Moderating the AfterChat of Humanity Rising, I have the honour, privilege and delight to speak to a lot of passionate people. It's thrilling... Our wide varieties of interests was recently brought to my attention, and a co-creator remarked that we don't have 1-1 interests. I replied that was a good thing. We'd have few new matter(s) to discuss if we all only did the same things -- as evidenced by some enduring (long-suffering) couples.
Another co-creator sent me the article. Anthony Judge is a highly intelligent, deep thinking person; the article was long, involved and I found it, regretfully, tedious. My friend, sending it to me and asking me to read it, led me to (panning for gold) discovering this statement: "The limited evidence of dialogue between sages is especially striking." I imagine sages are more concerned with teaching, being...
...in the moment or diving deep inside rather than talking with each other, but I'm happy to offer the above conversation, between Deja Blu, Dr. Zach Bush and Richard Rudd as a case in point. That being said, yet another friend suggested that sages may not be as interested in sharing their discussions as we might like them to be (thus the presence of Deja Blu, podcaster and wise woman, offers us a way to be, delightfully, a party to the party of the sages pictured above, Zach and Richard). Along with the conversation above, "dialogue between sages" brought to mind a thought I've had before -- that when we start sharing our MOMs (the magical synchronicities that we could not have planned) we will be better able to see the greater pattern that is forming. Like a child noticing their own hand for the first time, we will see/realize the power we have in our hands that we can wield as an informed collective. Conversations like this one, I believe, will happen more and more in the near future, like a continuation of my Panel Discussion about #TheOneWeAre - What are we? While there wasn't enough time in that 2+ hours to go deeply into a mixing of our MOMs, it was a beginning; and we have to start somewhere... Meanwhile, I've got some reading to do! The article is now touching on the compatability of democracy and intelligence: with the increasing investment in "intelligence", a degree of incompatibility with "democracy" is already evident (Mike Rettig, Democracy and Intelligence: an uneasy working partnership, Fair Observer, 12 March 2013; Heather Heying, Why unintelligent protest may kill democracy, Big Think; Vyacheslav Polonski, How artificial intelligence silently took over democracy, World Economic Forum, 9 August 2017; Steven Feldstein, How artificial intelligence systems could threaten democracy, The Conversation, 22 April 2019). " Just a thought... with democracy having been conceptualized about 2500 years ago, isn't that about when we started creating the problems that are causing the most problems in our world at this time? Finally, I'd like to offer his closing to you -- tempting you to wonder through his wanderings: ...there is therefore a strong case for an environment in which "unlearning" is cultivated -- with the associated facility of "unsaying" as variously envisaged (Michael A. Sells. Mystical Languages of Unsaying, 1994; Being What You Want: problematic kataphatic identity vs. potential of apophatic identity? 2008). There is a case for a much greater appreciation of ignorance -- especially given the contrast between present understanding and the insights of the future -- if humanity is indeed to grow and develop as widely assumed (Nicholas Rescher, Ignorance: on the wider implications of deficient knowledge, 2009). YES! "A shared self-consciousness..." (Is he saying what I'm saying?) We need to enhance our ability to hear and honour the Greater Intelligence within us and within which we live. It is THAT intelligence that will save us, along with learning our h's: hope, humility and helpfulness.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Shannon McArthurSo much happening... Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|