THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY PROJECT

Ari Ecker
OGL 340: The Future of Humanity: Dialogue in the Workplace
Dr. Michael Pryzdia
10/8/21

Total Word Count: 2724 words (part 2 ONLY)

 PART ONE: SEVEN QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

1) Can the optimal “learning organization” really be achieved?

2) What would Bohm think of his “coherent culture” today?

3) Which field of conversation contains the most significant change?

4) If the consciousness of man cannot be changed throughout time, where does that leave
humanity today?

5) Which has more significance, the thoughts or the words representing the thoughts?

6) Is it better to engage in participatory thought or stay in literal thought?

7) Of the three conditions necessary for dialogue, is one more important over the others?
 PART TWO: EXPLANATIONS

1) In Part I of The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge lays out the blueprint for ideal learning
organization. By introducing us to the ideas of systems thinking, personal mastery, mental
models, building shared vision and team learning we are shown exactly what is needed to
transform stagnant organizations to ones that can truly learn. Of the five disciplines I found
systems thinking to be the most intriguing. Senge says, “systems thinking is a conceptual
framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has been developed over the past fifty years, to
make the full patterns clearer, and to help us see how to challenge them effectively}
(Senge,2006). This resonated with me because I find having a holistic view of every component
is one of the most important aspects of any project.

Senge goes on to explain that while this is probably the most important all five disciplines
develop as an ensemble. “For example, vision without systems thinking ends up painting lovely
pictures of the future with no deep understanding of the forces that must be mastered to move
from here to there” (Senge,2006). And while these five disciplines do sound intriguing as an
ideal state for any learning organization, I did find it interesting how hesitant scent was to
describe this easily obtainable. This leads me to my first question; can the optimal learning
organization really be achieved?

Senge says, “I came to see why system thinking was not enough by itself. It needed a new type
of management practitioner to really make the most of it” (Senge,2006). And while I appreciate
Senge’s optimism, reading part one left me with a sense of pessimism towards the prospect of
an ideal learning organization. In my experience of working in corporate learning and
development for the past ten years I have not seen senior leaders live into the vision they
supposedly adhere to. I am hopeful that Senge has a more realistic and obtainable design,
however, I am skeptical.

2) In chapter five of On Creativity, David Bohm examines art, dialogue and the implicate order.
There were a few interesting takeaways from Bohm discussion on physics the nature of reality,
religion and most importantly what he calls “implicate order”. “If you look at the mathematics
of the quantum theory it describes a movement … of waves that unfold and enfold throughout
the whole of space. You could therefore say that everything is enfolded in this whole, or even in
each part, and that it then unfolds. I call this and implicate order, the unfolded order and this
unfolds into an explicate order. It unfolds into the explicate order, in which everything is
separated” (Bohm & Nichol, 1998). My basic understanding of this theory is that everything is
connected it is just not seen. Bohm goes on to use the analogy of a hologram where
information about the object is enfolded. Personally, I had not viewed reality in that spectrum,
however, it seems logical. There is so much going on outside of an individual's realm it only
makes sense that we are all enfolded together.
Another interesting insight from Bohm was his desire to create a “coherent culture”. Quote
culture implies shared meaning, in which everybody participates Culture is inherently a
participatory thing. Our present culture is not at all coherent. It's highly incoherent all over the
world and in each country. We need a coherent culture. In fact, we could say that one of the
reasons why we have to enter into dialogue is to establish this coherent culture” (Bohm &
Nichol, 1998). It's interesting that this book was written over 20 years ago and in my opinion,
we are still no closer to anything resembling a coherent culture. When you look at how divided
we are politically as a country, the toxic environment on social media and cable news, you
could argue we are further apart than ever. And while Bohm classified himself as “tactically
optimistic”, I wonder if his views would change in today's climate.

3) In Chapter 11 of the Art of Thinking together Walter William Isaacs lays out his theory on the
four fields of conversation. He discusses how each field has distinct characteristics, patterns,
and pressures. “Each one transforms into another only through crises, significant changes
evoked by the people who are participating in the dialogue” (Issacs, 1999). Isaacs goes into
detail about the significance of each field as well as how they are related to each other. Field I
he describes as “Politeness in the Container.” These are the initial moments where people bring
“a set of inherited norms about how to interact” (Issacs, 1999). For the most part people in the
politeness field tend to follow the prevailing rules.

Isaacs describes Field II as “Breakdown in the Container.” Here is where people will shift from
the accepted norms of the social hole and start to say what they think. “Rule-revealing behavior
becomes the norm here. The sub service fragmentation comes up. But now there is a container
that can begin to hold the intensity and pressure” (Issacs, 1999). Interestingly, people typically
experience this dimension of the container’s development as the time when trouble arises. “in
fact, as there is greater understanding of the inevitable frustrations that arise as a group of
people struggle to learn to talk together, there can be a much greater ease and more fluid
movement” (Issacs, 1999). Personally, I view this field as just starting to break the ice in
dialogue.

Isaacs describes Field III as “Inquiry in the Field.” Here the energy changes and a different type
of conversation begins to take place. “It is at this phase that people start to be surprised- not by
their negative reactions to others, but by the fact that they are thrown back on their heels, and
by their realization that they are being forced to slow down and think” (Issacs, 1999). I found
this phase to be incredibly significant because this is where meaning can unfold, and you can
start to get some reflective dialogue.

The final field, Field IV, Issacs describes as place where dialogue can rarely get to called
“Creativity in the Field.” This is where people crossover into an awareness of the primacy of the
whole. Quote this is a space where people generate new rules for interaction, where they are
personally included, but also are fully aware of the impersonal elements of their participation”
(Issacs, 1999). Isaacs describes this as a certain type of “flow” between participants. Well, the
significance of this field is important it seems to me that it's rarefied air that dialogue can reach
this stage.

It is because of that rarity I view Field III, “Inquiry in the Field” as the most significant container
of this diagram. In my opinion once you reach “reflective dialogue” you can really start to make
some progress in a dialogue. Fields I and II are the steppingstones, but don't lead to anything
significant. While it would be nice to have every dialogue reach Field IV, it seems unlikely to
have that kind of flow.

4) In The Future of Humanity, Krishnamurti and Bohm spend a great deal of time discussing the
consciousness of mankind and whether it can be changed throughout time. Krishnamurti
argues that the evolution of consciousness is a fallacy, and the future of humanity depends on
the psyche. Krishnamurti believes the brain is “conditioned by past generations, by society, by
the newspapers, by the magazines, by all the activities and pressures from the outside. The
brain is programmed; it is made to conform to a certain pattern; it lives entirely on the past,
modifying itself with the present and going on” (Krishnamurti, 1986). When you read more of
Krishnamurti’s work, you see how he distinguishes the mind from the brain and the importance
of understanding of the contents of your own mind, through observation and not through
intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. This is not an easy concept to wrap your head
around at first. When you step back and look at it from Krishnamurti’s perspective, your mind is
working against you.

Krishnamurti and Bohm dive deeper into the future of humanity and discuss human behavior.
Krishnamurti maintains that humanity is caught in “becoming” and “Illusion.” Krishnamurti says,
“any form of becoming it is an illusion, and becoming implies time, time for the psyche to
change. But we are saying that time is not necessary” (Krishnamurti, 1986). This is an
interesting concept that I struggled with. I've always felt that as a society “becoming”
something was always the goal. Krishnamurti Is arguing that the mind can go deeper than that,
which can be exciting but also terrifying. If, as Krishnamurti and Bohm suggest, consciousness of
man cannot be changed throughout time, does humanity have any chance at evolving? I've
mentioned this in earlier posts, but it seems like mankind is getting farther away from that with
every interaction on social media.

5) In Thought as a System, David Bohm places a lot of significance on the use of language giving
life to thoughts. “The thought process itself doesn't ‘see’. it can only get information. It's typical
way of getting information - on such an abstract level anyway - is from words. Therefore, I'm
saying that it is essential to use words to elicit this thing, to make it visible to thought; and also,
we may then use words to state what we have seen” (Bohm, 1994). Bohm here is essentially
claiming that thought and the system of thought are dependent and giving that thought a voice.
This is an interesting argument in that the thought does not exist unless it is verbalized. I'm not
100% sold on this validity because I have thought I don't verbalize all the time; however, I can
see how this works as a structed system that is dependent on multiple people relying on
communication and dialogue to be successful. Independent thought might get away with not
verbalizing as a system, but interdependent thought needs to be vocalized.

Bohm explores this idea even further by exploring how are thoughts justify our actions. “Many
of our intentions are reflexive; they just come out automatically. They're coming from reflexes,
whose base is his thought. The intention is implicit in the thought. You will be impelled to do
something if something is ‘necessary’. If somebody says, ‘you must do it, it's necessary to do it’,
or ‘doing this will give you something you really want’, then from the thought you will get the
intention to do it” (Bohm, 1994). I know from my own experience that I have fallen into this
reflex of trap as well. I see where Bowman is coming from in that you have a thought, you
justify that thought, and the system just keeps moving. By stepping back and looking at how
this impulse is a reflex, you have to question whether you are controlling her thoughts or your
thoughts are controlling you?

6) In Chapter Seven of On Dialogue, David Bohm breaks down his idea of participatory thought
versus literal thought. Bohm describes the differences as such. “Participatory thought is a
different way of perceiving and thinking, and that is the way we were for more or less a million
years. In the last 5000 years we have turned it around, and our present language says, ‘that's all
nonsense. We won't pay attention to that at all.’ This kind of thought which we largely favor
nowadays has been called ‘literal thought’” (Bohm, 2004). Bohm goes on to explain that literal
thought aims to be a reflection of reality as it is, where your thoughts tell you the way things
are. Bohm’s argument here is that this is how our mind defaults in thinking. That on a practical
level literal thought is perhaps easier. It's almost as if this type of thinking is a defects
mechanism for actually participating with others in society. However, Bohm argues that
participatory thought is absolutely necessary if anything is to be done collectively. “As long as
we stick only to this literal thought, there is no room in it for participation. We think only of
external mechanical relationships. We think the self is there as an object, and that everything
comes from this self. I would propose, however, that in true participation, thought may
establish distinctions, but there is participation between those distinctions” (Bohm, 2004).

I found this discussion to be very similar to the blue pill/red pill clip from the matrix played at
the introduction of this course. if you think about it, literal thought is the blue pill. It allows you
to keep your mind closed off to “the matrix” and continue going about your day within the
“machine world”. similarly, participatory thought is the red pill. Being able to open your mind to
this reality can set you free from all your limitations and give you a new perspective on how
reality functions. While this is very intriguing, I must question whether I or if most of society is
capable of handling participatory thought. If I'm being honest I kind of like the reality I have
around me and participatory thought seems like a lot of work. I like being open to both
perspectives, but it is a dilemma worth debating.

7) In Chapter Eleven of The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge describes David Bohm’s theory on the
three conditions necessary for dialogue. The first is that all participants must “suspend” their
assumptions. “To ‘suspend’ one's assumptions means to hold them, ‘as it were, hanging in front
of you,’ constantly accessible to questioning and observation.’ This cannot be done if we are
defending our opinions. Nor, can it be done if we are unaware of our assumptions, or unaware
that our views are based on assumptions, rather than incontrovertible fact” (Senge, 2006). the
big takeaway here is you have to let your ego go, and this may be difficult for many people.

The second condition Senge identifies from Bohm’s theory is the idea that all participants must
regard one another as colleagues. “Seeing each other as colleagues is critical to establish a
positive tone and to offset the vulnerability that dialogue brings. In dialogue people actually
feel as if they are building something, a new deeper understanding… Colleagueship does not
mean that you need to agree or share the same views. On the contrary, the real power of
seeing each other as colleagues comes into play when there are differences of view. Is easy to
feel collegial when everyone agrees. When there are significant disagreements, is more
difficult. but the payoff is also much greater. Choosing to view the adversaries as ‘colleagues
with different views’ has the greatest benefits” (Senge, 2004). I can say from my own work
experience that this type of colleagueship is difficult to find. I have many colleagues that I have
enjoyed working with, however, I would say there Were only a few I would consider that
reached that special level of colleagueship.

The third condition Senge identifies from Bohm’s theory is That there must be a “facilitator”
who “holds the context” of dialogue. The facilitator must have “a special understanding of
dialogue that allows them to influence the flow of development simply through participating.
The artistry of dialogue lies and experiencing the flow of meaning and seeing the one thing that
needs to be said now” (Senge, 2004). In my experience I have seen very few leaders with the
skill level to facilitate such a dialogue as this is a difficult ability to learn. I am certainly not
qualified for this role and can only think of a handful of individuals that would be up for it.
After looking at all these conditions, it is my view that suspending assumptions is the most
important factor and creating a dialogue between colleagues. The fact that this is something an
individual can do on their own, with work, shows me that this is the most easily obtainable
aspect of these conditions. In my own practice of suspending assumptions, I have found this
exercise to be incredibly helpful and how I interact with colleagues, friends, and loved ones. As
Senge and Bohm Point out throughout this entire course, there's a lot of work to be done to
creating coherent dialogue and I view suspending assumptions as the first necessary step
towards fulfilling that work.
Word Cited

Senge, Peter. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of a Learning Organization.
Doubleday, [REVISED AND UPDATED EDITION].

Bohm, D., & Nichol, L. (1998). On Creativity. Routledge.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to
communicating in business and in life. New York: Currency.

Krishnamurti, J. (1986). The Future of Humanity. San Francisco : Harper & Row.

Bohm, David. (1994). Thought as a System. Routledge.

Bohm, David. (2004). On Dialogue. Routledge.