If we believe that reality is an integrated whole, then a fragmented approach to the generation of knowledge will never approximate an accurate understanding of the underlying structure of reality. No wonder then that our social systems (i.e. governance, economies, etc.), built upon our perception of the structure of reality, often don’t seem in line with the rest of the biosphere.

I am happy to say that one of the central elements that will guide our efforts in this particular project over the next 6 months and beyond is that we will focus on the integration as a central theme. More later!

The thrill for me is not just that this is an incredible partnership between the disaster risk community and the software engineering community, but that it involves three of the world’s largest corporations who are generally known to compete aggressively with each other. In this endeavor, however, they are not only co-sponsoring this event, but actually co-organizing it. The organizing team is composed of champions in these organizations who are looking beyond strict allegiance to the corporations they represent and instead choosing a wider allegiance. The challenges, of course, are clear in that this collaboration is happening in an environment that expects and often encourages competition between the organizations but then again…what noble effort has not met with challenge at its inception.

I say this is a fantastic example of what I believe to be a manifestation of world becoming increasingly conscious of its oneness and that fact that ultimately we are all citizens of one homeland. If you blog or know others that do perhaps you’d consider blogging about it and spreading the word.

More information for Random Hacks of Kindness (RHoK) here at the Press Room

One of the themes that’s come up frequently recently is the practice that Baha’is refer to as consultation. Its the community’s mechanism of collectively seeking truth and finding consensus. In consultation you don’t own your contributions per se, but rather once you share your perspective on the matter of hand that perspective belongs to the consulting group. We try to maintain both a frank as well as a loving atmosphere and the goal is at all times to put truth before our current thinking. As such it is my understanding that you act upon the consultation just as much as the consultation acts upon you. You might be informed as deeply by the consultation as you are informing it, and often may find yourself in the position of changing your opinion on a matter a number of times during the course of the consultation.

I’ve also experienced in the work we’re doing with HEG a collective phase transition or paradigm shift in the way that we’ve been thinking of things. This has led me to put a lot of thought in how to create structures that not only are capable of change but rather organizations that encourage change — fundamental change — on a regular basis and perhaps driven by reflection on action taken thus far. Recently a friend and close collaborator of mine shared the idea with me that is extremely profound. He said that he felt that consultation is the tool that can free us of paradigms. The idea that progress doesn’t have to be bound by these phases where we have to have a transition to a higher phase of understanding, but that progress would be seamless is something that deeply intrigues me, both individually as well as organizationally. If you truly embark on a consultative approach to truth then you don’t need a paradigm shift, because you’re engaged in ever-advancing progress.

Right…keep your blogs short Toddi, that way you’ll do it every couple of days.

In my first undergraduate economics course, a rather self-assured professor of mine stood in front of the classroom and confidently declared that humans are “selfish, greedy, have unlimited wants and the world has limited needs and thus the field of economics.” What he really meant to say was that “we have a conceptual framework that has evolved throughout the history of civilization and this framework has underlying assumptions about human nature, the purpose of governance, the distribution of wealth and other things. Sometimes those assumptions are accurate and sometimes they’re a bit inaccurate and what the field of economics is based on today is the assumption that human nature is exclusively selfish, greedy and has unlimited wants”….that’s what he really meant to say I think…it just came out wrong.

Whether we state it or not, we have a conceptual framework, and whether we want to or not, our conceptual framework deeply influences our methodology. By methodology I only mean what we do…our actions, our decisions. In terms of an organization, the way it will go about doing whatever it is that it does. To take an inadequate example a society that believes that people are inherently “bad” (selfish, greedy, etc) may spend more resources on prisons and laws to contain deviant behavior than on education and increasing capacity to allow for the full expression of what it means to be human (because what it means to be human as defined by this society is to be bad). A society that believes that people are noble may have the emphasis the other way around and a society that believes that people are noble but can also express “badness” may place the emphasis on increasing capacity and establishing a moral framework at an early age but have safeguards just in case.

As the Harmony Equity Group, or any other organization, continues to refine its (hopefully) ever-evolving conceptual framework, we also are developing a methodology which I understand to be the practical implementation of that conceptual framework. Because the methodology will get us the practical experience that will provide much of our data to inform the development of the conceptual framework, it is important that the methodology also be well thought out and refined.

I see other organizations and other initiatives that have done just that, but I also see that because the methodology is what everybody really sees that it tends to take up the bulk of the organization’s energy, and perhaps rightly so since we don’t want to take up all of our time in hypothetical debate. The trap seems to be that we can become so invested in our methodology that as time goes on we adapt our conceptual framework only to the extent that it does not jeopardize the methodology that we have painstakingly developed and refined. And I can really see how we could mistakenly justify this strange role reversal in the name of efficiency.

Of course there is a balance because it seems to me if you change your conceptual framework at every turn you won’t get anything done. You know how Christensen in his disruptive innovation theory talks about how the giants of one industry will often become blindsided by a disruptive innovation because they are looking for short term profit in order to survive and to be relevant to the market, but in doing so they end up losing their entire company with the disruptive innovation that transforms the industry in a radical way (e.g. hard drive industry)? Same as how centralized massive agriculture, for instance, in the name of efficiency does not allow for innovation at the fringe, because really there is less and less of a fringe. As such its making its own tomb in a sense. So there are definitely certain efficiencies of staying the course long enough if you are eventually willing to scrap the current methodology or at least be open to the possibility of radical alteration of that methodology should your new and improved conceptual framework warrant that.

The question for me, is that I have seen far greater men than me become trapped within their original conceptual framework because of what seems to be an investment in a methodology (a book, a theory, a “method”, etc). How do I avoid that? What are some of the elements that I need to develop within myself to be open to the possibility of that sort of change? Clearly there are a number of spiritual qualities at play here: humility, detachment and holding the truth above my own opinion come to mind. But in addition to the obvious personal element of this dilemma, I am wondering if there are institutional safeguards to this. The more I work with the UN and other large organizations whose names I won’t mention, the more I see how they have almost been designed to resist meaningful change. With HEG, we don’t only want to make this organization one that allows for change or tolerates such change, rather we want to build an organization that instead encourages and facilitates that change. What are some institutional safeguards that could allow for this? Is it possible to weave this into the very structure of our organization? I hope I am articulating this clearly. Change is so damn bumpy…I feel that we’re often like a beginner driver learning how to use a stick shift and that we build organizations more as a monument to our own egos and perceived brilliance than as a continuously evolving organization that would instead always reflect our increasing consciousness of reality. So…this is what I’m struggling with at the moment. Help Wanted.

I’ve been thinking about his question and in particular about being almost “plagued” by the need to act immediately on things. I’ve also been thinking about how I think about things to get a little bit freaky meta on you.

You know, it is such an appropriate use of the term. I really am plagued by this. I know he didn’t mean to give a negative connotation by saying it, but its so true! Every conversation that I have with somebody my mind immediately is going to implementable solutions…so much so that its almost pathalogic. Really! I started observing myself, even in the mellowest of meetings. In every consultation, regardless of whether I’m speaking or not my mind is always racing trying to think of the solutions. What are our options? What are the best options? What is my criteria of selection of possibility? What am I going to do personally to implement this? Who is the best person to do this? What are the logistics of the situation? What are my milestones? Ignorance or confusion or lack of knowledge also is almost something that’s attractive…somehow it makes it more challenging. I love being in an unknown environment and having to act…the thrill of improvisation, never knowing what’s coming next. It keeps me sharp its when I’m at my best. Its almost like when things are completely chaotic I’m at my most internal peace. We don’t know enough you say?…Perfect! Pathologic indeed….

I think what a lot of this comes down to is that I value doing over thinking (as ignorant as that might sound). I know that there is not a dichotomy here and that thinking and doing must go hand in hand, but somehow for me thinking is of value when coupled with (and perhaps moreso driven by) action. Theoretical frameworks for me too often seem airy…this is why I could never stand academia. It would drive me crazy that ten people would sit around talking about economics or education or whatever instead of getting in there and actually doing something. It almost seemed like a waste of time to me…that things move so much faster when you’re in it, and that theoretical musings become an end unto themselves and lose themselves in themselves, and never prove anything until someone actually implements it. Within my language and my tone I think my bias is really evident…obviously deep thinking is essential, especially for large frameworks. Thinking on your feet is good for the practical implementation of anything, but you could be thinking on your feet in a dead end alley in which case all the quick thinking in the world won’t help you get out. Like quick thinking within an economic system rooted in a totally antiquated paradigm perhaps. So here is the value of deep thinking I guess…to look far enough out that you are really considering the long term implications of what you’re doing and so your doing can inform not only the immediate next steps but also 10 steps out which of course necessitates very deep thinking.

I also thought about a comment he made about that element of the entrepreneur that holds ideas back lest somebody else take them and run with them (note me thoughts on Intellectual squatting, the fallacy of the origin and the slow painful death of IP and the fallacy of IP). I had the fortune of receiving some timely assistance in musing over this topic as in the last few months as 3 of the web applications that our TinyApps team created were almost exactly replicated within short periods of when we launched them and, get this, ALL OF THEM ended up on the front page of the biggest industry websites (techcrunch, mashable, etc.). The “replicas” that is, not the ones we developed. What is more…none of them gave credit to us. Now there’s a very real chance there was a synchronous moment in the universe and all three ideas came to them at the same time lest we forget the advent of calculus, but we also felt that the possibility that we were being stalked for good ideas was also a very real one. Notwithstanding this though, I was very pleasantly surprised to recognize my reaction in retrospect (one shared by the other members of the team). It didn’t bother me in the least. I don’t know if its because I’m from the open source generation or somehow that I’ve really taken to the collaborative/open/transparent movement, but if anything their success validated our original thinking for creating these apps in the first place. So any reticence on my part to display my thinking (like in the form of this blog) really is more an attribute of my own inability to clearly articulate it rather than a proprietary agenda. Ironically, it may be the person reading it that would be able to more clearly articulate what I’m getting at and so maybe the solution to my reticence is to just get over myself and do it (hence this blog). Oh the sneaky ego…sometimes it tells you you’re good, sometimes it tells you you’re useless…either way I suppose its an over-reliance on self.

I think we don’t think about how we think enough…what do you think?