The idividual/community relationship

The change in human consciousness which we call the enlightenment is the most decisive force shaping our present society – its effects are still being worked out. In particular it has affected the relationship of the individual and society, and working out how we feel about that has to be of interest to us all as individuals. Let us say then that the question is worth asking.
from In praise of individuation , by Sen McGlinn

Posted in Collective Intellect Augments Individual, Questions Worth Asking | Leave a comment

Working in public, working in private

Wow! Looking at the date of my last entry, I’ve just realized that I haven’t blogged here for 3 weeks! I must have been damn busy with some “collective intelligence in action” project. In fact, I still am but my project gently led me back to the blog. Here’s how.
Believing that the philosophers job includes not only interpreting the world but making it better for the largest number of its habitants, I started working–with some colleagues–on a software project that should give a hand to that job.
We’re considering an “opens source/hybrid” possiblity and started thinking about what part of the project would make the most sense to have in closed vs. open source. My exploration led me to an insightful comparative table of working in public vs. working in private, by Andrius Kulikauskas. His bio on the web is only 4 lines, so I decided to link this entriy to him– as a token sign of my recognition–via an interesting, co-creative think tank he founded, called Mincius Sodas Laboratory.
The comparative table doesn’t answer directly my question but it gives some good starting points for further exploration of the criteria, based on which our group can decide about what to put into closed vs. open source.

Posted in CI of Open Source | 4 Comments

One Mind

Shortly after quoting David Bohm on the need to develop a higher collective intelligence, in my blog entry related to Andrew Cohen’s ‘Intersubjective Enlightenment’, I’ve discovered another gem from Bohm. It became yet another source of my inspiration to create a new Learning Expedition, a form of collaborative action research, It would target the conditions of reaching and sustaining higher levels of collective intelligence and wisdom, over time.
In this entry, I share with you both the Bohm quote and the very first articulation of the action research’s general frame, with great curiosity of what you think of both.

Continue reading

Posted in Intersubjectivity, Synchronicity and CI | 3 Comments

Intersubjective Enlightenment

In the Spring/Summer issue of “What Is Enlightenment?” magazine, there’s a remarkable exchange between spiritual teacher Andrew Cohen and integral philosopher Ken Wilber, that touches the very heart of and upgrades my concerns for collective intelligence and wisdom.
My first concern was a moral one. Seeing so much unnecessary, man-made suffering in the world, I thought there must be a better way; all we needed is an enlightened society driven by the high ideals of one for all and all for one. Later, as a young and radical sociologist, I’ve been studying laws that govern the social dimension of our existence, hoping to get a clue of how to bring an enlightened society about, and how I can add my talents to trends pointing that way.
In my thirties, when I became a meditator, the context shifted again, each shift encompassing and transcending the previous context. The new, higher concern became the “reaching of irreversible loving-kindness” as my best bet to contribute to social enlightenment, in a way that has a chance to make a positive difference.
In the late 80’s, I met David Bohm, in a small group that gathered in San Francisco, in the house of Sidney Lanier, to learn from this pioneering physicist, philosopher, and teacher of true dialogue. After the meeting I started reading more of his writings, and to my delight, I discovered a paragraph that became a new focalizer of my quest that’s still what drives my work and being. (At least, in my best days, 🙂 Here it is:
“I’m proposing that we need to learn how to dialogue with each other because of all the fragmentation in the world. It seems to me the only way we can overcome that is by experiencing our wholeness together. We need a kind of social enlightenment to help that take place. In the past, people have developed ways to foster individual enlightenment, a higher intelligence for the individual through meditation or mystical insight or what-have-you. But we haven’t worked on ways to develop a higher social intelligence.”
So, the key to the future is to learn “experiencing our wholeness together.” How can we do that? It can be learned, obviously, only in experience but not any kind of experience.
Holding that question in my attention, I discovered another piece of the puzzle: “This is something that is a permanent cessation of these emotional negative thoughts. So that is my private nirvana. What we really need is a nirvana for society.” — The Dalai Lama
Learning from those wise teachers, and others not mentioned here, whetted my appetite for growing capacity to experience it in the company of others. Then, I became lucky and got a “big meal” of experiencing our wholeness together, when it occurred spontaneously, around the dining table in Les Courmettes, a French retreat center just North of Nice, August 2002.
Courmettes_courtyard.jpg
It happened in a 2-week retreat with Andrew Cohen, and 200 of its students. Looking back what happened, I’m not sure whether I can really call it “spontaneous,” given that we received ample guidance from Andrew that helped us refraining from ordinary chit-chat at meal times. Whatever happened, it’s interesting to see how it kept gaining more depth and meaning as I was reading the transcript of Andrew’s conversation with Ken Wilber. All quotes below are from the Spring/Summer issue of “What Is Enlightenment?” magazine.

Continue reading

Posted in Intersubjectivity | 2 Comments

Double helix of social evolution

Visiting with a friend in San Francisco, I picked up a book which probes the posibility that information transmitted by coherent biophotonic light that living cells–including our DNA–produce, can be received in defocalized state of consciousness. It’s “The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge” by Jeremy Narby. What struck me is the connection of what biologists know about the DNA with the relationship between factors that drive humankind socioeconomic evolution that I tried explore and visualize here and the two slides following that one.
The following statements from Narby’s book triggered some interesting questions for me:

Continue reading

Posted in Collective Intellect Augments Individual | Leave a comment

Are we curious enough?

Robin Good and John Kellden commented on “Innervation leading to synchronicity?”. Their comments inspired the following message.
Robin and John, thanks to you for coming back here and commenting. In a small scale, your act is part of what I referred to, using Teilhard’s term, as “innervation.”

Continue reading

Posted in Synchronicity and CI | 1 Comment

Innervation leading to synchronicity?

In his comment on the “Explaining collective intelligence to non-specialists” entry, Robin Good wrote:
> Another important aspect that adds up exponentially to the viability created by a noosphere is the aspect of synchronicity. Ideas and concepts are not only technologically subsidized and in their ability to spread and feed each other, but new concepts and worldviews are simultaneously accessed from multiple individual viewpoints during this very time.
Below is what Robin’s thoughts inspired.

Continue reading

Posted in Synchronicity and CI | 2 Comments

Cognitive relations, relations of knowledge production

I came across a germinal thought, the full appreciation of which is essential to understand the dynamics of the electronic and inner technologies of intellectual production. It comes from Pierre-Léonard Harvey, a professor of “communautique” at Université de Québec à Montréal:
“Les infrastructures et les technologies devraient être subordonnées aux relations cognitives (l’individu négociant avec l’environnement informationnel) et aux relations qui se développent… dans le processus de production des connaissances. Il nous faut concevoir l’individu comme un système vivant qui cherche à contrôler et à gérer l’information qui lui vient du monde extérieur.”
Excerpt from L’écologie cognitive, une écologie communicationnelle
A surprisingly good Google translation to English and my comment follows.

Continue reading

Posted in Cognitive Relations | 1 Comment

“Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All”

In February, I wrote about Tom Atlee, pioneer of “co-intelligence”, whom I have the honor to call a friend. Tom talks about the following 5 dimensions of co-intelligence: multi-modal intelligence, collaborative intelligence, wisdom, collective intelligence and universal intelligence. His definitions are rich, reflecting decades of engaged research as a philosopher and social activist. He says, “If we are to know life at a deeper, more engaged level, we’ll need to develop a deeper, more engaged intelligence that includes all these dimensions.” and I tend to agree with him.
What prompted this blog entry is Tom’s soon-to-be-relased book, the “The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All”. I think the book is a must read for every student of the emerging interdisciplinary field of collective intelligence and particularly those who want to apply its principles, models, and practices to build a better world.

Posted in Definitions, Democracy and CI | 6 Comments

Explaining collective intelligence to non-specialists

Here is below how I explain to non-specialists what is collective intelligence and why it deserves to become a science.

Continue reading

Posted in Definitions | 9 Comments