Commoning is an integral matter

[George Por]

The conversation about what will bring the commons into being, at the Convergence Working Group meeting of 8^th June, was not all “business”. In fact, we also explored such deeply personal questions as “what do I need at this stage of my life that brings me to Life, that connects all the dots/nodes within myself?”

We noted that we’re living systems in which and through which all the nodes are becoming connected. (We tend to ignore parts of ourselves by not listening). It is this full connectedness with all of who we are that will make us more alive. 

Then Andy Paice shared an insight that came to him in the early morning, as he was waking up: "The more we connect our life's dots and reclaim our individual wholeness, the more we're ready to reclaim the commons."

What a powerful insight! Blessed are those moments of early morning, when we can receive direct transmission from the Source, before the day had a chance to fill our minds with its noise!

If we live a fragmented live and with compartmentalized activities run by competing priorities, where would the energy come from to roll back all enclosures on our lives, by private interests? Or putting it in a positive way, the more we know and appreciate the wholeness of ourselves (our consciousness), the more we are unwilling to put up with the tyranny of the market that reduces us to passive consumers, and a form of “democracy” that limits our freedom to vote every 4 or 5 years, depending on which country we live in.

Commoning is an integral matter. It calls for deepening our consciousness, aligning our behavior with it, creating a new, commons culture, and building the new institutions for the transition to a commons-based society.

Here's a representation of Ken Wilber's 4-quadrant map for those wanting to go further exploring what commmoning from an integral perspective may mean:

[Claudius Peter van Wyk]

Yes indeed, Andy Paice's insight is profound - Mazlow's self-actualization, Jung's individuation, what I refer to as 'phi - personal holistic integration', must indeed imply reclaiming the 'commons'. And herein lies a potential problem with conventional 'systems thinking' that it signifies the quantifiable and as a consequence overlooks subjective experience. Holistic thinking must of necessity embrace the personal and collective inner subjective where true personhood lies. This is where Wilbur's integral vision is useful as it embraces most of the known systems and models of human growth. He contrasts the relationship between the individual subjective (inner personal world) and the individual objective ( behaviour measurable through modeling, psychometric etc). He contrasts this with the collective subjective (inner social/cultural world) and the collective objective (evaluated through sociology, anthropology, industrial psychology etc).  The model thus confirms that all of these dynamics need to be addressed in facilitating transformation with a particular emphasis on (1) subjectivity where life and existence is experienced internally through a values- and belief-based perceptual filtering process both in respect of individuals and groups (2) culture where normative behaviour is both consciously consensual and unconscious conditioned and then the standard view (3) of the objective measurement of individual and group responses through so-called empirical scientific approaches .

Thus by including the subjective world we could again revalue the 'hidden human capital' and reclaim it as commons, alongside with the other important natural elements already defined in Quilligan's thinking. Now viewing this again through Descartes' model we could see  'res extensa' and the quantifiable objective and 'res cogitans' as the unquantifiable subjective. Now bear with me in respect of a few further notions. Complexity thinking is defined by its recognition of the unquantifiable, that which emerges from non-linear processes, described as emergent properties. So, for example, the frustration of economists is that their economic models are premised on human rationality whereas human economic behavior so often appears irrational. Complexity thinking embraces this and by observing processes endeavours to map patterns and tendencies pointing to another domain of emergence. With chaos theory it recognizes that apparently tiny inputs could have enormous consequences through the multiplexity of integrated dynamics. Furthermore quantum mechanics points to the real influence of the process of observation on the phenomena being observed. all of this led someone like Stuart Kauffman to postulate that Descartes could rather have identified, with 'res extensa' a 'res potentia' rather than a 'res cogitans'.

Which finally brings me to my point that could resonate with Andy's insight; we could now see three inter-blended domains namely; the measurable 'res extensa', 'res cogitans' as the subjective driver of behaviour leading to the former, and 'res potentia' as the domain of creative possibilities when the former two domains are in proper relationship. So the commons not only includes the subjective but the vast abundance of life's creative nature when we enter right relationship. The implications are surely spiritual.

   

[George Por]

Dear Claudius,

What do you see as the proper relationship between 'res extensa' and 'res cogitans'?

What do you see gaining by using Descartes' model/terms vs. the 'objective' and 'subjective' of Wilber?

To the extent I understand your thinking expressed in a very specialized language that is not all familiar to me, I appreciate what you have to say. May I call your attention to a simple gesture of commoning: assuming that not everybody in this community familiar with terms you use, why not turn them into a hyperlink pointing to their best definition for the sake of those who would care for looking it up.

[Claudius Peter van Wyk]

I take your point George about using more commonly understood language - I have been contributing to systems thinking and complexity science blogs and so fell into the vernacular - my apologies. 

Concerning your question about referring to the  Cartesian model, and the value of Wilber's integral model, the following. Firstly the jury is still out on the case of the subjective versus the objective. The common criticism is that the cartesian dichotomy led to a schism between mind as so-called thinking substance 'res cogitans' and body as physical substance 'res extensa'. The consequence was that empirical science thereafter  focused on the physical, namely that which could be objectively measured. To the extent that this artificial schism gave us our mechanistic model of the universe the criticism is true.  I  quoted the model firstly to highlight Kauffman's point concerning the advantage of replacing 'res cogitans' with 'res potentia' as representing a domain of multiple possibilities. Secondly I referred to it to point out that subtle dimension that defines subjectivity. This is the argument that we all filter information from the world, both individually and collectively, according to our experience, beliefs and values etc. In so doing we introject into our own experience models of reality that reduce the deep dynamics of being to something other than the 'real stuff' that is going on. Now if this is the true nature of subjective experience, as I believe it is, it ought to be able to redefine Descartes' 'res cogitans' into being able to make a more useful contribution to our thinking about the world.

The reductionist filtering process is, in my view, the key problem underlying the so-called  quantifiable and consequently monetized capitalistic (as well as the materialist socialist) economic model that the commons initiative is trying to rectify. So your question about the proper relationship between the subjective as 'res cogitans' and the objective as 'res extensa' is very important. Firstly there is the growing awareness that our reductionist model where only the objective is seen as real tends to freeze 'processes' into 'things'. And consequently in mechanistically reducing entities into the 'sum of their parts' not only are the vital processes but also the vitalizing relationships eliminated. The 'commons' ideal, as I understand it, is about re-establishing the primary value of relationships. So the relationship between 'res cogitans' and 'res extensa' in the mechanistic model is determined by the perceptual filters that generalize processes into things and represent life mechanistically. This then could be seen as an 'improper relationship'  since its unfortunate consequences have generated that thinking and behaviour that this 'commons' initiative is seeking to rectify.

A proper relationship between those 'revised' Cartesian subjective and objective domains would then be enabled by perceptual filters that seek and recognize patterns and processes, identifying both core and subtle relationships and then seek to engage generatively with relevant and creative strands. In such a view the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in that the relationships and processes are embedded in the whole - representing a radical departure from mechanistic thinking to organismic thinking.

The complexity thinking I referred to thus focuses on this way of thinking and observing and is consequently not surprised by the unpredictable. One might thus regard complexity  thinking as a more useful description of the proper relationship you query. My speculative case then  is that with this approach not only can the prevailing value of the commons become manifest but in addition a huge unforeseen potential be enabled.

My apologies if I have been a bit long-winded with this clarification. 

[George Por]

Thanks Claudius for taking he time to explain your views that do resonate with me.

I woudn't want to influence the langauge you use. My advice was about the use of hyperlinks that make trigger the curiosity of someone not familiar with the term to click on it. It's a gesture of commoning that is appreciated by many of us interested to discover new distinctions that can open new possibilities for action, as in the next paragraph.

Your "radical departure from mechanistic thinking to organismic thinking" reminded me that Wilber's AQAL model implies not only All Quadrants but also All Levels of developments. Thus commons, just like any social holon, can exist at any level of development. Using the terms of Spiral Dynamics, most commons that I know are of the  first tier Green (HumanBond). I'm utterly curious of how would life be in Yellow (FlexFlow) and Turquoise (WholeSystems) commons.

[Claudius Peter van Wyk]

I'm truly excited and grateful to be engaged with folks who are looking at the potential transformation of society to equitable sustainability at such a systemic level. Wilbur's integration of his 4 quadrant model with the spiral dynamics model, as we have identified, embraces both the subjective and objective realms of values-based behaviours - and also the key principle of emergence. With complexity thinking this gives intellectual rigour to the 'commons' initiative, but at the same time allows for the more subtle fields of non-rational consciousness (intuition) to be enabled.

So in answer to your question a Yellow world will consciously seek those subtle relationships with people and planet that would normally be disregarded in the money-quantified world - thereby opening the filters of awareness to the 'commons'. The key word would be 'consciousness'.

A Turquoise world would be one in which unity of all being in its diversity would be celebrated and revered as a function of own identity and consequently the well-being of all the individual elements be considered vital to the well-being of the whole. The key word would be 'love'.

Aldous Huxley in his brilliant novel 'Island' conceptually got there years ago. Note his comment after the book was published in 1962:

"If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer...a third alternative... In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian (1), politics Kropotkinesque co-operative (2). Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of immanent Tao or Logos, the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the Final End principle – the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"

[Claudius Peter van Wyk]

Re Huxley's references:

(1) 'Georgism' is an economic philosophy and ideology that holds that people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all.

(2) 'Kropotkin' advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers.  

I'm intrigued by correlations to the commons notion!

[George Por]

Yes to all of the above. Yellow is also after integrative structures and forms in evolutionary flow. Why is that important for the Commons to outcompete the Market State? First of all, no transition to a Commons-based society will be possible without the Commons demonstrating its capacity of making the wastefulness of the current mode of production history, i.e. developing structures and forms of coordination for creating more real value for more people than the wage slavery couple with the mechanisms of command and control.

The healthy Green can recap the Orange savvy of success-driven, scientifically sound coordination mechanism (minus the  profit obsession), when it aligns with the Yellow FlexFlow that masters the integrative structures and forms in evolutionary context. For our commons it means using accountability structures, holarchic management, integrative decision making, and social charters that co-evolve with the needs of the commons...

[Claudius Peter van Wyk]

Agreed. Beck and Linscott in ‘SA - the Crucible’  show the values structure they charted through questionnaire research in the US, Europe, Sub-Saharan African and South Africa (in the early nineties). Clearly the predominant mindset or values structure to be addressed in Europe is the Orange/Green double-bind. There is a developing Yellow – relatively small  albeit significant – and first small indications of Turquoise emerging. The Blue (probably the Conservative Right) although still significant will not be likely to rise to the 'commons' case – as will be the hard capitalist Orange interests allied with that Blue constituency.

So in our communication we will need to speak essentially to the mind and heart of Orange and Green. In a way Orange is Yin (expressive – so it wants to get out and achieve) and green is Yang (sacrificial – so it want to embrace/hold). Yellow already understands the language of systems/complexity so the case just needs to be presented coherently - and Turquoise knows and reveres ‘holism’ anyway

Our (my) challenge is to gear advocacy of transformation in such a way that it appeals to the greatest audience but, for now, with a specific focus on revealing to the Orange/Green co-dependency the new and meaningful opportunity of the envisaged transformation.

[George Por]

> the predominant mindset or values structure to be addressed in Europe is the Orange/Green double-bind.

Yes, and it would be not too difficult to build a value-generation strategy on showing the healthy version of each why they need each other to fully realize their own aspirations. Of course, that strategy can be built only from a Yellow perspective supported by Turquoise guidance.

[Claudius Peter van Wyk]

Yes - that's the beauty of the model that all emergences of value-based mindsets or world views have their positive contribution to make even though sometimes they appear to be morally competitive. The Hegelian dialectic applies in that say the materialist Orange, functioning as the thesis (our current economic paradigm) is challenged by the humanistic Green (equitability being a core outcome of the commons intention) as antithesis. The positive elements of both then are synthesized into the strategic systemic Yellow (complexity-based) worldview to  generate the next set of human behavioural co-ordinates. Someone said we can't predict the future but we can engage with the trends that are shaping the future and therefore in so-doing we engage with the potentials of emergent properties.