WORKING ON CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SYSTEMS.
Paradigm Impact Think Tank
As we are
the World is
Working on conscious evolution of human systems
Paradigm Impact Think Tank
Working on conscious evolution of human systems
I believe with all my heart that as long as we do not come to a new understanding of this world that we perceive, with all the crises and wars and climate changes, we will continue to run around blaming the wrongdoers who threaten us with destruction, instead of realizing that you and I and everyone else is responsible for this state of the world.
This project came into being mainly because I am convinced that we humans must reach a new consciousness if we want to survive. I mean, to get where we are not, it is not necessary to introduce new solutions or solving problems. Instead, we must examine our world views, examine the knowledge base we are used to. We do not deal with the world in such a way that we adapt ourselves optimally to it, but we in-form it; it is the way we form it. From the perspective I describe, there can be no difference between map and terrain, the map is the terrain - walking is the way!
How can we rethink our world views in such a way that the observer and the observed form an inseparable unity? In a participatory world we do not find that proud distance, so familiar to us, between the "we" and the "it" or "them". This view knows no Cartesian separation, it cancels out the distance through mutual definition. What we perceive has a long history of being connected as living systems in a world, and together we have created this regular environment that we call our world, but which is not somewhere "out there".
"Paradigm shifts are a strange thing. You have to play with them by leaving one foot on the old paradigm, putting the other on the new one and developing a strategy of gently and almost imperceptibly pulling the listener to the other side."
The central idea of the Paradigm Impact Think Tank: Unifying Mind & Matter
"It is about a co-construction of subject and object, which leaves behind the traditional logical geography of a clear separation of the perceiver and the perceived, the inner and the outer world: There is not on the one hand a subject who constructs his reality in the way he wants. And there is by no means on the other side an object that determines what goes on in the organism. My view is that subject and object determine and condition each other, that the perceiver and the perceived arise in mutual dependence, that we neither depict an external world inside nor arbitrarily and blindly construct such a world and project it to the outside."
I propose a change of perspective with significant consequences:
That we focus on the internal coherences of the system rather than its correspondence to a given world. In other words, we see ourselves as an autonomous cognitive system, i.e. as an active, self-regulating collection of structures capable of forming or in-forming the surrounding medium into a world on the basis of a history of coupling with it.
So we look at the joint emergence of units and their environment, the way units shape their world through their internal coherence and natural drift. Mind and matter thus become a circle, because there is no need to choose between matter as eternalistic and mind as nihilistic and incomprehensible; between the two there is mutual confirmation or a dependent emergence. The situation has no firm ground under its feet. The middle way between mind and matter means giving up something that we all do not want to give up at all, namely the assumption that there must be a fixed point of reference somewhere. In this view of things, I am afraid there is not. We have to learn to live, as it were, with no solid ground beneath our feet, with that groundless existence from which many different worlds can arise, none of which is a solid, immovable point of reference.
This is one of the key ideas of contemporary cognitive science: There are the various functions and components that combine to produce a transient, non-localizable, relationally formed ego that nevertheless exists in a clearly perceptible way. One can welcome this ego, give it a name, interact with it in a predictable way, but one will not discover a core of being that constitutes the emergent self of any human being. If one starts from an identity that cannot be essentially determined and from the intersubjective nature of human existence, then ethics has a meaningful justification based on one's own experience. The continued practice of self-exploration, the discovery of egotism and the intersubjective nature of human existence, leads to a behavior based on compassion and concern for others.
As one explores oneself and increasingly understands one's own selflessness and non-individuality, the goal of cultivating this experience of interdependence comes into focus. And the condition of the other becomes a matter that directly concerns me. But if one understands one's own self as a territorial, firmly outlined, clearly defined and essential phenomenon, then one must defend it - and this ego feeling turns into a blockade of a desirable ethic.
If we are able to experience, and thus understand in a very deep way, that we are all one, that humanity has a collective consciousness, we will be able to rise above conflicts to observe like a mother observing her two children in battle - she is only seeking reconciliation. The spontaneous compassion is already present in all people! The less I declare my own little self to be the centre, the more I succeed in taking care of others, listening to my children better, taking an interest in them and their special needs.
A world view where the observer is in the picture means that the intelligence shifts from the ability to solve a problem to the ability to enter a shared world of relevance.
- We need humans who are capable of it.
It is by no means the aim to accept any dogma without questioning it; on the contrary, it is about doubting it and verifying it in ones own experience. We have to advance self-exploration in order to then decide quite pragmatically about the possible truth of such a hypothesis. - In a True Dialogue both sides are willing to change.
"Brave humans wanted for daring scientific journey. No wages. Bitter social coldness. Long months in complete darkness of selflessness and groundlessness. Constant danger of loss of reputation. Safe return to the status quo of science uncertain. Honour, recognition and change of the course of human history in case of success. - Are YOU capable to enter in a shared world of relevance with us? - Please contact Us!"
