdom involves understanding and rightness, but includes also a recognition of the relativity of rightness (how what is right may be different, and in particular ways, for different people and in different contexts), deep responsibility for the consequences of one's thoughts and actions, a comfort with ultimate limits (death, the final limit is the ultimate teacher of wisdom), and at least the intent to appreciate the full systemic complexity of questions one wishes to engage (culturally mature wisdom draws a creative circle around juxtapositions such as personal and collective, scientific and spiritual, mind and body, the perennial and the evanescent.)
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
Huge question -- worthy of many pages. Short answer? Work at it together ceaselessly with a ten ton bullshit detector and good tools for understanding when cla ims for wisdom stop short.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
More complete ways of being, more mature relationship to leadership and responsibility, more mature relationship with nature and the future ..... the list is too long.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
Tom -- can't give a quick answer. It has been much of what my life has been about.
Tom-- Here are my responses to your survey.
1. 10
2. 1) the subject matter-- One would not refer to a wise decision
about
frivolous matters--wisdom has to do with our understanding and
capacity to
deal effectively with the major issues in life. 2) Wisdom requires
a depth,
breadth and long range time frame in our perception that other
modes of
knowing do not. 3) Wisdom arises out of a balance of ways of knowing,
relying
on inner knowing, experiential knowing, as well as cognitive functioning
and
academic knowledge. 4) Wisdom has to do with discernment for what
is true,
right and lasting, thereby more fundamental in its inquiry than
the other
modes you mentioned.
3. We first of all need wiser leaders, who are better educated
and trained.
We need different contexts for our decision-making, wider, broader
and
longer-range as I have said earlier. We need more diversity of
perspectives.
We need wiser questions and framing. We need an emphasis on learning
in our
decision-making, with appropriate feedback also aimed at learning.
4. What is a Global Wisdom Society?
One answer is that none of us knows what it will be, as we
are just now
giving birth to it, and like any child, it will develop and mature
in
magnificent ways that we can not imagine.
So where does the term come from and why do we use it? The
term arises out
of what is referred to as the "push-pull" of our time,
by which we mean that
we are simultaneously being pushed by our major societal problems
and pulled
by our deepest, evolutionary human characteristics to move in
a particular
direction, which some of us optimists believe to be towards a
global wisdom
society (GWS).
While we can't know the details of what the future holds, we
do have some
indications. One could list a hundred likely characteristics of
a GWS, but
to try to keep it somewhat simple, I have identified five dominant
characteristics that I think help to explain what we envision
when we use
the term "global wisdom society".
A. GWS will be characterized by a planetary perspective. Families,
tribes, organizations and nations will still exist and still be
important,
but we will recognize that at the most fundamental level we are
all part of
a living universe, one in many and many in one. This perspective
will lead
in turn to an appreciation for the natural cycle of events, a
longer view of
our world, more patience and appreciation for how today leads
into tomorrow.
It will also result in more recognition that our security lies
not in
isolation or control, but in relationships and participation.
B. Wisdom and right action will become the highest ideal, the
goal for
both individual and collective action. Wisdom is defined as discernment
for
what is true, right and lasting, recognition for what is service
to the
whole, surrendering to "thy will not mine be done".
Wisdom and right action
will be honored and appreciated even more than the accumulation
of wealth,
power and personal pleasure that seem too frequently to be at
the apex of
our current society.
C. Multiple ways of knowing will be honored and taught, because
they
are recognized as the means to wisdom and right action. Substantive
knowledge about our world will still be highly prized, but will
be augmented
by life experience and inner ways of knowing. Diverse cultural
experiences,
religious traditions and practices will all be valued as adding
to the
richness of life and contributing to our understanding and experiencing
the
totality of life.
D. Learning, inquiry and openness will be valued above certainty,
as we
come to recognize that our world and lives are ever changing and
evolving,
that change rather than continuity is the constant. This child-like,
or
beginners mind, will lead to a sense of awe, wonder, curiosity
and deeper
appreciation for life and for each other and the universe.
E. We will come to recognize that we are deeply and profoundly
interconnected, that everything is connected to everything else,
that there
are subtle connections that we are not generally aware of, much
like the
root connections underground of a grove of aspens. Everything
is both a
whole and a part of something greater, and everything is both
cause and
effect. Causation is downward as well as upward, originating in
our thoughts
and emotions and impacting externally as well as emanating in
the physical
world, and causation is both nonlocal and nonlinear as well as
local and
linear. Wiser individuals; more honoring and use of different
ways of
knowing; appreciation for diversity; an emphasis on life-long
learning,
different vision, goals and central project (learning is key here);
systems
change so theat the incentives are different; support for conversations
that
matter.
5 I personally want to put my energy into trying
to model and build models
of a better way of living. I tend to believe that one of the major
forces
that led to the changes in the USSR was the widespread recognition
that
there was a better way to live than they were enjoying. I like
to believe
that a similar approach will result in the emrgence of a global
wisdom
society, namely that enough people will be living from a new paradigm
and
the satisfaction, joy and rightness of their chioice will influence
others.
I like Meg Wheatley's approach of conversations that matter. I
also think
continual hard science research in the subtle realms and higher
human
capacities is important, in that science continues to be the dominant
truth
system in the West and we have not yet developed very much some
of our most
critical human capacities. So, I come out on the side of deep
personal
inquiry and inner work, living the change we want, sharing with
others our
inquiry and learning, research to validate our subtle connections
and the
development of some of our consciousness and heart related capacities,
and
eductional programs to develop both consciousness and heart related
capacities and wisdom among all ages.
Thanks so much for including me in a group that I feel has far more wisdom than I about this subject. But, be that as it may, my responses are after each of your questions below.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
It's a "10." The evolution of consciousness/increase of wisdom is what our work here is all about.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
As above, I link wisdom more with consciousness in the largest sense--consciousness of our place in the universe, of how the universe works, of our relationships with other humans and the whole natural world, of our own life journey and the things that have affected us, of the nature of humanity and how we tend to act when under stress, etc., of how we should treat one another to maximize our effectiveness and compassion.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
I'm a firm believer in first exposing people to what we're learning about the universe, and doing this in the form of story. We do have a common origin story, one full of awe and wonder. It teaches us how interdependent we are and how we are completely dependent upon the natural world for our survival. Then, there are the other things I mentioned above in #2. Finally, there are technologies for dialogue and decision-making that could vastly improve the answers we get when we address the great issues of today. These should be widely taught.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
Well, what I said in #2 applies here again. At FGC, our vision is a world in which "love is the prevailing human function." So love and compassion are crucial to a wisdom culture. They are the mark of a mature human species. Then, there are other aspects, perhaps derivative to the basics, but important. Such things as ritual, rites of passage, dance, ceremonly, music, community. All these things are needs we as social creatures have. If not present, some aspect of ourselves will not be nurtured and expressed.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
I'm biased because we're an educational foundation and that's what I believe in. So, courses, seminars, publications, films, activities, projects, and a community of people to together live out and model what I've described above are critical. Going after systemic change I think should be done opportunistically--when and where there's an opening. Otherwise, going after the power centers can be a real waste of time because they cannnot hear the message from their place of being. So, again, develop and live the model, building from the grassroots, and make you pitch to the powers that be when it is opportune. (A good example of the latter is when an FGC team and some Afghans from this area went to DC in November to push for helping in Afghanistan. Everyone there was receptive to forward-looking ideas.
* * *
Dear Joe,
Thanks for your response. I am sorry to be so late in responding. I've been sick for the last week, just getting back to work.
Let me see if I am getting you rightly.
I hear you saying -- that we need to understand more deeply the nature of all our relationships -- to ourselves, each other and nature -- that the essence of positive relationship is love -- that forms of meaningful community (e.g., rituals) support positive relationship -- that if more people knew the New Story, they would develop a wiser view of their relationships -- that if people were given good conversational and decision-making processes to use, they would be able to apply their relationship-wisdom collectively to create the truly wise decisions we need and -- that, strategically, it is wisest to focus on popular education in these things, while remaining prepared for moments when it is ripe to talk to leaders.
Do I have the essence of your thoughts correctly here?
Coheartedly, Tom
PS: Out of curiousity, have you read the new little book SEVEN WORDS THAT CAN CHANGE THE WORLD by Joseph R. Simonetta. I think there are some synergies awaiting between your work and his....
* * *
Dear Tom Yes, good summary of my comments. I haven't read Simonetta's book. Sounds interesting. Joe
I got your inquiry about "a wisdom culture" from Wink Franklin. I've been interacting with Wink for a while now on what a Global Wisdom Society is and what it might take to help create such a society. And I have a small grant from the Fetzer Institute to explore it. The following are brief responses to your questions.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
10+
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
Good question! I suppose, given all the talk about a wisdom society or a wisdom culture, it is asking what the heck is "wisdom" anyway.
To give it a shot, I might say that what we call wisdom has a couple components: 1. How we view our reality (which includes ourselves, each other, and the world/universe) 2. How we act/live
Since we all have a view of reality and act, what we call wisdom must reflect the accuracy and completeness of our view of reality (our worldview) coupled with how well we act/live in accord with it. Among all us humans, this obviously exists in varying degrees. And it is not "clearly distinguishable" where the threshold is that passes over into "wisdom". Some people think our current leaders are acting wisely; other people, who may feel they have a broader view, think our current leaders are not very wise at all.
So, where does this leave it?
First, to close the loop a bit with the terms of your question, I would say that our view of reality (our worldview) reflects knowledge and understanding; and acting/living can reflect rightness. So, wisdom includes "knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc."; yet, it is something more than their sum.
Second, to illustrate what we call "wisdom", given that it is in degrees, I would say that it would help to see what its ultimate extreme is. So, I'll conjecture that wisdom has an ideal form, a Platonic-like "form". And I'll say that two points follow from this conjecture: o We are wise to the degree that we embody the ideal. o Unless we use the ideal as a measuring stick, we get lost in a tangle of relative words that make wisdom out to be less than its optimum, which is therefore less instructive.
So, to explore its ideal form, I would say that, based largely on tenets of the "Perennial Philosophy": o Our view of reality/worldview must come from multiple ways of knowing--not just through the intellect, but also through intuition and spiritual discernment. o The sum total of this "knowing" gives us an Inner Sense (an understanding/experience/state of being/consciousness/insight) of what our deepest, truest Reality is--which includes at least the inner nature of (a) creation, the universe, (b) ourselves and each other as parts of the whole, and (c) the purpose and flow of it all. o Then ideally, wisdom is a combination of (1) having this hard-to-verbally-describe Inner Sense and (2) realizing from this inner state how to rightly act in accord with What Is (in tune with the purposeful flow of Reality). o The ideal, outer extreme of wisdom would involve a state of true mystic Union with All--a state of Christ or Buddha Consciousness from which the greatest wisdom flows. o In that state, "knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc." are merged as one. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics are merged as one. The sacred and profane; the transcendent and immanent; Being and Doing; the Good, the True, and the Beautiful are all one. Only in this state can the truest possible Wisdom exist.
So, given the ideal, our degree of wisdom then depends on our depth of insight, or how closely we come to consciously embodying the truest, deepest state of the whole of everything. That is, the degree to which we approach, or approximate, the ideal in knowing what is real and acting in accord with it is a measure of our wisdom.
Yet realistically, we tend to only get so far with our scientific, intuitive, and spiritual explorations and understandings. And again, in realizing that we all have our views of reality and act, I don't feel that there is a "clearly distinguishable" threshold that passes over into what we'd call "wisdom". That is just a subjective judgment.
But, I think the foundation of "a wisdom culture" would be one in which we (a) continually, openly strive to understand our deepest truths, always challenging any assumptions which could restrict it and (b) organize ourselves to live in accord with the deepest truths we uncover as we go along. It is a constantly evolving culture, perpetually organized to seek and embody what, for instance, Teillard de Chardin called the omega point, our highest potential. Only in this ever-ripening way will we gradually come to live as effectively as we can. And just in realizing this, we become wiser.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
Depends on what you mean by "our times" and "collective". If you mean how we deal with our current issue of terrorism and the world leadership we have, it is probably hopeless for the short term. For anyone on your list of consultees here, my feeling is that focusing on trying to do much for the immediate short term is probably largely a waste, or misuse, of "wise" energy. But a foundation for how to achieve wise "collective decision-making" for the longer term can be laid. As I see it, it is a gradual, multifaceted process of elevating humanity--which I'll partially address below.
I tend to agree with Sharif's assessment that this is about a three-generation process and with Duane Elgin's view that there are several stages we need to go through to get to real collective wisdom.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
I think I'll answer this by attaching some presentation notes I made up to talk about a Wisdom Society. While they are only rough notes to myself to talk from, I think they are pretty much self-explanatory. I'll add that these notes are derived from a 50-page document I wrote called "Building a Global Wisdom Society: A Call to Action". I am now in the process of modifying this document into more of a plan, which I'm tentatively (perhaps a tad audaciously) calling "How to Transform the World: A Plan for Building a Global Wisdom Society". If you are interested, I would be glad to share any of it.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
There are endless actions needed. First of all, there can't be much of a wisdom culture unless we clean up how we satisfy our ordinary, mundane material needs. An abbreviated list of all that is involved might include: population control, peacemaking, arms control, greenhouse effects, rainforest preservation, energy management, nonrenewable resources, adequate and safe water, agricultural lands, inequality, prejudice/discrimination, religious intolerance, political repression, injustice, human rights, civil rights, poverty, hunger, crime, substance abuse, healthcare, urban decay, traffic, homelessness, help for the disabled, care of the elderly, youth, education, child abuse, endangered species, animal rights, media influence.... The list is huge. And each category needs to be pursued on all levels, large-scale and small, from local to global.
Yet, I would say there are some "priorities", which definitely relate to "the state of the world". Below is a list of questions for discussion that I made up to accompany the attached presentation. I feel these reflect key areas "to focus on"--and can turn into "actions" absolutely needed to transform our culture.
1. What could be the values and purposes of a Wisdom Society vs. current societal values and purposes?
2. What could we do differently in raising and educating our youth to live in such a society?
3. How could we foster transformative education of adults to embrace new paradigms and personally cultivate the attributes and skills necessary to move toward a wiser society?
4. How could we modify our economic system such that it both: (a) provides for our material well-being in a way that is sustainable and (b) also better enables us to seek nonmaterial personal growth as more of a primary societal aim?
5. How could we create a wiser political system that better considers the highest aims of all humanity and its best interests looking several generations into the future?
6. How could businesses better serve society in life-affirming, sustainable ways, holding the multigenerational well-being of all humanity as a primary concern?
7. What could we do to create a world in which everyone more deeply appreciates, respects, and values each other despite our differences in appearances, perspectives, customs, and traditions?
Questions can be addressed in three parts: (1) What is the current situation? (2) What would we rather see? (3) How could we get from Here to There?
(For more on Barry Wolfer's vision of a wisdom society and how to get there, click here.)
I find the "wisdom society" concept awkward.... However, it almost goes without saying that we human beings at all levels definitely need to make wiser choices. For me that means making choices that nourish all life, that advance the common good, and that liberate the human spirit. It means becoming more mindful of ourselves as participants in a larger web of life whose integrity is paramount and every part of which is sacred. It means listening -- deeply, to ourselves and others -- with an open heart and a clear mind, desiring to know what serves the whole and trusting that it will serve us individually as well. It means becoming more conscious of the consequences of our choices in time and space, for every part of the systems in which we participate, and learning to choose in ways that create rather than constrain possibilities for healthy growth and development, at any level of system. It means knowing our own hearts more deeply and fully, in all their shadow and light, and awakening to ourselves as living participants in a sacred, living universe. It means being deeply true to ourselves and simultaneously honoring others being deeply true to themselves, while feeling for that which we share. It means celebrating and supporting both self-realization and whatever we discover to be the touchstone or generative spring of our common life. It means living in the crucible of creative tensions -- individuality and community, creativity and discipline, freedom and belonging -- that define caring, self-reflective consciousness and doing the best we can in a terribly complex world. It means nurturing full human growth and development while creating a home for humanity within nature that sustains all life. It means fostering wisdom, creativity, and love.
I think that speaks to your fourth question. It's "all quadrant, all level" work, so your focus on collective decision making -- while pivotal -- is only one facet of the work, albeit a pervasive and cross-cutting one (as is our focus on patterns of relationship and ways of organizing).
Trying to construct a schema relating information, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom seems like a rather academic exercise. If I had to distill the essence of wisdom in relation to the above "vision", I'd highlight:
* Celebrating uniqueness and diversity ...
* Protecting the integrity of whole systems ...
* Nurturing all life ...
* Love
In this sense, wisdom is fundamentally grounded in, and expressive of, a "deep ecology of relationship". It has both interior and exterior dimensions, each with its own distinctive "truths" and each inextricably interpenetrating the other. The Quakers, as I understand them through friends, are one community who try to honor both the integrity and interdependence of both domains in their practice.
I doubt whether "wisdom society" or "wisdom culture" has the power, sexiness, or simplicity to become a compelling guiding image for the culture right now. Sometimes I even wonder whether wisdom is something that can or should be pursued or cultivated as an end in itself. Perhaps wisdom is a property that emerges from whole person or whole system maturation, more than a capacity that can be cultivated. Can we really practice "being wise", or can we only create the conditions more likely to foster the expression of wisdom? Do you know anyone who really aims to become wise, or is being wise a quality that others attribute to us as a consequence of our maturing in certain ways?
I know I haven't really answered your questions, but it's late and maybe this can stimulate a longer exchange.
I really enjoyed thinking about your questions. Hope this is helpful.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making? 10
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
Wisdom is applied knowledge for the good of the whole, expressed through non-violent, loving, compassionate means. In a materialistic world where Economics is God and money the highest priority, wisdom reaches deep down beneath the instrumental values of free market capitalism and asks the harder questions about meaning purpose and human values.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
wisdom (wiz' dem) n. The ability to discern or judge what is true, right or lasting; insight. Common sense, good judgment. "It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things" (Henry David Thoreau). The sum of learning through the ages, knowledge. "In those homely sayings was couched the collective wisdom of generations." (Maya Angelou). Wise teachings of the ancient sages. A wise outlook, plan, or course of action.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
We need a fundamental change in our attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors if we are to build a more just and sustainable wisdom culture. Our collective decision-making must be rooted in radical inclusivity, where all voices are heard, where differences are respected and embraced, and where creative solutions to human and more-than-human problems become a nonzero (we all win, or we all lose) sum game. It all comes down to asking better questions: What really matters? How do we want to relate to each other and the Earth?
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
I'm fond of saying, "If you want to create a wisdom culture, throw a better party!" This is my slightly tongue-in-cheek way of saying that we need to create a joyous, loving (read: Dionysian) alternative way of living/being in the world -- fulfilling, happy relationships with our families and communities, both locally and globally. A wisdom culture has to be a strange attractor, a social reality that we freely would choose to inhabit.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
Einstein said that we cannot solve the problems we face with the same level of thinking that created them. Amen.
I view this design problem as educational design -- we need new ways of learning and being. Strategilcally, I would focus on the education and empowerment of women all over the world. The empowerment of the feminine principle in all its forms (including the web of relationships that the Internet and global telecommunications make possible) is a REQUIRED course correction at this point in human history.
I believe that Dostoevsky got it right: "BEAUTY WILL SAVE THE WORLD." Or as Alice Walker says, "You can only save what you love." I am focusing on how to create a "beauty-based revolution" that helps people to answer the question, "What is it that you say YES to in life? What is the beauty that you love? What matters to you?
This is social artistry on the highest level -- in fact, it's spiritual work -- spirit-made-manifest. Jacob Needleman says "I believe that the group is the art form of the future... Every great culture has created forms of sacred art that were needed in order to transmit and discover by experience the truths which were necessary to absorb into one's life. In our present culture, the main need is for a form that can enable human beings to share their perception and attention and, through that sharing, to become a conduit for the appearance of spiritual intelligence... We obviously cannot confront this tangled world alone. It takes no great insight to realize that we have no choice but to think together, ponder together, in groups and communities. The question is how to do this. How to come together and think and hear each other in order to touch, or be touched by, the intelligence we need." --in the Fetzer Institute report "Centered on the Edge: Mapping a Field of Collective Intelligence & Spiritual Wisdom"
HERE'S WHAT COMES THROUGH ME FROM YOUR QUESTIONS...
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making? 10
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? FOR ME WISDOM IS PRESENT WHEN WE CONNECT TO THE IMPLICATE ORDER (BOHM) OR THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS (JUNG) ... TO SOURCE, OR TO G-D... DEPENDING ON ONE'S TRADITIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT WISDOM IS ALWAYS (ALL-WAYS) PRESENT (PRESCIENT) BUT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL... WE ARE, PERHAPS, FRACTALS OF THE COLLECTIVE WISDOM... AND WHEN OUR "FRACTALS" ARE CONNECTED THROUGH REFLECTIVE THOUGHT OR CONVERSATION, WE ARE "AT RISK" OF BEING COLLECTIVELY WISE.
Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom? FLOW, ENERGY, HEART-FULLNESS, COURAGE, CONNECTION TO SOURCE, LIGHT
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times? BE TOGETHER IN CONSCIOUS CONVERSATIONS AROUND QUESTIONS THAT MATTER TO THE "CO-EVOLUTION" (ATLEE) OF OUR SPECIES IN RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER FORMS OF LIFE.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"? INVOLVEMENT OF DIVERSITY OF ALL KINDS... LIFE FORMS, GENDER, RACE, EXPERIENCE, ETC... ALSO, ATTENTION TO WHERE WISDOM IS "ALREADY" (ALL-READY) PRESENT (PRESCIENT)... AND AN ENGAGEMENT OF THOSE "OBSERVERS OF CURRENT WISDOM" IN AN "APPRECIATIVE" PROCESS OF OBSERVING, COMMUNICATING, AND RE-INVESTING ENERGY, LOVE, LIGHT AND OTHER RESOURCES IN WISDOM IN ITS CURRENT STATE... EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE INCIPIENT OR EMERGENT
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.) SUPPORTING LEADERS OF BUSINESS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND GOVERNMENTS IN A PROCESS OF REMEMBERING WHAT CONSTITUTES PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE WISDOM AND INVESTING RESOURCES IN ITS APPRECIATION (GROWTH AND GRATITUDE FOR)
PERHAPS BELIEVING THAT ENGAGING (APPRECIATING) EXISTING POSITIVE INNOVATION, CREATIVITY, AND CO-EVOLUTION IS OF AT LEAST EQUAL VALUE TO PROBLEM SOLVING OR FIXING BROKEN INSTITUTIONS.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring
much
more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
Hmm. My initial response is to wonder why you are even asking
this question. Seems like an obvious "10". As I unravel
this a little further, I notice something else surfacing. I recall
a quote,
many years ago from Scott Peck who said something like "some
decisions just aren't worth the time and bother of consensus."
I wonder, how do we use our wisdom to determine which decisions
need to be made collectively, perhaps with deep conversation and
reflection, and which decisions need to be simply made, quickly
and without much fuss? And how do we use our wisdom to determine
who needs to be involved in making those deeper decisions (as
well as the simpler ones)
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding,
rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential
factors --
that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
Wisdom is cellular, I think. I remember one of the last
times I spent with Robert Greenleaf, I think it was in the early
eighties. Or the last times I spent with my Japanese grandfather.
They
both had wisdom, I believe. That deep gaze of seeing a larger
picture.
That movement more into further questions than into what seemed
to be
answers. Sometimes I feel myself dropping into the field where
wisdom
resides. It doesn't happen a lot, but there is a special quality
there.
It is almost a field of silence, surrounded by questions. I don't
know
how it is different from 'knowledge, understanding or rightness'
-- it
simply is what it is.
Robert Theobald used to say that when information doubles,
knowledge
halves and wisdom quarters. He made a good point, but I no longer
see
any sort important linear relationship between these three things.
They
are different from one another. Each distinct, confusing and important
in their own right.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective
decision-making wise enough for our times?
Learn to trust. Discover silence. Be willing to let go
of control. Let others do their work, while we each discover ours,
and
do it. Surrender to not-knowing, confusion and uncertainty. Know
that
we are in a time of paradox and that each of our answers are but
incomplete proximations of truth. Remember that it is all about
learning, and discovering -- not "getting it right".
And perhaps, above
all, remember there are many collectives and their boundaries
are
continually dissolving and forming and reforming. Which ones are
present in you, today?
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do
you include
in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
I'm not wholly convinced I even like the term 'wisdom
culture'. When I read the words here, right now, they seem a little
sanctimonious to me -- although I, too, have used them before.
I know
we need some term as a reference to describe where some of us
hope we're
headed and the ones I hear most frequently are 'wisdom culture'
or
'integral culture'.
As I sit here on a sunny Saturday afternoon, surrounded by
beauty and
blessings, I find myself remembering not to take myself so seriously.
To accept that most of the time I really don't know what's going
on.
And that's okay. I am drawn more and more to a sense that what's
important is that each of us get aligned with our deeper selves,
and see
the work we are supposed to do. And that we do it, and learn from
it,
in companies of friends. That we live and work in communities
-- both
local and distributed -- and that the healing of the planet and
our
selves means that we need to get on with it.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom
culture, what
sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any
comments
here about how "the state of the world" might affect
your sense of
priorities in such a program.)
I'd never try to do such a thing! Perhaps because that's
not my calling, or perhaps my language. As I think on it, I believe
I
would run as fast as I could from any program designed to bring
about a
wisdom culture!
To the extent that a new culture, or new era may arise, it
will not, I
think, come about because we attempt to design it. Morris Berman,
in
"The Wandering God" makes a very intriguing point when
he suggests that
all of this talk of a new age or a new paradigm thoroughly misses
the
point. It simply is not enough to replace one set of incomplete
assumptions with another set of incomplete assumptions. What's
called
for, I think, if we are to get from where we are now to where
we want to
be, is a whole new way of knowing/being/thinking/mattering --
and it is
not a program.
Of course, many of us will continue to find containers in which
to do
our work. We'll call them projects or programs or something else.
And
as we network them together, something greater will emerge. But
I will
not (today at least) look for how to conceive of them all as a
grand
program to bring about a wisdom culture.
PS: It was fun to sit down and do this. I'm noticing that the
list [of current responders] is pretty American. It's probably
too late (sorry!) but I can think of some folks out there beyond
our borders who it would have been nice to include in this --
it would be very interesting to have seen how they would have
responded.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
10, of course! Can't imagine anyone giving it lower priority.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
Wisdom is what comes of experience when it is processed with acuity, far-sightedness, integrity, love and compassion in a holistic context. By "holistic context" I mean seeing the whole--self, family, social groups, ecosystems, world economies, all religions, etc. up to the whole Cosmos. The more holistic and compassionate the stories we create from experience, the wiser we will be. When a native elder tells me, for example, "Anyone who knows how to run a household knows how to run a world," I see this kind of wisdom expressed.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
Get more grandmas and kids involved! Go back to the BASICS of how to fulfill human lives in the whole global family. We get snowed under so many details, so much jargon and conflicting stories that we lose sight of how simple the concepts of caring and sharing in the global family are.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
A beautiful dynamic balance of individual and collective fulfillment, something like what my body does daily, with all its cellular and organ diversity, complete integrity, division of labor, distributed leadership, effective dialogue, mutual contribution, capacity for health and joy... that kind of humanity in harmony with all other Earthlife. Every imbalance in such a system would be addressed with inspired concern for part and whole, with the energy of loving commitment.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
Much education is needed to collectively recognize that humanity and the rest of our living world are embedded within a far greater and fundamentally spiritual reality than is encompassed by our current scientific worldview. We must support replacing the view of a non-living material/electromagnetic universe with a greater non-physical reality of conscious intelligence as the never-ending source of scientifically known energy and matter"a cosmic source that has been known in many human cultures from ancient times. It is fundamentally conscious and creative, transforming or transmuting into material universes and other creative ventures.
In that context, we need education to recognize humanity as a living system embedded within larger natural living systems as a framework for reorganizing our human systems"economics, politics, etc." accordingly; that is, with adherence to identifiable principles of healthy living systems. Because no living system can remain healthy if any part of it is ill, this implies a) the redesign of technology and technological processes to eliminate pollution, waste and environmental destruction, and b) the empowerment of all humans to meet their own needs, participate in collective governing and otherwise contribute creatively to the whole human family. Because no living system can remain healthy if any part of it is at war with any other part, it also implies the need for eliminating warfare and oppressive inequities.
Once we recognize that humanity has operated on needlessly fear-based principles of scarcity that have produced unsustainable patterns of greed and want, we will be able to shift our beliefs to love-based principles of caring and sharing. We can then produce peacefully sustainable populations living in sustainable abundance, with material and spiritual fulfillment for all. Critical to this change, we must ensure that all the world's people, regardless of current status or condition, have access to the knowledge/understanding that this shift can be made and are empowered with the basic material and spiritual resources to take part in this transformation in their unique creative ways.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
10
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
wisdom is a peace in yourself to trust not knowing, understanding or what is right etc. Wisdom is the courage to pause and sit in the not knowing and speak from there. For me this is wisdom. It is here that needs speak through us. Strangely enough clarity come from not knowing. (Sometimes i wish this whole command and control thing worked dammit!). Sitting in the eye of the storm. Wisdom is being present and being able to choose. Wisdom is the joy being alive spoken out! Like drum beat or a song or a guitar riff sometimes is also wisdom. It is not the words that give wisdom but the intent. For intent has its own language we can all feel.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
There is an urgency. There is an urgency to slow down. So i believe we should pause and reflect. Doing this alone is great, but i feel more and more it is important to reflect with people, from the slowing down and reflecting people strong suatainable decisions emerge. We have to take time to listen to the diversity around us. I am working alot with music now and more and more as i wirk with groups here i see how it represents us. If you do not stop and listen in music you cannot play with the others. But still you have to hold your distinct identiy or it will all sound the same. The greatest music also descends into madness and choas and comes out the other side again something new but connected. Sambe bands are a classic example of this. So we should make our decision making processes more like creating music, where we have to listen, communicate and rock it from our distinctness, welcoming our diverstity to the table, because it makes us sound fantastic! When we hit it, we feel the groove, in our hearts, bodies and souls, and right in the middle of everything.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
Wherever you are at is okay. We need everyone. Differences and our different developments are encouraged. Positive manifestations of our now are encouraged. Everyone is treated differently. Indicators of value are based on contribution. Community lies at the centre of action. Acceptance diversity and that diversity is constantly under change, an openess to that change, acceptance that it is a creative space.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
Actions which people like to do ... things people connect to with passion. Reflection in groups. Conversation space about where we are at, what we care about, what gives us despair and hope. Celebration time, because life can get pretty heavy sometimes and we need to let loose! Conversations in saunas and hot tubs together. Support networks and feedback space, gathering of learning. What is goin on? So what? Now What? kind of stuff, the now what being the actions.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it
is to bring much more wisdom to our collective
decision-making?
10
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge,
understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some
essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that
you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
Wisdom is an supreme inner quality. It comes as the
essence of the ones you quote. It is related to the
heart´s knowledge and not the mind knowledge.
3. What do you think we should do to make our
collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
1) A continous effort to became more wise ourselves
2) To look for all the ways to help, even though a
little, to people to became more wise in their
decisions thorough our actions, words and state of
being.
3) To implement circles or any other methodology that
could helps each other to recognize the value of
wisdoms and recognize the opportunities to apply it.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what
else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom
culture"?
wisdom culture has a holistic vision of itself and
balances the collective grow with the individual grow.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a
wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus
on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how
"the state of the world" might affect your sense of
priorities in such a program.)
I would focus in two areas:
the most specific area of needs
the most holistc view of the phenomena.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
10
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
When it comes to the line from data to information to knowledge to wisdom, I find it useful to think of2 dimensions: the degree of density of the network of what is known (the degree to which one think that is known is woven into a web of relationships with the other things that are known) and the subtlety of the judgements being made. data is less subtle than wisdom. Both of these dimensions intensify as one moves up the line from data to wisdom.
This means that the same piece of data may only be data to one person and an element of knowledge to another person. For example, folks who do not know me have the data that on Q1 above I voted "10". But they know nothing else. To infer other characteristics about me is dangerous. For example, I may not be able to understand the question and have a 10 vote with a 1 vote. On the other hand, those who know me can fit this data into what else they know about me in a way that confirms or extends their knowledge of me.
This means that to be truly knowledgeable about a subject one must necessarily know a great deal about it, even its more subtle aspects.
The key difference between knowledge and wisdom is that whereas knowledge can be restricted to a particular topic, wisdom leaks -- it necessarily includes any knowledge that is relevant to the work at hand. So the core work of wisdom is making good judgements that are relevant. Relevance, of course, is contextual. So wisdom sets the question at hand in its proper context. The key criteria for a good contextual judgement is "appropriateness" not "rightness." Right/wrong tend to be used in invariant ways that are context independent. Appropriateness is always context-sensitive and context-dependent.
I don't find the language of "essence" helpful. But the distinguishing characteristics of data, information, knowledge or wisdom do matter.
The connection many recognize to intuition is that intuition is our pattern-recognition function and wisdom is necessarily about pattern-recognition across many elements of knowledge.
In other words, as one moves from data to wisdom the work is increasingly personal and requires increasing depth in those doing the work. Personal depth is an empirical requirement for wisdom. This suggests that the communities within which wisdom is nurtured must themselves reflect wise design.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
The core work is to conceive, develop and nurture new organizational infrastructures that are devoted to supporting wise decision-making. At the moment we go about wisdom seeking in a way that is analogous to getting water a pail at a time from a river a few miles away. In the latter case, we never have enough water to do anything useful except cook. What we need is a pipeline and a tap. So with wisdom, we need places/networks that specialize (an irony) in digging out and holding together enough information from quite diverse sources to create the possibility of wise decisions. If our "uni"-versities actually cared about and were good at creating the "uni", then we would not need such new institutional infrastructures; but they do not. Clark Kerr's multi-versity has won the day. "Uni" is not even on the agenda.
One manifestation of such bodies would be a series of rooms that combine the best features of a design studios and "war" rooms and "network centres", i.e. places that have the technologies to make wisdom creation easier. It will never be easy, but it is needlessly difficult as we enter the 21st Century since we hope to develop it without any of the appropriate enabling technologies.
The creation of The Alliance for Capitalizing on Change in Canada is an intentional attempt to create a body/network that can nourish wisdom-seeking that results in wise living. I raise this not to sing our praises but to suggest we know something of how difficult it is to do this work with any degree of integrity in the early 21st Century.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
A "wisdom-culture" would be a culture (in the fullest sense of this concept -- a complete way of living) that embodies in all of its structures, processes, practices and understandings a devotion to making wise decisions in every dimension of human life. It would be as different from our late Industrial cultures as we are from those of Traditional empires or Tribal peoples. The hard fact is that none of these three ways of living (the only three we have developed as human beings) is conducive to the creation and embodiment of wisdom in the conditions of the 21st Century. We need a fourth way of living.
The work of teasing out its characteristics in ways that shed light on the big functions of living is THE work of the early decades of the 21st Century. A wise society will create persons, wealth, communities and families that are dynamic, prosperous, inclusive and humane.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
I am focussing on conceiving and bringing into being the kind of supportive institutional infrastructure roughed out in 3 above. We cannot do wisdom a pail at a time!
The "state of the world" is relevant in two ways: It provides the push and the pull of this work.
The push come from the fact that no presently exemplified way of living on the planet is both sustainable and scalable to all 6 billion of us. In short, get at this work or die is the core challenge of the 21st Century.
The pull comes from the fact that we are slowly learning that social realities are social constructs, how the dynamics of social construction actually work and, therefore, what we must do in order to consciously participate in the construction of a global civilization that works for all.
This implies that the root work is:
A. to become increasingly knowledgeable and wise about the dimensions, dynamics, drivers, depths and drift of the ongoing construction of persons, communities and whole societies;
B. to become increasingly skilled at strategic foresight -- seeing and taking appropriate action in relationship to the big strategic threats and opportunities that emerge out of A.
Warning: Those who treat these words only as information (those who do not know enough to understand them at some depth or wise enough to "get" what they entail) will not get it that this is truly difficult work that has never been undertaken before this moment in history. This does not mean we cannot do it, it does imply that the work of co-creating a wisdom culture is necessarily transformative work -- personally, organizationally and societally.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
10
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
EXPERIENCE WHICH IS BASED ON HOLISTIC LEARNING WHICH ENCOMPASSES MORE THAN JUST THE COGNITIVE. IT IS EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL, WHOLE BEING, AND COLLECTIVE. WISDOM IS NOT ONLY INDIVIDUAL, WISDOM IS BEING ABLE TO TAP INTO THE COLLECTIVE WISDOM.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
BE CENTERED. THAT'S ABOUT IT AND THAT IS THE MOST DIFFICULT THING TO DO IN TODAY'S WORLD. IT IS NOT BEING CENTERED THAT IS DIFFICULT, IT IS OUR RESISTANCE TO BEING CENTERED THAT IS DIFFICULT. THIS MEANS BEING IN TOUCH WITH OURSELVES AND THE WORLD AROUND US.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
PEOPLE ARE IN TOUCH WITH THEMSELVES AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT. ACTUALLY OURSELVES AND THE ENVIRONMENT BECOME ONE.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom culture, what sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any comments here about how "the state of the world" might affect your sense of priorities in such a program.)
STATE OF THE WORLD IS GREAT TO FOCUS ON ONLY IN THE SENSE OF THE STATE OF THE BEING IN TODAY'S WORLD. I WOULD FOCUS ON HAVING PEOPLE LEARN MORE ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THE ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE ONE OF THE MOST OVERLOOKED TOPICS. HOW CAN SOMEONE BE WISE IF THEY BABBLE ON ABOUT EVERYTHING AND SEEM TO KNOW EVERYTHING BUT THE FIRST THING ABOUT THEMSELVES.AND THEN THE MORE WE GET TO KNOW OURSELVES, THE MORE WE REALISE THAT WE ARE NOT SEPARATE FROM THE ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE ONE. AND THAT IS WHEN TRUE WISDOM COMES INTO PLAY. SO YOU CAN TAKE A COGNITIVE APPROACH TO EXPLAINING THIS TO PEOPLE WHICH IS SOMETIMES NEEDED TO BREAK DOWN THE COGNITIVE RESISTANCE PEOPLE HAVE. BUT MORE EFFECTIVE IS EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING, CONVERSATIONS (BUT NO FOCUSING ON WHAT IS SAID BUT MORE ON THE UNDERLYING INTERACTION TAKING PLACE), MEDITATION, YOGA, AIKIDO, TAI CHI, DANCING, ETC...
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring much more wisdom to our collective decision-making?
I wonder what other people's definition or understanding of
WISDOM. From my cultural worldview (Vietnamese), it is the sense
of knowing that comes from lived experience that includes overcoming
struggles and barriers; intuition; inspiration; and a grounded
understanding of human interrelatedness. Thus, I believe strongly
(10+) that shared and collective wisdom is a critical factor in
any decision-making process that involves others.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding, rightness, etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors -- that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
My answer above addresses some aspects of this question. Wisdom
does not denote any single way of understanding or perceiving
or promote any sense of righteousness. A decision that is made
with wisdom is more likely to base on reflecting on past experiences
and situations and taking into consideration of the present and
future well-beings of all human beings and living things that
might be impact by the decision directly and indirectly in the
present and generations to come.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making wise enough for our times?
To seek out and include diverse perspectives, voices, values and belief systems in the decision making process.
To understand that a decision that is made in our time will continue to have an impact on many future generations.
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else
do you include in your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
My vision of 'a wisdom culture' includes 'culture of life' (as opposed to 'culture of death') - any practice and way of being/doing/living that promotes and enhance the (physical and mental) health and well-being of all living things including humans.
1. On a scale of 1-10, how important do you feel it is to bring
much more
wisdom to our collective decision-making?
10 plus.
2. What makes wisdom different from knowledge, understanding,
rightness,
etc.? Is there some essence -- or are there some essential factors
--
that you feel clearly distinguish wisdom?
Essential factors of wisdom: detachment, presence, objectivity, fairness,
trust, curiosity, humor, integrity.
3. What do you think we should do to make our collective decision-making
wise enough for our times?
Make choices that would foster a greater good. Move from description to
prescription; be able to clearly identify what is working/what is not
working, and bring forward at least three creative solutions to what is not
working (or how to advance what is working in three different ways).
4. Aside from wise collective decision-making, what else do
you include in
your vision of "a wisdom culture"?
A Wisdom Culture would foster healthy community; economic equity; honor the
sacred; intergenerational problem-solving; hold diversity as an opportunity
rather than a problem; and care for the Earth and environmental issues.
5. If you were designing a program to bring about a wisdom
culture, what
sorts of actions would you focus on? (I'd also appreciate any
comments
here about how "the state of the world" might affect
your sense of
priorities in such a program.)
Compassionate service: ways to attend to youth, elders, sick, and poor.
Transformational learning practices based on perennial wisdoms and universals found in cultures world-wide.
Quality time in nature and in silence.
Practices of Peace: conflict resolution skills.
Learning about Love and expressing love.
Fostering altruism and generosity of spirit.