1

The Future of Humanity Project

Adam Moore

Arizona State University

OGL 340: Dialogue in the Workplace

Dr. Michael Pryzdia

8 October 2021

Word Count: 2,260

 2

Part One: Seven Questions for Consideration

1. How can we curb our tendencies to act mostly in our own self-interest, and instead adopt

a more holistic view of ourselves and the role we play in the world around us?

2. Is the Implicate Order theory meant to be taken as truth, or is it to be seen and understood

in a manner similar to religion? Are the ideas presented factual, or more along the lines of

philosophical musings?

3. Is it possible to have a dialogue between people or groups that have not deeply learned

what the concept of it is? Is it so easy for the average person to let go of their bias, or

does it take extended periods of practicing the art of dialogue to become effective at it?

4. Should individuals strive to be perpetually coherent? Would achieving this silence all

emotion? Is some degree of emotion and incoherence not part of what it is to be human?

5. Can we choose to not be affected by thought? As in, can we know it, be aware of it, but

be truly uncontrolled by it? Is such a thing even possible?

6. Can proprioception of the mind be a main tool in overcoming traumatic past experiences?

Is it even being used for this exact purpose now, just under a different name without

realizing the correlation between the ideas?

7. Can true wholeness be achieved while still having national borders? What can the

average person do to further the idea of the indivisible whole in a realistic way?

8.
 3

Part Two: Journal Entries

1. Week One

The most interesting part of this week was by far the Beer Game. I saw it as a fantastic

example of how extraordinarily easy it is to shoot yourself in the foot by simple lack of

communication. It’s something that I see happen at work all the time, although of course I didn’t

have a very clear understanding of why these kinds of problems kept occurring before reading

about the Beer Game. Every project I’ve ever been a part of that requires any sort of

communication with an organization outside of our own, I constantly hear that we “need to be

better at communicating.” Why is that? I ask that question not in the sense of “why do we need

to be better at communicating,” but rather “why do I keep hearing this without any clear sign of

improvement every single time?”

Is this individualistic view then a natural phenomenon, or is it nurtured into us? I feel like

self-interest is generally a common experience among all people, but that it is more pronounced

in Western cultures and especially in America. The mindset of “us vs. them” pervades everything

we do. As demonstrated in the Beer Game, each group is only trying to do their best. Yet time

and time again, the go-to excuse when things go wrong is for the groups to blame one another. It

may just be human nature to intrinsically believe that we are not necessarily infallible, but that

there is certainly some amount of arrogance in play when considering the value of other people.

How can we, both individually and in groups, get past this mindset that seems so ingrained in our

personalities and culture? More importantly, how can we continue to hold this more worldly

view without slipping back into old habits? Is such a change even possible, or is it doomed to be

relegated as food for thought rather than an ideal to strive for?

 4

2. Week Two

I began this week’s readings in a way that I feel a lot of other people did: wondering why I

was reading about quantum physics and other sciences in an organizational leadership class.

However, the flow of thought did become more evident throughout the text (although I’m still a

bit thrown off by the hologram metaphor). This transformation from science to philosophy

reminded me of one of my favorite series of books: Ender’s Game. The first book in the series is

very much science fiction, but subsequent entries took a very philosophical turn. Thinking of the

Implicate Order theory in relation to that made it somewhat easier to connect with the material.

I am curious about the implications about this idea that subatomic particles have some innate

intelligence. How far does this idea of intelligence reach? Is it only enough that these particles

“know” how to interact with each other? Does it extend into the big picture, perhaps even

implying that this innate intelligence has some degree of control over us? Or is the entire

scenario with these particles meant as some sort of metaphor for humanity at large? Is it

something that is simply supposed to be something for individuals to ponder and come to their

own conclusions? I feel like I have more questions than answers.

I’m having trouble wrapping my head completely around this idea of the Implicate Order

when looking at it from the perspective of physics. Overall, and I may be completely off base

with this, I feel like the ideas being presented are more representative of a belief system rather

than fact. A belief system based in science, but a belief nonetheless. Of course, by no means does

that mean that the ideas should be disregarded in any way, I just tend to have difficulty relating

to ideas that require a heavy dose of abstract thought.

 5

3. Week Three

I really liked the readings for this week. The entire concept of dialogue felt like I was seeing

something that I have been vaguely aware about for years finally be put into words right in front

of me. I finally feel justified in believing that there is a enormous breakdown of people’s ability

to communicate happening right in front of us.

Let me elaborate: I am a fairly quiet, introverted person. I end up listening to other people

talk far more than I speak myself. What I have seen, is that so often there will be two people

talking to each other, and nothing will actually pass between them. It’s as if they are not

speaking to impart any sort of understanding on the other person. Rather, they are either

speaking to hear themselves talk, or simply waiting for the other person to finish so that they

may continue their conversation with themselves. There is also the chance that the conversation

takes an argumentative turn. In that case, the exact same thing happens. Both people are still

largely talking to themselves (although this time with less waiting for the other to finish). They

inevitably dig in their heels and refuse to both change their opinion or seek to understand the

other person’s point of view. Regardless of the scenario, nothing is gained and everything is lost.

Which brings us to the concept of dialogue. I absolutely adore this idea. I see it as one being

able to open their eyes and minds to let themselves experience true understanding and empathy.

So often in my conversations I am not looking to be right, I am hoping to be understood. I mean

that not only in the sense that I want other people to understand what I am saying. I want these

conversations to give me a greater understanding of myself. That kind of self-awareness is

something that I have always tried very hard to achieve, and I think that knowing more about

dialogue will truly help me gain a better perspective on myself.

 6

4. Week Four

The deep dive into the process of thought this week was interesting, although I did find parts

of it a little unsettling. Specifically, the example about certain things making you feel different

emotions. I understand the point about being aware and coherent about why you are feeling those

emotions. However, the idea of constantly thinking things such as “I know this thing makes me

happy because of this experience in my past” makes me feel uncomfortable. Bohm has

mentioned that we have been programmed to act certain ways in response to certain stimuli. I

feel like that is a scientific definition of emotion. Looking at emotion through the lens of

coherence in the way it has been presented makes me feel more programmed and robotic, not

less so. Humans have emotions because we are living, breathing things. Presenting the human

experience as “I will now experience X emotion due to Y event shaping my past” reads like a

line of code being executed, which is a distinctly inhuman process. I am not arguing that Bohm

is wrong, only that this particular method of self-awareness sounds distinctly robotic.

On a semi-related note, I have been having thoughts recently about the nature of humanity. I

believe that we, as a species, tend to see ourselves as infallible. The supreme being on the planet.

Of course, it is thought making us think this. It seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy that the only

animals capable of thought would see themselves above the rest. Take away thought for a

moment, and then where do we stand? Are we not merely inhabiting the planet in the same way

as the rest of the animal kingdom? Now, bring back the concept of thought. Suddenly, all of our

issues and failures are back. This train of thought is what made me believe in Bohm’s statement

that thought is the cause of all our problems.

 7

5. Week Five

I would like to continue this week’s trend of really going for the Matrix analogies. Can one

go fully into the concept of “there is no spoon” with thought? Is that a legitimate concept, or is

that just textbook nihilism? Am I completely off base? Is it more apt (perhaps even a healthier

perspective) to consider the scene of Neo stopping bullets as an example of controlling and

observing thought?

Moving on, I found the musings on fragmentation very interesting. From a young age, we are

taught to break things down into simpler parts to ease the learning process and better our

understanding. It makes sense to do this for topics like math, but does this idea of fragmentation

hurt other subjects? I can imagine it having quite an effect in early social studies classes.

Fragmentation was even the basis of my training as an electrician. We were taught the

troubleshooting process is to start from the beginning, and then evaluate each subsequent part in

the system to see what is at fault. You cannot just look at the system in its entirety to figure out

what is going wrong. In fact, the mere idea of the entire electrical system being faulty would be a

ridiculous suggestion. Yet, Bohm is here suggesting that exact thing, that our entire system of

thought is flawed. It essentially runs contrary to everything we have been taught for our entire

lives. We are taught what groups we belong to, consciously or not, and why this supposedly is

the way of things. Is this the paradox of self-deception? That thought is making us think these

fragmentary things and is self-perpetuating its own fragmentation? Thusly, we reach the

conclusion: how do we nullify this effect? Is it as simple as observing and noting that it is

happening, or does it take a more conscious effort of changing our perspective?

 8

6. Week Six

I would like to take a small departure from my usual musings on the class for this week and

get slightly more personal. I had a very deep revelation when reading about proprioception of the

mind: that this is something my wife struggles with daily due to a very difficult upbringing.

To elaborate, her mother is a devout narcissist on top of having one of the most severe cases

of Borderline Personality Disorder that one of her therapists had ever seen. While being raised by

this woman, my wife became mentally conditioned in a variety of different, unhealthy ways.

Chief among these was that her mother was infallible, always right, and the most important

person in the world, which all acted as the glue of all the other demented things this woman put

in my wife’s head. For over twenty years, my wife lived under the same roof as her, unable to

escape. Not from lacking the physical means, but from being so mentally tied to this idea that she

must absolutely support and obey her mother.

It was not until my wife lived away from her mother for about a year before she started

gaining proprioception of her own mind. As part of her healing process, she began to evaluate

why she thought the way she did about so many things. Were these ideas her own, or had they

been planted in her head by years of abuse?

It took years (and is still an ongoing process) for her to start feeling like her own person,

instead of the image her mother gave her of what she should be. She no longer reacts

instinctively, without rational and coherent thought, to so many things. It makes me so proud to

see. I never expected to be able to give such a deeply personal example on something from this

class, but proprioception and how it advocates that you can essentially control your own self and

emotions really struck a chord with me.

 9

7. Week Seven

This final week was where the idea of the indivisible whole finally and completely clicked

with me. I am very much a visual learner, which means I often have difficulty fully grasping

abstract concepts. By definition, I cannot see or touch them. What I can see, however, is the

mental image of an astronaut having existential thoughts while they circle the globe countless

times. I can imagine Europe and Africa turning into Asia, then into the Pacific Isles, to the

Americas, and back again. They say that you can’t see manmade structures from space (not

completely technically true but work with me here). Do you think you would be able to see

national borders from space? Better yet, instead of national borders, we could begin calling them

notional borders. They only exist in our heads.

Shift the perspective out even further. Earth is now that Pale Blue Dot on your screen. The

entire human experience, every life and death from all of time, is now occupying a space no

larger than a spec of dust. Where do you see the borders that divide us now?

Go out some more. You’re now looking at the entire Milky Way Galaxy. Our entire solar

system is completely lost in a sea of billions of other planets that neither know nor care for the

freak genetic evolution that led to our miraculous existence. How significant is your dislike of

your neighbor because he follows a different religion than you now? Are there no better things to

be worried about out there?

That is the indivisible whole. We are all part of a system where supposed differences are so

unfathomably inconsequential that they are completely irrelevant. My only wish going forward is

that I hope others can open their eyes the same way that this class opened mine.