Hi,

It may be that your category of evolutionary spirituality already makes a case for a different level of morality, but let me state that in case you haven't considered that proposition.

Currently, we have a 'one-person can be anything they want to be'(blank slate) morality. As long as that exsists, we'll not lean into those 4 components that you've stated in your post because individuality--certainly coming into its own now--will block "collective design."

Over the past number of years, I've been working individually with people around the world, and quite frankly, the consciousness is not yet in existence that allows us to fully accept ourselves and then in turn reach out broadly to others (the basis of community of community, so to speak) outside of our own 'genre'.

As a result, we could in fact have the tools, the crisis (we have to have the tension of this), the desire, yet without the essential and fundamental shifts in morality, we--in my opinion--will not easily flow this together in the collective.

At this time, there is too much emphasis on developing the inner person. This is not such a bad deal at first and appears to be the right thing to do. However, there is one major stumbling block...people have VERY limited capacity to develop inner complexity...I would suggest it is hardwired, if not pre-wired in terms of potential.

This proposition flies in the face of the normal morality and becomes a barrier to a person learning to accept themselves, their capacity and their opportunity to connect with others. In my own blog, which is private (http://www.ontheprofessionaledge.com/founder), I wrote these remarks, just yesterday to a response again, of someone saying we have to develop our inner selves, and I quote them and respond:

"...my point is that we need to complexify our interiority as much as our exteriority..."

End Quote

The statement assumes that we 'can' and we can’t.

Here’s why.

Our biological schema is not geared to unlimited, it is geared through limitations (Blink, Gladwell) and thin-slicing a perceived reality from which to “decomplexify” the “search space” of computation (What is Thought?,Baum).

The reason that there is no balance, as the quote suggests in the underlying obliquity (indirectly), is that these limitations do NOT occur in the collective mind.

Therefore you have two evolutionary trajectories: individual and collective; one limited, another unlimited (in relative terms.)

Many confuse the use of absolute tools in relative reality—they doesn’t compute. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, even if the gurus say so (a long story, over drinks sometime).

In any case, I don’t believe the solution lies in us, but as the “kingdom of God ” among us (Scott Peck), therefore the solutions to complexity in the external domain, lie in design in the external domain, through (SOUL) work which leverages individual strengths resulting from acceptance and concurrent reaching out to the collective.

In most of the complexity stuff I’ve seen…the issue lies in two realms, not one (or more perhaps):

1. You can solve growing complexity by increasing complexity.

2. You can solve growing complexity by limiting complexity on the process side.

Some say, this is return to dark ages, NO, it doesn’t have to be, although that is a way.

Through innovation, which can strikingly mimic the evolutionary curve of increasing complexity, in some cases it leads it, rather than trails it…we can innovate ourselves out of complex conditions.

For some, this causes more complexity, yet for many it eliminates the negative effects of complexity and while collapse occurs, it is not, nor does it have to be collapse of civilization, only as civilization as we know it (and make it up).

A jump to a new curve, in a lot of cases, one that takes us back down in complexity because the new innovation solved a complex problem.

If you buy into the argument of unlimited complexity, then I am hear to sell you unlimited innovation.

It is not necessary to keep pace internally, nor can we, if we tried, UNLESS you want to play transhuman, then it’s a whole new ballgame, but I don’t see many folks opening their arms to that one yet.

The key is to understand the answers lie in Design, perhaps not as it is written, but as it can be when we give up blank slate assumptions, like trying to keep internal pace with external evolution.

Just a thought,

mike

Mike R. Jay, Founder
http://www.leadu.com