To Bill Veltrop and others commenting in the Spanda Journal Academia.edu session for my chapter. I don’t believe the Academia comment session will be able to handle the discourse I hope manifests. That is another topic. Bill’s original comment is in green and indented. Larry’s comments are in black and bold.
Bill, I corrected the typo on your name. I may soon have to turn to audio dictation as my aging brain disrupts my typing. The latest is that if I am to type two short words, I get a repeat of the second word. For “to do” I type “do do”. I am leaving the last letters off many words: “they” becomes “the”. Some of these are becoming wired-in habits. For both writing and speaking, if I am to select a term from a category, I might end up with any of the terms in the set, not the one I “intend”. Most frequent is when addressing one of our many pets (5 dogs, 8 cats) – any of the 13 names may pop out. Or I stare, waiting for the name that conveniently won’t appear. I just noticed below that I typed “strong” instead of “strongly” – typical. And I later typed “different” instead of my intended, “distant”. These are often missed when editing – when editing we often “see” what we expect, not what is “there”. I need to re-install and start using a text-to-speech reader which makes editing typos more obvious. Everything I write I must edit more than once, and do most of my replies offline.
Our technology, as great as it is, needs considerable improving for the success of UPLIFT, Social & Societal Metamorphosis.
1. Bill comments, in general, about the Spanda Chapter 08/06/2015
2. Larry replies to Bill’s comments.
3. Bill replies to Larry.
4. Larry replies to Bill. 08/12/2015
Larry, I want to touch on what I most appreciate about this paper, provide a bit of personal context, and surface some of my ‘working premises’ that feel relevant.
WHAT I MOST APPRECIATE is your ground-breaking path-finding work in creating a robust collection of distinctions that I believe will help Pioneering Evolutionary Architects develop their field – to put the ‘infinite game’ of ‘Societal Metamorphosis’ into play. Just as the Digital Age could not have evolved without the hundreds of new technological distinctions, so the bootstrapping of Societal Metamorphosis – setting out on the Great NU Journey – requires language and ways of seeing/connecting that promote and supports the emergence of a nu reality.
Your various creative distinctions produce a deep resonance with my experience and imaginings, e.g., ‘UPLIFT, OLLO, SSS, and vector terms such as gaidee, reee and seaf.’
OLLO and SSS are particularly powerful in giving language to what’s missing in today’s traditional organizations – and what is essential to bootstrapping Societal Metamorphosis.
Your ‘Bigger than Big – Beyond Big Pictures’ is wonderfully, and, to my mind, appropriately audacious. I fully share your conviction that ‘The Magnitude/Scope/Complexity of Our Change Is Beyond Imagination.’
I also appreciate what has to have been an extraordinary personal action-learning journey for you to have acquired the depth, breadth and level of seeing woven throughout your paper.
Bill, the features that you have identified and highlighted above inform me of the depth of your comprehension, and from this single document. This encourages me greatly, and your using “metamorphosis” informs me that these insights have not developed in a vacuum. I wish I didn’t have to say that no other person, to date, had indicated the depth of comprehension as you have done. This is not to demean those friends and colleagues who have supported and encouraged me over decades and years. But, each of you have heard me express concern that I was not yet being comprehended to a level where I could get useful feedback, and where you might be able to assist me in improving my model. I hope that with Bill’s help we can break through the barriers.
QUERY: Bill, do you lack visual imagery, or any other modes of mental imagery?
I expect that as we continue this dialog we will discover aspects of each of our models the other doesn’t yet adequately comprehend. And, I welcome critique of aspects of my model. I am open to be wrong on details. We already agree we must transcend Big Pictures.
Larry, it IS exciting to have one’s work be seen and ostensibly understood — especially after a prolonged ‘understanding drought.’ I can relate.J
I really appreciate your actively and earnestly seeking feedback — your openness ‘to be wrong on details.’ You and I have traveled very different paths and enjoy a number of significant differences. Vive la difference. E.g., I’m actually pretty strong in visual imagery.
I share your eagerness to be challenged on the specifics — to strengthen and expand the robustness of our memes through multiple workouts with diverse co-creative collaborators.
Bill, what concerns me the most is that I, too, am missing some very critical “part”. It bothers me to detect blindspots in everyone I read; but then my conception of humans is that we are all incomplete – relative to some criteria. I have self detected blindspots so I know I have had them. More often I discover that my comprehension of a conceptual scheme was incomplete in some ways. So, I assume that my comprehension is incomplete everywhere. “Incomplete” doesn’t imply that there is a “complete” state. Over time, most conceptual schemes evolve, with improved comprehension – but while I “rest” at the current highest level I am not looking for higher levels.
It would take some work to have me abandon any of my primary conceptual schemes, but I can’t claim there might not be a better solutionatique to our problematique. Black Swans or Wild Cards could really rock the boat. If I was convinced there are true aliens among us (I have friends I highly respect who claim this), it would need my attention. John L. Peterson of TAI (The Arlington Institute), whose work I highly respect, has been now, for a few years, claiming strong “spiritual” forces are at work. He doesn’t seem to really have the evidence, but I’ve not really looked. I speculate that the patterns of sites on Earth, scheduled in time, and within their design, Crop Circles may be a “message”. Rupert Sheldrake, who you mentioned, I respect highly. My feedpast bootstrapping hypothesis fits in with his morphogenetic fields and formative causation.
I have studied “psychic phenomena” to considerable depth and believe they ARE real phenomena to be explained – but I don’t expect them to be useful until we humans get our act together. We may be an experiment of some higher by much older living system; and they may or may not intervene. I speculate we won’t be contacted until we have a viable, intelligent, non-violent Gaia. Only whole planets relate to each other. If there is higher life in the galaxy, I expect they would forbid a species from one planet colonizing an already inhabited planet – which is why so much SciFi in space may be way off. Then my Buddhist friends say this is all a dream and we may soon awake – and even galaxies may no longer be.
What I have great difficulty navigating is when others insist that my ideas are the same as theirs. Fortunately, you – Bill, are not one of them. Yet I wonder how much you imagine for my Beyond Big Imagination of a nu human “order”, as different from Civilization as a butterfly is from a caterpillar – both in bioform and flying vs crawling. We today may be viewed as primitive cave dwellers from the future of a few centuries. Then, there are those that claim my ideas have already been expressed by some other person in the past.
A BIT OF PERSONAL CONTEXT
I’ve been engaged in a 45-year action-learning journey in the realm of innovative organization change/design and leadership development, almost entirely with and within large corporations. I’ve been blessed to have had significant on-the-ground exploration of and work with a wide range of different organization design and change methodologies. As I see it, the field of organization design, change and ‘transformation’ is as much in need of metamorphosis as the organizations the field attempts to serve.
A teeny tiny point. We have yet to work out our differing meanings for “metamorphosis”. Initially I couldn’t imagine “the field of organizational design” undergoing “metamorphosis” (with my meaning). Radical, Rapid, Significant change, YES. I just composed a doc on my shifting of meanings for “metamorphosis” motivated by your own work, and we need to converge on usage of that term. Yet, as I think more on it, I may be able to stretch the concept to model radical change in conceptual schemes. Simply starting from scratch and creating a new and different conceptual scheme to replace an obsolete and problematic conceptual scheme would not be “metamorphosis” for me.
However, if we isolated the human systems working on organization change/design, persons and semfields, we might make an analog of that with the caterpillar, and an alternative emerge from a small subset of persons working on a wholly new process – inside the old but not utilizing any of the primary forms of the old. Later I will comment on Organizational Metamorphosis and its difference from what I call Societal Metamorphosis. Both can be, and are related.
Yes, brother Larry, we do indeed need to clarify and evolve what we mean by metamorphosis as we apply it to ‘human systems.’ Your description of what goes on in the caterpillar-to-butterfly metamorphosis helped me see it as more than a metaphor for the kind of evolutionary shift needed in all of our traditional ‘human systems.’ I had been using Nori Huddle’s poetic ‘Imaginal Cell Story’ as a wonderfully apt metaphor — but only as a metaphor.
Your description of ‘Imaginal Buds’ and their relationship with the caterpillar and its metamorphosis process helped be see how real metamorphosis needs to become within our traditional (caterpillar-like) human systems.
‘Transformation’ within our dominant ‘pyramid paradigm’ human systems has been toward the ideal of organization as a smooth-running machine. Machines are designed to perform pre-defined functions — not to undergo metamorphosis into a conscious caring living organism.
Civilization is a dysfunctional Cyborg, of human life and machine – the most dangerous machines being pyramid institutions. Humans can be conditioned to mimic machines – we are far more like machines in Civilization than we were as members of tribes. But, in tribes we were locked-into our cultures, also heavily deterministic. We are a different kind of cyborg today with our intelligent technology. We will also be an even more different cyborg in NU.
We, humans emergent, are a totally new type of entity/system/process in the universe. We are more than physical and more than biological and more than social. So the “scientific orders” for humankind=>humanity will be a mix of our contemporary sciences from which may “emerge” other “nu orders”.
In analogy. Magneto-hydro-dynamics is a theoretical system for plasmas. Plasmas are fluids where the components are electrically charged. I’ve read (as I didn’t study plasma physics) that when the equations of magnetodynamics have the charge decreased to zero they transform into the equations of hydrodynamics – ordinary fluids. When these same plasma equations have the density of particle greatly decreased they transform into the equations of electrodynamics. New properties emerge when we mix domains. This could be applied to the brain, as a system neither biological or electrical or molecular – but a mix. My NU GENESIS speculation uses this in proposing a new “creation myth” for humankind.
‘My Key Working Premises’ below begin to develop a case for what I see to be the greatest challenge of our era — how to co-evolve a nu DNA for our human systems that can be embraced by committed human systems — and nurtured in ways that support its growth and contribution within those systems. Our challenge as Pioneering Evolutionary Architects is to be able to co-evolve the various kinds of chrysalises needed in their on-going journey of metamorphosis — and to do so in a way that can be woven into the fabric of their normal operations. This is a non-trivial challenge. Fortunately, I’ve, in effect, been preparing for this moment for a few decades.
Bill, it can consume decades. But, let us hope that it will be more rapid from now on. I interpret your chrysalises as I imagine BUS, a physical scaffolding designed to seaf OLLO and the UPLIFT “movement”:
“The proposed challenge will be to design, create, produce, test and distribute an initial version of a physical, material system. This system will be here called BUS, for Bootstrap UPLIFT Scaffolding. BUS will consist of prescribed hardware, software, networking systems, and embedded semiotic structures (text, graphics, and video).
BUS will be modeled as Open Source, in that users of BUS will contribute to its changing. BUS, can be envisioned in metaphor as an integration of 5 subsystems:
social networking system,
educational system,
system for creating and managing organizations & projects, virtually and in realtime,
database system,
R&D system, to integrate Adaptive Management & Action Research into the emergence of BUS.”
From my 2010 proposal: Bootstrap UPLIFT Scaffolding
MY KEY WORKING PREMISES
1. Just as the 3.5 billion year-old DNA molecule exists in every cell in all forms of biological life on this planet, so the ‘pyramid-paradigm-based social DNA’ is present in essentially every ‘cell’ of every traditional organization (all types, all sectors, all geographies) on our planet
2. This ‘pyramid-paradigm DNA’ results in social organisms with narrow and/or myopic definitions of success, that are based on control-over-people, and that, like the pyramids, are incredibly resistant to change.
3. I do believe that these three flaws in our 5000 year-old man-made ‘pyramid-paradigm DNA’ are at the root of all of society’s crises. It is these flaws that make us collectively caterpillar-like – obsessively consumption and growth-centric. [All human systems are perfectly designed – to get the results they get]
I can’t identify three flaws in the above?
Sorry about my lack of clarity. This piece on Social System Design Principles does a better job of making that point.
Bookmarked, will read it later.
We are expressing similar conceptions of humankind (5,000 years, in some regions) that are “flaws” or “blocks” the further galdee of the nu humanity. I have come to label it CIVILIZATION, which has as one characteristic, the pyramid-paradigm, which is closely related to the elites/bureaucracy/masses structure. In nuet, civilization is the default mode of organizing large, dense, populations of humans of different cultures. Civilization permitted a modicum of stability for considerable durations. One essential feature of civilization was that their educational subsystem (informal and formal) was to limit development only to the extent to preserve the system. This suppressed the actualization of potentials for everyone, including the elite and those in the technological bureaucracy that attempted to control the whole. This default mode can only be avoided by explicit application of accurate knowledge of how humans and humankind function, and alternative modes of organization. We have or are very closely approaching that level of knowledge, but it remains insufficiently organized and accessed; and means of applying that knowledge still need to be created.
Larry, the above paragraph is wonderfully congruent with my thinking — a nice piece of bridge-building. [Given my formal schooling in civil engineering I am partial to fellow bridge-builders]
Are you familiar with Eric Drexler’s EXPLORATORY ENGINEERING?
The design/creation of BUS, Bootstrap UPLIFT Scaffolding would be example of exploratory engineering. Drexler would be a person to get involved.
I am still evaluating the use of DNA as metaphor. Paradigm (especially with Kuhn’s initial meaning – habitual practice, and distinct from perspective/belief) is an apt category. Pyramid-Organizational-Structures are propensities, not instincts for humankind. DNA codes for “precision” in biological unfolding (not strictly deterministic), but for propensities in behavior – although probably the majority of humans believe DNA programs instincts. At these levels I feel it proper to engage multiple metaphors, in the generalized sense of complementarity from Bohr.
I’m using the DNA as a metaphor in the sense helping my target audience (prospective evolutionary architects) begin to see and understand their potential role as conscious co-evolutionaries — pioneering pathfinders committed to a NU future — to demonstrate a nu humanity that works for all life — for all time.
I wouldn’t make such a universal claim. What I expect we will make will be a very early version – like the Wright Brothers – where jets and the challenges of super-sonic flight were not in their imagination. Which makes me wonder whether “architect” is the appropriate metaphor – as they design for relative permanence.
As to DNA ‘programming instincts,’ I would choose to believe Rupert Sheldrake’s theory on morphic resonance. The field effect makes so much more sense to me.
4. What REALLY excites me is what happens when organizations reverse the flaws implicit in their pyramid paradigm DNA, e.g.,
•Higher purpose organizations increasingly attract higher purpose customers, voters, co-creators, community supporters and investors
•Organizations designed for control-with-people instead of control-over-people have consistently demonstrated ‘reeee-ly’ great results. Why? Because such distributed leadership both is ‘seafed’ by a ‘galdee’ culture, and reinforces such a culture – and they can be 10X more fun.
I would prefer a word other than “control”. However, if you mean by control the fact of “power” of one to influence another, with no moral component – which I recently discovered “power” used in this sense in business (Elements of Power: Lessons on Leadership and Influence, by Terry R. Bacon). “Control” is too mechanistic, too first order cybernetics, too tending towards TOTAL control – that I avoid using it, except in those senses. Ultimately, the use of terms is a pragmatic issue, what works best? And, given the diversity of persons, no term will work best for all.
I’m attempting to underscore the contrast between ‘Control-over-people’ and ‘control-with-people’ — a foundational difference between the ‘pyramid paradigm DNA’ and a consciously self-evolving DNA. ‘Control’ is essential to order, functionality and predictability throughout nature and our built systems. It’s the control-over (power-over) people/nature that is source of much societal malignancy, at least as I see it.
I’ve seen and help design organizations with extraordinary control over quality, results, etc., based on semi-autonomous work teams where the teams are responsible, and extraordinarily effective in demonstrated control.
I will still avoid using “control”, except to mean “seeking mechanistic imposed determinism” even if applied by/with people. This has the same rigidity as “architecture”. Both have their place when that is what we really want. Randomness and experimental non-success must be expected, which “control” attempts to eliminate – with my sense of the word. In the construction of physical components of BUS I could use “approximate control” for planning the process with project design/management apps.
Pointing out the contrast between power-over and power-from, the use of “control” might be appropriate. But, one would then need to defang “control” as a limited process. “Influence” is a softer term.
•We live in a VUCA world (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous). Pyramid-paradigm organizations naturally resist change and are becoming dinosaurs in our VUCA times. Consciously self-evolving organizations will not only be more sustainable, they are much more likely to thrive in turbulence.
I like VUCA. You do it too, that is why you recognized my play with terms. Almost everyone else strong object to my use of such terms. What they most object to is not remembering what they mean. I need a glossary definition to pop up wherever these terms are used. This would be part of a new digital multi-media language presentation system needed for the success of Societal Metamorphosis.
Cool idea.
Today I coined DEGCC. Not very pronounceable. If we strip off the spin and happy face propaganda of the developed nations we find a rapidly spreading epidemic of DEGCC.
DEGCC = Deception, Exploitation, Greed, Corruption, and Conspiracy. Stories about these that do appear in the MSM are designed to coverup the deeper, ugly extent of DEGCC. Ferguson exposed the DEGCC of policing in the USA, and the unresolved racism. The deep crime is the economic bleeding of the poor and minorities. Our electoral system has been rigged for a long time; it is only that there are riggers other than the two major political parties – that it still is competitive: who rigs best win. By rigging gerrymandering, those behind the GOP have been successful in attacking voter rights. The vote count in critical districts can be manipulated by the party in power in those districts. Neither political party dare admit that we can no longer trust the vote. Take the cover off almost anything and the worms crawl out. America is “exceptional” in that it is at the bottom of quality service among all developed nations.
These need to be considered when we evaluate the difficulty in reforming existing societal systems. I fully agree that selected social systems can be significantly transformed, because person-to-person interaction is not “controlled”. Societal systems can be conceived as having social systems as components, and person-to-person interaction involves playing a quite different (rigged) game. Replicating and propagating exemplar social system change is a very great challenge.
5. The number of people who are becoming systemically conscious and caring has been increasing exponentially – especially over the last 20 years. These ‘imaginal buds’ exist within leadership in every large system in every sector and geography. They exist in systems that aren’t designed to seaf their galdeence. As a consequence their butterfly potential remains unrequited.
I question whether the increase has actually been exponential. I conclude that special populations are growing in numbers, but not nearly rapidly enough and they usually plateau in silos. For nuet, true exponential growth is one measure that we are being successful. There is also considerable back sliding. Zuboff, In The Age of the Smart Machine reported movement of advancing holistic organizational competencies among workers, leading them to replace the function of mid management. Later Zuboff reports that such movements have been blocked and reversed. I am sure there are some very exciting exemplars out there. Long ago I coined a cliche: Exemplars never enter mainstream on their own merits. I believe that much more strongly today than when I first coined it. EXEMPLARS REQUIRE SEAFING to propagate, just popped to mind, to label a conceptual scheme that has been emerging for a decade, at least. David Braden’s work is a powerful exemplar, requiring seafing.
There is a very strong tendency for persons working on new ventures to over-estimate the success of the “field”. Those persons may be somewhat disappointed because their specific venture isn’t galdeeing as they hoped, but their image of the field is encouraging. We get blinded by proposals and start-ups to “feel” things are going better than they really are. In the early 1970, coming out of the exciting 60’s, Marilyn Ferguson announced The Aquarian Conspiracy. She cataloged all the exciting ventures (imaginal buds in my terminology) underway but there was no “conspiring” (collaborating) – there were only parallel developments in silos. Collaboration is a process begging to be better comprehended and mastered.
Bill, I speak from ignorance. You have vastly more knowledge about organizations than do I. I have not surveyed “the field”. But, those ventures I witnessed have much more to do and galdee. If there was a successful conspiring of ventures I believe I would learn of it. Why have we two, interested in metamorphosis, not known of each other until recently? I just Googled “social metamorphosis”. Kafka was on top. But then a recent conference: Reflections on Social Change: Metamorphosis or Transformation? How did I miss this, as this has been my top topic for 5 decades!!! Others: metamorphosis-of-the-social-enterprise, beyond prophecy, and more.
Larry I think I would agree with your observations about ventures and movements within organizations. Most of the organizational change work I see these days feels like incremental improvements to the traditional ‘pyramid paradigm’ DNA — not a true metamorphosis in the sense we’ve been using.
My comment had to do with individual consciousness, as distinct from systemic consciousness, or even from publicly expressed consciousness.
Yes, there is an “awakening”, actually awakening to multiple paradigms – but a given person often awakens to only one or two and then believe they are AWAKENED. Those who have awakened to the same paradigm shift gather together and make their cause awakening others to their level. They seldom consider that they may undergo more awakenings. The pond of Cultural Creatives is only a few inches deep. Our challenge involves shifting a large system of paradigms and perspectives.
6. There are human systems (organizations, cities, regions) on our planet where sufficient conscious leadership exists to support their embarking on a journey of social metamorphosis, if only-
•They had a clear compelling shared vision of a more generative future,
•They personally felt the pain caused by their current pyramid paradigm DNA, and….
•They had a clear actionable first step toward alleviating that pain and moving toward that shared vision.
These are very big IFs, to accomplish. This is the chicken/egg paradox. To accomplish these prerequisites will require much more than informing, as you fully recognize. What ventures are really needed to do this? To “meet the ifs” would have them already on the road to Organizational Metamorphosis – but with more steps needed.
I list those three elements to underscore the need for any organizational, city/regional UPLIFT strategy to effectively address all three, if that human system is to have any chance of getting off the ground, much engaging with an on-going journey of ‘social metamorphosis.’
I grok, in terms of the challenges I discuss in a recent essay, any small set of criteria may blind us to the real magnitude of the task. Actually, one could start with any short list and then deeply explore WHAT ELSE needs doing to achieve the items on the list – and then do the same for these. Maybe STATING AN OBJECTIVE is not the best way of EMERGING A VIABLE PROCESS that has no specific objective to be achieved. The “objectives” are factors of interest within the process – not an end point. JUST EXPLORING.
7. The ideal unit of design for Societal Metamorphosis is the region, or city/region –
•Large enough to be politically and economically significant
•Bounded so as to include relative whole social, economic and natural ecosystems
•Small enough to be called home by its inhabitants.
You are referring to Organizational Metamorphosis, a Social Metamorphosis, which is distinct (for me) from what I conceptualize as Societal Metamorphosis. This distinction will be developed elsewhere. Yet, these are excellent criteria.
We come, however, to the chicken/egg paradox. How can you bring a sufficient minority in such a “region” to readiness for this? UPLIFT (as I model it, would work). Will the rest of the Pyramid world permit this to happen?
The UPLIFT strategy that I envision would need to be designed and implemented in a way to be seen as ‘value-adding,’ certainly from within the pioneering system, but also within its immediate environment. This requires elegant design, both of the context and of the unfolding process.
This triggered a query: are “values” and “motivations” the primary factors attracting and holding membership in an exploratory endeavor? Not that they aren’t a valid and useful perspective/approach. But, I find this the common fallback by those organizing. How to attract and hold members. These ARE phenomena that will need to occur – but need they be what we explicitly attempt to do. Might we discover other things to do that will also attract and hold members? This smacks of economics. What “attracts” may not be what “holds”. Exponential growth is my measure of OLLO success, but it is not my objective.
Now, being part of a vibrant and exciting community could be viewed as a “value”, and it is the primary for my UPLIFT – but this is an abstraction (valid, yes), but what will result in a vibrant and exciting community of diverse persons will be varied and complex. The bottom-line is that persons continue to come and devote more and more time with improved participation.
These are but a few random thoughts, not intended to be comprehensive.
8. The best way to learn to grow and spread a Societal Metamorphosis movement?
•Start with a human system (organization, city or region) where leadership is committed to multiply their system’s lasting contribution to the wellbeing of all life impacted – a conscious, courageous and confidant leadership – a precondition to a sustainable ‘SSS’
•‘Galdeeing’ the ‘SSS’ essential to demonstrating the rich rewards of Societal Metamorphosis requires art and science analogous to that found in Permaculture – it will be unique to that human system, the system’s inhabitants, and the place in which the system is grounded
•Stack the deck for success, especially in Seed selection, preparing the Soil, and galdeeing the systemic Scaffolding required to provide all the different kinds of chrysalises required for the on-going, ever-evolving metamorphosis of that system
[The above is both too much to be called a ‘comment,’ and not enough to adequately respond to opportunities and challenges implicit in this paper. Thanks again for the opportunity to participate]
Bill, I wish it were that “simple”. “Simple and straight-forward” may be insufficient methods in these times of chaos, strong opposition, and a dumbed-down populations. Even were you successful in finding a few regions and were able to change them, I fear they will remain silos in the rest of the decaying world, if tolerated. I don’t want to discourage you, as I deeply believe significant organizational change is possible in some settings, and that they might be critical to a successful global Societal Metamorphosis. I have to explore more, at depth with you and others, the distinction between what I call Societal Metamorphosis and UPLIFT and the types of very significant changes your are proposing. There are two models of “metamorphosis” involved, social and societal.
Sorry Larry. I didn’t mean to imply that such an undertaking would be simple and/or straight-forward. The approach that I’ve been evolving, and is still in its embryonic stage of emergence, represents a significant breakthrough in the architecture of systemic developmental work. It’s not terribly complex, but is definitely counter-intuitive for traditional pyramid-paradigm leaders.
Sorry, I didn’t intend to demean your efforts. I was, in part referring to the three items, presented “as a place-to-start”. In a strange way, I grok that an inter-subjectively agreed-upon “consciously determined place-to-start” doesn’t exist for undertakings as vast as the transition from humankind to humanity. Personal human conceptual processes don’t scale beyond a limit of magnitude/scope/complexity.
Even were you successful in finding a few regions and were able to change them, I fear they will remain silos in the rest of the decaying world, if even tolerated. I don’t want to discourage you, as I deeply believe significant organizational change is possible in some settings, and that they might be critical to a successful global Societal Metamorphosis. I have to explore more, at depth with you and others, the distinction between what I call Societal Metamorphosis and UPLIFT and the types of very significant changes your are proposing. There are two models of “metamorphosis” involved, social/organizational and societal.
Aaah… much to chew on in this paragraph. I think it will take a Skype conversation to harvest the potential Aha’s that lie in the verge of our respective perspectives.