A profound shift

A summary of:
Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B.S. (2004). Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: London.
Part 4 – Meeting Our Future (part 2 of 2)

The book concludes with talk about what profound shift means. Their ideal is the following: “‘The call is clear: for the whole thirteen-year period, we must do all we can to create this balance and connection with one another. ‘We’re facing these problems… because of our lack of relationship, not just with one another but with all of nature. My purpose is to help the human race understand that it is facing self-destruction unless there is a return to balance and harmony with nature’” (233).

But how can you bring this (or any change) about? The authors suggest it comes back to ‘presencing’. The authors differ in their individual definitions of the concept: 1) “‘A profound opening of the heart, carried into action’” (234); “…waking up together – waking up to who we really are by linking with and acting from our highest future Self – and by using the Self as a vehicle for bringing forth new worlds’” (234); and “…it’s the point where the fire of creation burns and enters the world through us’” (234).

This section offers an important point of clarification about this ‘presencing’ notion. Though the term seemingly implies an in-the-moment-ness, the authors define it in part as “becoming aware of ‘a future seeking to emerge’” (220), and “‘pre-sensing’ and bringing into presence – and into the present – your highest future potential” (220). This has to do with tapping into a sort of Jungian Collective Unconscious; a whole that is greater than oneself. But, again, a clarification is necessary: “‘The emerging whole manifests locally. It manifests in particular communities, groups, and, ultimately, in us as individuals’” (228). This changes our mission, if we want to change society, because global change begins locally and spreads outward to the whole (like Sheldrake’s theory of Morphic Resonance, where small change reverberates through a connected system (199)). This implies the importance of “glocalization” as a means of change.

One way to catalyze a shift is to begin a dialogue. Betty Sue Flowers (author) says, “‘Maybe that’s what we’re doing with the story of the U…. We’re trying to develop a language that can help people think and talk together about how the whole can shift. We know so much about the problems of the world today that it’s easy to fall into fear and denial. What we need is a language of hope and possibility that’s grounded in ideas and experiences emerging from innovators in science, business, and communities’” (218). At the very least, I hope that my PhD research will begin a dialogue about the need for a more spiritual approach to technological development.

Consider this as a springboard into discussion:
“Rose von Thater-Braan, one of the organizers of an integrative learning center for the study of indigenous knowledge and native science says, ‘The many differences between native science and Western science start with intent. The common purpose that drives modern Western science is to understand nature in order to better control – some would say commodify – nature.’ By contrast, in native science, ‘The fundamental intent is to become more human and to learn how to live in harmony with nature and with one another. Native scientists may invent technologies to make their life easier, but these are always secondary to human development’” (202)….

What are we aiming to do with technology? Why are we not trying to aid our human development?