FINAL PROJECT THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY

Olivia Brookshire

BIS 340: The Future of Humanity: Dialogue in the Workplace – Option 2 (Explanation Style)

Dr. Michael Pryzdia

10/10/19

Word Count: 1338

 7 QUESTIONS

1. On the very first page of The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge notes that fragmentation was

used as a means to break down problems to manage our world in an easier way.

However, in doing this we are losing sight of the big picture and the indivisible whole. Is

it possible at this point in time, to dispel fragmentation to achieve collectivism in a world

where we have broken every little piece apart systematically and institutionally?

2. The way we have designed the way our world is highly fragmented. In addition, we have

fragmented the social aspect of our world; breaking people down by culture, gender, race,

age, ableism, and so forth. One might conclude that before we can achieve coherence

systematically, we must achieve coherence on a human level. What steps can be taken to

attempt this?

3. One might argue that we have designed our world to deny the same opportunities to

different people. For example, people who grow up in lower-class neighborhoods are not

given the same educational and occupational opportunities as others. These people are

too heavily affected by the ‘system” to even consider thought as a system or any of the

topics we learned through Bohm. What do you think Bohm would say to this?
4. As a student, when you are answering questions, there is always an obvious answer. The

education system has groomed us to dispel free thinking. Although we have spent 7

weeks learning how to escape the system of thought, is it possible to achieve the same

academic and social standards WITHOUT removing ourselves from thought?

5. There have been experiments such as the Rajneeshpuram community (wild, wild west on

Netflix), as well as the Stanford Prison Experiment where utopian ideals were attempted

yet human desire for control and chaos took over. Knowing this, do you think it is

possible as humans to achieve cohesiveness? How do you think Bohm would respond?

6. Bohm suggests that imagination can be “potentially negative”, but how does one define is

and isn’t negative?

7. If Bohm suggests we must remove ourselves from thought and listening, how do we find

a sense of “self”?
1. I think that since our world is so heavily fragmented especially in an institutional stance,

it is impossible to see the indivisible whole. Government, religion, and school are just

some of the institutions that love to create branches and branches. These branches

complicate how we get things done and how we go about solving problems and designing

workplaces. It seems as though fragmentation was a tactic used to create jobs, by

breaking down the big picture and assigning people to small parts. To try to create a

collectivist society, we would have to completely alter the way the US operates. We

operate on a wide scale, and we are wired to do and go as much as we can, the opposite

of what Bohm deems correct for achieving cohesiveness. We would have to change

almost everything we do; the way we use transportation, how we buy and grow food, the

kinds of jobs we demand and so on. It would almost be like going back in time to when

things were simpler and in smaller communities.

2. I think it could be possible to dispel the fragmentation that comes within our society as

far as sociological viewpoints go. Europe, for example, is an actual melting pot where

what the United States would consider “leftist” is the norm. The United States in a

country that has implemented systematic racism, sexism and ableism into its very core.

Just in recent years are we seeing a rise in inclusivity, especially in leadership.

Historically, we have been built on white men. To dispel the fragmentation, I think the

first step would be to educate on racial and gender bias. Race and gender are social

factors that should not be ignored but should not be at the forefront of decision making

and preventing some from positions as leaders. By increasing the education on social

factors, we can increase inclusivity and diversity, resulting in a more cohesive world.
3. I think Bohm would agree that considering thought as a process is a privilege. When

communities are marginalized, they must work harder to achieve the same opportunities

as the privileged. Housing, transportation, income, time are all factors that are affected

much more differently for those who are marginalized. In turn, they must focus their

energy on these things, and bettering their current situation, leaving no room for the time

and energy to spend on becoming more educated on thought as a process. Learning these

very tactics and ideas is an educational privilege, therefore, it is impossible to achieve

worldwide cohesiveness. Educational privileges tie into the economic and social

fragmentation of our world, and I think Bohm would suggest unifying communities

through educational opportunity primarily.

4. No, I do not think it possible to think freely and achieve academic success. By thinking

freely and removing ourselves from thought, we must ignore requirements and rules. The

education system is designed around rubrics requesting certain factors and punishing for

others. Sometimes we must go off topic in the eyes of graders when thinking freely.

There have been times when I would allow myself to submit my true thoughts on

assignments, confident that my openness would guarantee myself a good grade, when it

actually worsened my grade for being “off topic”. Our academic system is designed for

one kind of student and learner, there is little flexibility, and much opportunity for

punishment for students who do not fit the bill.

5. I do not think it is possible for humans to achieve cohesiveness. It is in our human nature

to pick things apart, to fragment, and to sin. I do not think that we could achieve a utopia

or solve our problems without fragmentation. I’m not saying we need it per se, but I do

not think we could just do away with war by doing away with it, because there will

always be something, we cannot all agree on or reach a compromise. We will always

disagree, we will always fight, we will always have issues. I think the main thing that

could do away with war is someone radically inspiring proposing unity, such as historical

nonviolent leaders. However, destroying fragmentation is not the answer to resolving our

worldly issues.

6. How do we define what is and isn’t negative? Does that mean negative pertaining to

oneself? Negative towards others? Does that mean negative as in cynical? In philosophy,

what is and isn’t negative is subjective, which is why considering imagination to be

potentially negative, is sort of obvious, but at the same time, is that a universally bad

thing? There are many different forms of philosophy arguing the universal truths.

Personally, I cling to utilitarianism, which notes that what is “negative” is something that

maximizes the bad for oneself, not the rest of the world. Since there are so many ways

decisions can affect us and the world, sometimes we must put ourselves before the

unknown consequences that may affect others.

7. By removing ourselves from thought and listening, it seems as though we would lose a

sense of self. We define people by the way they operate, defining some as “type A” and

so forth. However, I think by welcoming free thought and letting go of the “presets” that
Bohm describes, we can find a sense of self in the openness! We can find a sense of self

in the ways we learn, the ways we love, the things we enjoy and the things we do not

enjoy.
 Works Cited

Bohm, David. On Dialogue. Routledge, 1996.

Bohm, David. Thought as a System. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.

Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation.

Currency Doubleday, 2009.