 |
| Means & Ends...Good & Bad |
| |
|
|
"Twenty years from now you will be
more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the
ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the
safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore.
Dream. Discover.” - Mark Twain
---------------------------
"Around the age of 14 I decided not
to cross the street unless there was a good reason to do so.
Today I associate that decision with my high desire for
tranquility. Mike classifies me as avoidant. Occasionally I
feel occasionally the urge to explore beyond my fishbowl, but
it is not frequent. Just remembering Mark Twain is enough to
satisfy my sense of adventure. Many of the coaches I
know are my opposite; many clients hire them."n- Eric
---------------------------
"Well, Eric, I remember one daring
advice you gave me in one of our coaching sessions. I built
into my mantra: “Once a day, speak to a person whom you don’t
know.” Behind every person there is a universe, not always one
you want to get involved in – but sometimes there are some
real jewels in this game. Sometimes the big ships come to
anchor in your harbor." - All the best Mark
|
By the way, this is good means and ends points...
One's ends may not "motivate" them to do something, where
one's "means" can motivate them to achieve something else,
which is connected back to our ends, in each case, you
demonstrated that mechanism
This is helpful to know, as means and ends @F-L-O-W are key to
"catalog and organize" as well as use @F-L-O-W, and this
clarity helps us de-sensitize our systems @BS...
There is an idea that emerges, and is emerging in some of you,
because you use either/or black and white cataloging systems
that I am making value judgments @BS and @F-L-O-W and my
attempts are to contrast, as I will repeat over and over,
there is no inherent good and bad, there is always good and
bad, depending on the degree of experience, or layers of cause
and effect, most of which we can't know...
Our moral lens, catalog things into good and bad for US... At
particular ValuDYNAMICS, these moral lens match up to our own
motives and become good and evil @BS... As well as @F-L-O-W,
yet the metamodel @F-L-O-W says it's NOT relative, only @BS,
because each of us will use our own filters and biases to then
catalog the good and bad, but that is not the truth
objectively, it is the truth for our lens...
I think this concept is not easy to understand @BS, because we
have differentiated values, our values through the fishbowl of
our own ValuDYNAMICS and to be able to hold this object truth
that there is nothing good or bad--that thinking makes it so,
is part of the transition system @F-L-O-W that releases us
from the constraints of the current ValuDYNAMICS, and how they
limit the s/o relations in each of us...
We have contracts with ourselves (our values/moral reasoning),
contracts with our referent groups (their values/moral
reasoning), and our social contracts with larger systems of
community and society, contracts as nations among nations, and
what some want, an overriding contract for the planet...
The metasystem here, or some might say the metaparadigmatics,
have to call to question, IMHO, which is why I have stated
since the beginning that tranition @F-L-O-W is critical, this
subject/object relation with values/morals/perspective...
If you see what I suggest, it requires us to redraw the
system, NOT scale it...
IOW, if you scale, or extend the current system, you end up
with a set of values at the top of the planet...
THAT will not produce anything but conflict...and perhaps some
form of monitoring the conflict (which I am ok with), but to
instill as is being done now, a set of values/moral reasoning
by which all must subjugate their own values is not a good
Idea...
In order to open up the dialog, rather than extend, we have to
drop back into our good and bad, either/or, black and white
perspective taking...
Is it ok to take a black and white perspective?
My sense is yes, as it aligns with our fundamental right to be
who we are... And the rights to be what we can, not what
everyone wants us to be...
YET, we need a contract with our behavior, that when our
values produce behavior that is contrary to the values of
others, that some mitigating factor is available to align
interests, but not to force values shifts...
THIS is very tricky stuff and why scaling values, or extending
values, makes it even more tricky...
People have the right to value what they value, as long as it
doesn't preclude the valuing of others, and this is where we
get ValuDYNAMICS...IMHO...
If you use the now infamous, Wilberian transcend and include
that has promulgated throughout the integral world (they
themselves largely representative of a value-set of their own)
you get into the dangers of why transcend and include is not
@BS...
The integral world doesn't get this...@BS
There is no transcend and include mechanism, this is a values
position that creates conflict as it is now doing for those
using it...
You don't go through these values individually and while a
society, or social system, culture or referent group doesn't
have the inborn attributes of individuals who are bound in
most cases by their inborn filters and biases...which means
you get an amalgam...in culture...not bound by the
inbornness...
A person, and often a homogenous group (you will see this a
lot more in Europe coming soon)...prefers as a result of their
values "biases" to remain true to a particular mode of
valuing...and they don't transcend this because of the
combinatorial effects of multifaceted capability...they REMAIN
true to those values which serve their ends most EES... And in
many ways, it creates both antifragility AND resilience for a
particular problem set...
There is no transcending this, because at a particular level
of complexity and values, a particular set of algorithms works
EES...applying a different set of values doesn't meet the
critieria as well, and you have problem left over at the end
of the algorithm...
It is NOT a good idea to transcend and include... It is a good
idea to differentiate, then integrate, or collaborate would be
a better term, integration or integral is too loaded with
transcend and include now to be of much value too us
@F-L-O-W...
This idea of transcendence and inclusion comes out of the
altitude people, who think you can rise 4 levels of
self-awareness through meditation... That entire myth has been
perpetuated by the Integral founder and others since the
beginning @BS...
It is NOT a good idea to transcend and include, it is a good
idea to clarify and differentiate, to fractionalize
complexity, to not pretend you can, when you can't, unless
your ends are achievement, where that is all you do @BS...
Means and ends are key, as I revisit the reason why what I am
saying, will be too subtle for some and not nuanced enough for
others...
If people have a right to be who they are, and who by whatever
reason they are chosen or choose to be...then forcing people
into progressivity because of definitions of good and bad that
are extended by various values positions, is going to create
more problems than it solves...
While its fine for me, for those who have progressive values,
the transcend and include approach is their mantra, I prefer
that they don't project this as a solution for humankind...
No
more than do I think that non-progressive values are they
themselves a solution for everyone either... |
Helpful Hint: in the end, it is not one or the
other (either/or thinking), or the need to transcend and
include that I am buying right now...it is the idea that
collaboration from a point of clarity will provide the most
EES emergent properties, EVEN when it includes violence and
war, which to me, like peace, is an essential tool for
humankind--now try that on for size in any values set we
currently have?
Where does that fit in morality, those issues which I have
presented: good and bad, war and peace...as all of equal
value...for emergence?
And it the "thinking that makes it so"...
If the thinking makes it so, then what thinking is next...or
available to re-constitute the system @BS?
It is this meta (whatever) that I am suggesting that begins to
get at the scale issues we have facing us now, as we
amalgamate (transcend and include?) our values systems... |
|
Action Step: the question I have, along with the
advocacy, is that if "thinking makes it so"...then it is the
thinking/feeling that is at issue, not the object of
which...are means and ends, good and bad...that are in the
answer. |
|
Comments: |
|
