On the other hand, the enactive approach asserts that knowing is action. Knowledge is the result of an ongoing interpretation that emerges from our capacities of understanding. These capacities enable us to make sense of the world. So, rather than the mind passively reflecting a pre-given world, the mind actively engages with the world. Meaning is enacted (constructed) from a taken-for-granted background of understanding (Tsoukas, 2007).

The world causes us to form beliefs but not dictate the content of our beliefs (Tsoukas, 2007). The moment we ask for facts about an object we are asking how it should be described in a particular language and that language is not neutral. Its vocabulary is loaded with meaning. Notions are bound up with having certain experiences which involves seeing that certain descriptions apply.

To sum up, the enactive approach assumes that actors are beings-in-the-world; so social activity is the fundamental building block of the social world. This approach also highlights the personally constructed character of human knowledge (Tsoukas, 2007).

Comments

Knowledge can be defined as the individual capability to draw distinctions within a domain of action based on an appreciation of context, theory or both. Similarly, collective knowledge is the capability members of a community have developed to draw distinctions in the process of carrying out their role in a particular context, by enacting sets of generalizations whose application depends on historically evolved collective understandings. So, knowledge presupposes values, beliefs and is related to action.

Based on this definition of knowledge, an individual capacity is required based on an appreciation of context and theory. Theory allows one to take a finding and generalize from any context to another one. Knowledge becomes collective when, while drawing distinctions in the course of their work by taking into account the contextuality of their actions, individuals draw and act upon a corpus of generalizations in the form of generic rules produced by the related community.

Collective knowledge can be seen as an open-ended process of coordinating purposeful individuals whose actions stem from applying their unique interpretations to local circumstances confronting them. Given the distributed character of collective knowledge the key to achieving coordinated action depends on those lower down finding more ways of getting connected and interrelating the knowledge each one has. For this to happen, the character of the community as a discursive practice should be appreciated: a form of life in which individuals come to share an unarticulated background of common understandings. Sustaining a discursive practice is as just important as finding ways of integrating distributed knowledge.

Comments

Postmodern thought helps us to see the roots of western metaphysics by privileging becoming over being, change over stability, process over form. Postmodernism is concerned with providing local truths that are normally suppressed by metanarratives rather than explanation per se. The postmodern then is concerned with giving voice and legitimacy to those tacit and unrepresentable forms of knowledge that modern epistemologies depend upon yet overlook in the process of knowledge creation. Its axioms are (Tsoukas, 2005):

- Instead of the traditional emphasis on stability, identity and order postmodern analyses seek to emphasize the Hereclitean primacy accorded to process, flux, formlessness and incessant change. The ontological primacy lies in the becoming of things. It eschews an atomistic thinking.

- The focus on this ‘becoming ontology’ asserts that symbolic representations don’t mirror the going-ons in the world. Theories may be workable, yet not timelessly true.

- Due to this inadequacy of language, events cannot simply be understood in terms of actors’ intentions; yet in terms of embedded contextual experiences and accumulated memories. Surprise and unexpected are the real order of things. A more tentative attitude rather than total control defines its agenda.

- Real world happenings consist of loosely coupled and non-locally defined web of event clusters.

Given this ceaseless process of reality construction, we should appreciate that phenomena are mutually constituted rather than being trapped by certain dualisms . Exploring the discursive patterns might give a clearer sense of the world-making people are engaged in.

Comments

Quantum thoery helps us to understand that the present state of the world is at best a probablity distrubution. As the next state is unknowable we must pay attention to the world as it unfolds. So, it is a good thing that we can't do more than sense-making; otherwise our inability to know might frustrate us (McDaniel, 1997). Believing enables actions that leads to more sense and taking action leads to more sense so that sense-making might connect actions to beliefs McDaniel, 1997).

Action is also being in a state of "thrownness". It is a mixture of unknowability, unpredictability and enactment. It is about losing oneself in the world- resorting to detached hindsight. It contradicts the basic assumption that one can always know something by gaining a reflective and detached clarity about it (Dreyfus, 1995). Knowing something best comes instead from direct access to the world through practical involvement. As life is unfolding in a holistic and dynamic way we should act our way into meaning by acting thinkingly (Weick, 1983). True comprehension lies in the direction of detachment.

Comments

What is the technology of making good science? Is there a meta-technology and a meta-science, and of course, an interrelatedness. Yet, recent trends in philosophy of science and technology combine the elements of technological, philosophical and scientific meta-reflections often without any conscious reflection. Reaching a balanced position between these two is an important source of debates within philosophy of science.

There are many forms of „technicization” of sciences, which is based on disregarding or eliminating the philosophical constituent of sciences. As a possible motivation of technicization, a need for an ideology-free science can be identified. On the other hand, the fragmented world of the postmodern age yields to a postmodern science, which is a very technicized one, like to computer and information science/technology.

Eliminating technological constituents from science, the complicated role of philosophy in scientific practice becomes much clearer. The Kuhnian normal science does not think (however, normal scientists think), but the revolutionary science thinks.

Comments

In evolutionary biological terms, we have been designed to dream and imagine, to recombine sense and experience in our minds in various ways (Arcero, 1997). As Vico argues "All that guides imagination is an unwillingness to reduce the mind's uncertainty [what is going
on internally in terms of thought, both conscious and unconscious] by embracing what is familiar to the mind. This sense of ignorance leads us to reach out past our inclination to make experience familiar through the power of the concept and to engage the power of the image. We must reconstruct the human world not through concepts and criteria but as something we can practically see."

Thus our creativity is part of us, part of the constant functioning of the mind, an integral aspect of the process of moment by moment constructing useful edifices of understanding (images) in our minds.

Comments

There is always something outside of our frame of reference. Accepting this and getting
curious is a wonderful way to direct life-energy towards what else is possible. The following are to be taken into account during this process (Su, 2009):

* Fluidity of Life - Life is always fluid. The unexpected and even unimaginable can and does happen at any time. And all things, scenarios, events can shift their course at any time: from bad to good, from good to bad. There is no good or bad, there just is. Surrendering to whatever that happens, without placing unnecessary importance holds the key to lasting happiness. At any moment, we have the choice to choose bliss, to see the light.

* The Mind’s Reality - Our mind always makes unknown situations worse than they actually are. Its goal is to dwell on pain and problems. Often when we find out the truth, we feel instantly relieved that the “reality” of events wasn’t as bad as what we had imagined.

* Building Intensity - All our frustration and inner suffering really has a purpose and benefit: they build the intensity in us that further encourages us to break free from the inner conflicts.

* Seek to Understand, Drop Self Pity - When others behave in ways that we are not happy with, we better drop the self-pity story, bring in compassion, and try to understand why they are behaving in certain ways toward you. When we fail to truly see things from other people’s perspective we miss the chance to heal others and ourselves.

* Everything is Auspicious - No matter how bad things seem there is always a reason that contributes positively towards us. There always exists an incredible gift in any “bad” situation, trust that you are always being taken care of by higher powers.

Comments

• a drive for coherence -- for relationship, unity, community, wholeness – a coming together. Similar to atoms forming molecules, people join into communities, or long for contributing to something larger than ourselves.

• a drive for differentiation -- individuality, distinction, uniqueness – a breaking apart. Similar to teenagers separating from parents to find their identity, we long to be accepted just as we are.

Together these forces form a system for engaging emergence. Every designer works
with change and emergence in different ways. Three patterns support us during the chaotic process of emergence(Holman, 2009):

• Engaging: taking responsibility for what we love as an act of service.
• Listening: sensing broadly and deeply, witnessing with self-discipline.
• Connecting: being with difference while finding common bonds.

Ultimately,in order to make sense of emergent change we also need to get involved in the following acts (Holman, 2009):

• Reflecting: sensing patterns, making meaning by naming what is ripening on behalf of the whole

• Harvesting: sharing the stories through multiple modes and channels

• Iterating: doing it again and again, integrating what we know into what’s novel.

According to Holman (2009), these patterns help us shift from working with emergence to invoking it on behalf of the system:

• Tuning in: being centered - calm in the storm and just enough storm in the calm.
• Focusing intentions: seeking meaningful futures, open to outcomes.
• Setting context: mindfully establishing initial conditions.

In this way, we can establish a framework to make sense of the forces at play when we are facing change in a chaotic world. We can also have some insight into how to work with those forces, even take initiative to serve intentions that matter to us, those we care about, and the systems of which we are all a part.

Comments

While we can’t control emergence, we can use our knowledge to focus intentions to guide our work. We can disrupt established patterns, explore the diverse, often conflicting, aspects of
the system, and discern the differences that make a difference so that a novel whole arises that serves us all well (Hogans, 09). Hogans (09) suggests to ask the following questions for invoking emergence:

• How do we disrupt coherence compassionately?
• How do we engage dissonance creatively?
• How do we realize novelty wisely?

Similarly, in social systems, simple acts of individual entities can create higher-level order. Conversations among diverse people about complex topics may lead to unexpected breakthroughs.

This is the nature of emergence. It is radically different from the predictable flow of
managed change. It requires opening to unfamiliar people or ideas, welcoming who and what appears. It takes reflecting on what we are noticing and making meaning of it. Once underway, it can create "a sense of excitement and spirit of possibility that become the hallmark of creation".(Hogans, 09).

Comments

Complexity science is a way of thinking that invites us to think from within our participation in the evolution of forms of identity. There is something deeper and bigger and more meaningful and if we work together in harmony we can tap into a greater something. In the creative world, conflict is important in the creative process and conflict and diversity may often often contribute to new and novel behaviour. The main questions to be asked are:

• How have I come to be who I am?
• How have we come to be who we are?
• How are we all changing, evolving and learning?

It is also crucial to keep in mind that conflict and tension are always an expected part when it comes to human relationships. We should get used to work within that creative tension and to feel comfortable with uncertainty. While traditional organisational management encourages uncertainty out of the system; complexity theory on the other hand encourages individuals to live happily within uncertainty.

"Don’t establish the
boundaries
first,
the squares, triangles,
boxes
of preconceived
possibility,
and then
pour
life into them, trimming
off left-over edges,
ending potential."
(Ammons, 1965).

Comments

There are some important points that Sternberg makes in his definition. Sternberg implies action in his definition of wisdom, through its application towards the achievement of a common good. It is crucial to understand the dualistic nature of wisdom’s movement. Quantum mechanics has taught us that neutrons, protons, and quarks are in constant motion. Yet from some perspectives, this river of wisdom seems still and unmoving (Felser, 2006). This is the nature of wisdom.

Another distinguishing point of Sternberg’s definition is wisdom’s drive towards balance. It is a beneficial harmonizing in all interactions. Stephen R. Covey, author of the best selling book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, says that the integrated individual uses clear guidance and true wisdom to direct their actions, thus bringing about a balanced character. Almost every major theology tells of this needed balance; with our minds, our bodies, and our environment. What name we give to this wholeness matters not, be it Tao, Allah, God, Elohim or any other, what matters is our active, balanced, moral understanding of the one flowing and living wisdom; to merge with the source of the river, becoming it (Felser, 2006).

As seekers, spiritual people tend to search for knowledge, which is similar behavior to those who are described as being wise.” According to a study undertaken at the University of California-Davis- “The Wisdom Project”- 1,000 college alumni were asked for traits of wisdom and concluded that seeking spirituality, a way of relating to God, was an identifying attribute. In the article, “Finding the Wise People”, Dr. Jeff Myers says, “It occurred to me some time ago that the wisest people I know all have something in common: they voraciously seek wisdom!” This quest for wisdom, truth, and a personal relationship with the One, is by and far the most common trait amongst the wise. It helps one to pray to the Great Spirit for further knowledge of the One who is the source of all things (Felser, 2006).

Immanuel Kant argues in his Critique of Practical Reason that people become immoral when they attempt to set a different standard for humanity than they do for themselves.

When Abraham Maslow, presented his Theory of Human Motivation, he established a recognizable pattern in the self-realized, wise people and noted an inspired egoless compassion, amongst other things. Maslow's self-actualizers focused on concerns outside of themselves; they liked solitude and privacy more than the average person, and they tended to be more detached than ordinary from the dictates and expectations of their culture. They were inner-directed people. They were creative, too, and appreciated the world around them with a sense of awe and wonder. These traits, indeed, pave the way to wisdom.

Comments

- Cynnull: To gather knowledge (as in acquisition) along life's way
- Cynhaeaf: To harvest (purposefully) knowledge or to set up systems for harnessing knowledge
- Cymrodedd: To compromise what you know to accomodate the unknown
- Cynnau: To light knowledge- knowledge sharing that is an active process and implicit opposed to knowledge exchange that is a different concept
- Cynllunplas: To design new knowledge
- Cynyddu: To increase existing knowledge

In terms of different types of knowledge the following terms are available. While the former 3 are internal the latter ones are external:

- Cynhenid: Original, congenital knowledge
- Cynhwynol: Innate knowledge (collective)
- Cymrodeddol: Compromised knowledge- knowledge adjusted to cope with the unknown
- Cymdeithasol: Sociable knowledge, not social skills but knowledge about the social context in which it is used
- Cynefin: Shared and passed on knowledge- implies usual, accustomed knowledge
- Cynddelw: Archetype/model/exemplary knowledge

Most valuable distinction may be the one between "Cynyddu"- to increase knowledge- and "Cymrodedd"- to compromise what you know to accomodat ethe unknown. A quick hypothesis would suggest taht much formal learning is "Cynyddu"- building upon existing knowledge. Yet, much informal learning in our Digital Age- learning through Information Communication Technologies- falls into the definition of "Cymrodedd"- to comprise what you know to accomodate the unknown.

Comments

Questions like these are known as "long fuse, big bang" problems (Schwartz, 1970). Whatever you decide to do will play out with a big bang, but it can take years to learn whether your decision was wise or not. Worse yet, "long fuse, big bang" questions don't lend themselves to traditional analysis; it's simply impossible to research away the uncertainties on which the success of a key decision will hang (Wilkinson).

Given the impossibility of knowing precisely how the future will play out, a good decision or strategy to adopt is one that plays out well across several possible futures. To find that "robust" strategy, scenarios are created in plural, such that each scenario diverges markedly from the others (Schwartz, 1970).

Yet, the purpose of scenario planning is making large-scale forces visible rather than pinpointing future events so that the planner will at least recognize them (Schwartz, 1970). It's about helping make better decisions today.

Scenario planning begins by identifying the focal issue or decision. There are an infinite number of stories that we could tell about the future; our purpose is to tell those that matter, that lead to better decisions. So we begin the process by agreeing on the issue that we want to address.

Some of the decisions we make today will make sense across all of the futures. Others will make sense only in one or two. The decisions that make sense in only one or some of the scenarios are tricky. For these we want to know the "early warning signs" that tell us those scenarios are beginning to unfold (Schwartz, 1970). Sometimes, the leading indicators for a given scenario are obvious, but often they are subtle. The main point is to be aware of these critical uncertainties and warning signs.

Ultimately, scenario planning helps us understand the uncertainties and what they might mean. It helps us "rehearse" our responses to those possible futures. And it helps us spot them as they begin to unfold.

Comments

New Age spirituality arose from various sources including Hindu and Buddhist thought, Jungian analysis and alternative healing traditions.

The New Spiritualities (including New Age) cover a vast collection of ideas and starting points where the themes of personal transformation loom large. Within this context, the purpose of life is to simply grow, learn and spiritually evolve.

At a popular or consumer level, it involves a “mix and match” approach that draws
on a wide range of sources. Spiritual inspiration can be drawn from existing religions, however, it is often drawn from the mystical streams such as Medieval Christian mystics, tantric Buddhism or Sufism (Islamic mysticism).

The pace of life does not leave much time for deep philosophical reflection. What matters to people is finding a workable, practical spirituality that relates to their daily experiences. This does not mean that truth is irrelevant to them, but that seekers want to know, “Does it work?” before they will experiment to see if “it is true.” Not interacting with those whose worldview is shaped by “practical post-modernity” has been a weakness in the way the religious institutions generally function and this has created their missional failure (Johnson, 2006).

Belief systems should be both intensely spiritual and intensely intellectually vigorous. Religious institutions should be listening, journeying, creative and holistic. They should be calling for an engagement that truly meets, dialogues and challenges people living in a culture known as post-modernity. By acknowledging that the current witness and evangelistic methods are problematic they might be prepared to revise their own approaches and methods (Johnson, 2006).

Comments

There are four forms of organization that underlie the governance and evolution of all societies across the ages (Ronfeldt, 2006):

- The tribal form: Beginning thousands of years ago, its main dynamic is kinship, which gives people a distinct sense of identity and belonging.

- The institutional form: Emphasizing hierarchy, it led to the development of the state and the military. Initial examples are the Roman Empire, the Catholic papacy and other corporate enterprises.

- The market form: It enables people to excel at openly competitive, free, and fair economic exchanges. Although present in ancient times, it did not gain sway until the 19th century, at first mainly in England.

- The network form: It serves to connect dispersed groups and individuals so that they may coordinate and act conjointly. Enabled by the digital information-technology revolution, this form is only now coming into its own, so far strengthening civil society more than other realms.

Each of the four forms embodies a distinctive set of structures, processes, beliefs, and dynamics about how society should be organized — about who gets to achieve what, why, and how. Each involves different codes and standards about how agents should treat each other. Each has both bright and dark sides, both strengths and weaknesses. And each can be gotten “right” or “wrong” in various ways, depending on circumstances.

As the complexity science suggests (although the system appears to be chaotic, over time a deep order is revealed), once a form is subscribed to by many agents, it becomes more than a mere form: It develops into a new realm, even a system, of thought and behavior. Each is a generator of order, because each defines a set of interactions that are attractive, powerful, and useful enough to create a distinct realm of activity (Ronfeldt, 2006). Each becomes the basis for a new governance system that is self-regulating. And each tends to foster a different kind of worldview, for each orients people differently toward social space, time, and action. What is deemed rational — how a “rational agent” should behave — is different for each form; no single “utility function” suits them all (Ronfeldt, 2006).

The main story is that human-beings advance by learning to use and combine all four forms, in a preferred progression. What ultimately matters is how these organziational forms are added and how well they function together. They are not substitutes for each other; they are complements. Historically, a society’s progress depends on its ability to use all four forms and combine them (and their realms) into a coherent, well-balanced, well-functioning whole.

For an organization to progress optimally, no single form should be allowed to dominate any other, and none should be suppressed or eliminated. An organization’s potential to function well at a given stage, and to evolve to a higher level of complexity, depends on its ability to integrate these inherently contradictory forms into a well-functioning whole.

Comments

Complex systems dynamically evolve over time and exhibit the properties of self organization, emergence, and co-evolution. Self-organization is the tendency of many systems to generate new structures and patterns over time on the basis of its own internal dynamics—order emerges from patterns of relationships among individuals.

When we use complexity science to view the problems and issues we face in every day life,our attention is focused differently than when we use other, more traditional mental models.

Complexity science provides the following practical suggestions:

■ The quality of the relationships among individuals is more than important than the quality of the individual agents. We are sensitive to the fact that relationships are nonlinear and dynamic, and therefore, often result in high levels of surprise and uncertainty.

■ We focus on the co-evolution of the system with the environment rather than how the system adapts to the environment.

■ We encourage diversity among individuals and leverage this diversity to foster learning and evolution instead of attempting to socialize it away or minimize its effect.

■ We recognize that the system is a social entity. We try to use the social relationships to foster sense-making, learning, improvisation, and other functions that require interaction.

■ We acknowledge that the system exists on a multidimensional fitness landscape and that the interactions among the dimensions will be an important factor in the system development over time.

■ We acknowledge that any one is a part of the system itself and not an external
observer or manipulator of the system.

In summary, there is a shift in our thinking away from single events or processes toward thinking in terms of patterns, interrelated processes, and relationships.

Comments

Science models empirical data: derives a model (hypothesis, theory) which
describes measurements and, if the model describes the data accurately, reliably and repeatedly, it is eventually accepted to be a (natural) law. If new measurements deviate from the current knowledge, the laws are changed/widened in order to correspond also to new measurements. Science limits itself with objective principles and admits only the rational mind, which is limited with symbolic representation. Science is interested in HOW the nature operates and is not concerned in WHY the universe exists and what is the purpose of life. Many scientists assume that the universe and the life appeared by chance and that there is no deeper purpose of existence.

On the other hand, spirituality is mainly concerned with the purpose of life. In all traditions, spiritual movements and all religions, from the east and the west, we can find the same basic issues:

² the purpose of life goes beyond the materialistic world;

² everything that exists is one, originates from the same source and serves the same purpose;

² the truth is undescribable and unreachable to logical mind, it is necessary that everyone tries to feel it by him or herself by subjective experience;

² the purpose of life is learning, the goal is to overcome the limitations of ego, to subjectively recognize the truth and to attain the wisdom;

² spiritual life is based on cultivation of spiritual virtues, such as unconditional love, compassion, faith, humility, patience, tolerance, simplicity, spontaneity, modesty, courage, sincerity, forgiveness etc.

Spirituality is necessarily subjective and uses intuitive mind, inner sense - heart.

Philosophy uses both science and spirituality, objective and subjective experience, in order to achieve the balance and harmony between rational and intuitive mind, between head and heart. True philosophy deals
with both questions, how the universe operates and why universe exists and what is the purpose of life. As Dalai Lama has stated: “We need education and the sense of moral ethics - these two have to go together.”

Although consciousness is often related to intelligence it has a deeper meaning and purpose; it is necessarily connected with ethics of life. Intelligence without heart is unconscious intelligence, able to demolish and destroy the environment

Comments

Regarding the science of religion, most of the theoretical contributions have been made from the field of cognitive science. From cognitive science perspective, Boyer introduces the idea of a template that allows for quick development of more particular concepts. We have only a small number of templates such as person, animal, object. Boyer’s thesis regarding religious concepts is that they are anomalous, in that they add a special tag that violates one or a few characteristics contributed by the template. Some examples, a spirit violates the PERSON template by adding to it that it has no body. An omniscient God is created from the PERSON template with added special cognitive powers.

From among an infinite number of possible religious concepts, the ones we actually find in the world have survived and spread because they have this feature of minimal anomalousness. So, they are concepts that are easily formed by slight alteration of a template and they happen to be more memorable simply as a result of how the human mind or brain works.

In addition, we have inference systems that are turned on by different kinds of entities. These are sometimes called cognitive modules. To the extent, then, that religious concepts have enough in common with ordinary concepts, they set off these inference systems, and this makes some sets of beliefs about the relevant entities natural, and therefore likely to be understood, remembered, elaborated in specific ways, and passed on to others.

Boyer says that a typical assumption by and about religious believers is that belief in gods or spirits comes first, and then both religious practices and moral prescriptions follow. Boyer believes that morality and religious practices take priority, and both of these make religious belief more plausible.

Our evolution as a social species is sufficient to explain our shared morality. However, without an evolutionary explanation, humans through the ages have needed some other explanation (Boyer, 1998).

In terms of a science of religion, it can be said that as human brains have evolved to work in ways that suited us for survival in our early environments, religious concepts, belief systems, practices, and rituals are natural by-products of these cognitive processes.

Comments

To develop a broader vision we must be willing to forsake our narrower vision. The road of spiritual growth lies in distrusting what we already believe and questioning everything.

Self-realization is also related to spiritual growth. It might be referred to as the perception of the divinity and the perfection of the world (Bucke, 1998). Cosmic consciosness, 'I-thou' relationship, 'Being-cognition' are terms often associated with self-realization (Buber, 2003). It is also called as the perception of the miracolous. Miraculous does not necessarily refer to an extraordinary phenomena but also to the commonplace as long as enough attention is paid to it. It ıs a matter of paying close attention to what is ever-present. The true wonder lies in understanding that we are part of a finely balanced ecosystem in which individuation goes hand in hand interdependency. Perception of the miraculous is the subjective essence of self-realization from which one's highest experiences grow (Washburn, 2006).

Comments

As our traditional analytic skills narrow our field of awareness and prevent us from seeing the total system we move deeper into the details instead of comprehending the wholeness of the system. Yet, at the quantum level it does not help to analyze thıngs in more detail (Durr, 2007).

Philosophers and scientists described their own ways of understanding the wholeness for many centuries. As the German philosopher Heidegger states we need a 'dwelling consciousness' to understand the whole phenomenon. When we dwell with a problem we move quietly into our senses, away from our analytic skills. We look for images, words and patterns that surface and try to pick impressions and to notice how something feels.

The great German philosopher Goethe applied his genius to the problem of seeing the wholeness of nature. He tried to understand any phenomenon in terms of its relationship to other phenomenon. According to Goethe, we should move from interrogation to receptivity and be open to what is occuring. Only then can we allow ourselves to be influenced by a whole that we can't see. We can dwell with the phenomenon and feel how it makes itself known to us (Wheatley, 2007).

Comments

The journey to newness is filled with the black potholes of chaos. It might be terrifying when the world we so carefully held together dissolves. We don't like feeling lost and emptied of meaning. We would prefer an easier path to transformation. But even as we experience the demands as unreasonable we know we are in partnership with great creative forces. We know that chaos is a necessary place to dwell occasionally (Wheatley, 2006). So, we have learned to sit with these dark moments-confused, overwhelmed, only faintly trusting that new insight will appear. This might be the only route to new ways of being.

The more we contenmplate these times, when we truly are giving birth to a new world view, the more we realize that our culture is presently journeying through chaos. As the old ways are dissolving we must engage with one another differently, as explorers and discoverers. No single person or school of thought has the answer as what we need is far beyond isolated answers. We can turn to one another as our best hope for inventing and discovering the worlds we are seeking. Thanks to the proliferation of Web 2.0 technologies we can make this discovery collaboratively and much easier.

We can no longer wait expectantly for the right solution as we are each required to begin our individual journeys. We do need to be sharing what we find. From each other, we need to learn what is possible. Another's success encourages is to continue our own search for a fulfilled life.

Comments

Behavioural complexity identifies a person’s capacity to cope with “the interplay of a volatile, complex, and potentially ambiguous environment” (Satish, 1997).

Cognitive complexity is founded on the “number of dimensions used by individuals to perceive environmental stimuli”, and integration, “the complexity of rules used by individuals in organising the differentiated dimensions” (Wang & Chan, 1995). However, although these are necessary components of leadership they are not sufficient. One must also have the capacity to understand the categorical foundations of knowledge systems and the context in which this foundation derives its meaning, or “common sense”. To practice this acuity, a leader needs reflexivity and agency. Reflexivity is a capacity to transcend the here and now.

To be able to step outside these ideological structures requires considerable ability, an ability that we claim strongly characterises wise leadership. Malan and Kriger (1998: 246) acknowledge such a characteristic when they say that a major executive challenge is “to filter and interpret the noise from within their own organizations and determine the salient points on which to act”. So, leaders should filter the enormous amount of knowledge present in organisational discourse. Such knowledge may often be simply data and information, and all knowledge is ideologically invested in some way. Those uncomfortable with the notion of ideology would, nonetheless, accept the proposition that all knowledge makes sense only within an assumed episteme and the appropriate ontological structures that accompany it.

Rabinow (2005) explained discursive diachronicity in this way:

"from time to time, and always in time, new forms emerge that catalyze previously existing actors, things, temporalities, or spatialities into a new mode of existence, a new assemblage, one that makes things work in a different manner and produces and instantiates new capacities. A form/event makes many other things more or less suddenly conceivable".

Comments

When it comes to leadership wisdom plays a crucial role, as well. The characteristics of wise leaders are (Rooney, McKenna, 2006):

- Wise leaders make careful observations to establish facts and logical deductive explanations. Rather than being misunderstood as anti-rationalist they utilize insight, imagination, and foresight that occur outside a consciously rational process of intersubjective verification.

- On the other hand, wise leaders also allow for non-rational and subjective elements when making decisions. They acknowledge the sensory and visceral as important components of decision-making and judgment. They have a capacity to think creatively and to acknowledge the potential worth of one's own instincts in making judgments.

- Wise people can grasp the meaning of “several, often contradictory signals and stimuli”, they interpret them holistically, and adapt their cognitions (e.g., schema).

- Wise leaders have a metaphysical, even spiritual, quality that does not bind them absolutely to the rules of reason thereby enabling vision, insight and foresight.

- Wise leaders respect and draw upon tradition as a form of personal insight enabling them to understand the contingency of life and the constructedness of phenomena, particularly their historical and spatial contexts.

- Given their cognitive complexity, wise leaders have a capacity to seek out and understand the “facts” of a situation and to deal with them rationally, but also to understand and question the ontological basis of these facts. As Eflin said "The greater an enquirer's ability to move fluidly between producing alternatives and evaluating them and to operate at both levels simultaneously, the better she will be at finding valuable discoveries.”

- - Because wise leaders are humane, they produce virtuous and tolerant decisions.
A wise leader displays long-term vision and virtue; having a proven commitment to long-term welfare not just of immediate stakeholders, but of humanity in general.

- Finally, a wise leader is articulate; having a proven capacity to reach people through word, affect, and action.

Comments

Yet, the timeless in you is aware of life's timelessness (Gibran, 2006). It knows that yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream (Gibran, 2006). Gibran says:

"That which sings and contemplates in you is still dwelling within the bounds of that first moment that scattered the stars into space. Each of us feels that very love, though boundless, encompassed within the center of his being and moving from love deeds to other love deeds. Like love, time is undivided and paceless. But in your thought you must measure time into seasons, let each circle encircle all the other seasons. And let to-day embrace the past with remembrance and the future with longing."

Comments

There are those who give little of the much which they have- and they give it for recognition and their hidden desires makes their gifts unwholesome. And there are those who have little and give it all. These are the believers in life and teh bounty of life, and their coffer is never empty. There are also those who give with joy, and that joy is their reward. And there are those who give with pain, and that pain is their baptism.

Yet, there are still others who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue. It is through the hands of such as these that God smiles upon the earth.

It is well to give when asked, but it is better to give unasked, through understanding. To the open-handed the search for one who shall receive is joy gretaer than giving. Give now so that the season of giving may be yours!

Comments

Everywhere in the new sciences, in living systems theory, quantum physics and complexity theory, we observe life's dependency on participation. All life participates in the creation of itself, insisting on the freedom to self-determine (Wheatley, 2007).All life participates actively with its environment in the process of co-adaptation and co-evolution. No sub-atomic particle exists independent of its participation with other particles. Even reality is evoked through acts of participation between us and what we choose to notice.

We see the world through who we are and use the 'self' to filter information and co-create new worlds. Yet, it is also important to note that in all life, the self is not a selfish individual. It includes awareness of those others it must relate to as part of the system. Self-reference explains how life creates order without control and stable identities that are open to change (Wheatley, 2008). As we abondon the machine imagery of the past, self-reference calls to us as the richest teacher for how to be together in ways that support life.

Comments

Most of us have experienced this ride of chaos in our own lives. At a personal level, it might be a profound loss of meaning; nothing makes sense in the way it did before (Wheatley, 2008). Yet, these are part of the human experience; how we participate in the spiral dance of form and new form, As we reflect on these times of descending into chaos, we realize that towards its end we emerge changed and stronger in some ways (Wheatley, 2007). We participated in the dance of creation and learned that growth always requires passage through the fearful realms of disintegration.

Depite the chaos' role in the emergence of new order, Western culture denied it mainly. The dominant belief was that chaos could be eliminated from life. Most people believed that there were straight lines to a specific goal and we would not descend into confusion. These beliefs led us far from the processes by which newness is created (Wheatley, 2007).

As modern life becomes more complicated we are willing to give thoughts about chaos itself. Regardles of how we discover it the important lesson to keep in mind is: "The destruction cretaed by chaos is necessary for the creation of anything new." (Wheatley, 2007).

Comments

The process of fractal suggests some ways to work with the paradox that greater openness is the path to greater order. A fractal reveals its complex shape through continous self-reference to a simple equation. So, one should start with a clear sense of what to accomplish and how to behave together with others(Briggs & Peat, 1989). Once these equations are established these can be used as a lens to interpret information, surprises and experience. Although the individual decisions will not look the same there is no need for conformity in behavior. As time passes, an orderly pattern will emerge.

We need to learn more about these sources of order as we failed to notice this capacity of life to self-organize. As we learn more about it our attention will shift away from the parts and focus on the deeper, embedded processes. As Bohm (1980) states "what is needed is an act of understanding in which we see the totality as an actual process that tends to bring about an orderly action in which analysis into parts has no meaning."

Comments

If the universe is a closed system, it must eventually reach equilibrium. As the scientist Peter Coveney states "it will become a place where entropy and randomness are at their greatest in which all life has died out." The most obvious exception to this law is life. Unlike closed systems such as machines, the universe engages with its environment and continues to grow and evolve. If we believe that the universe will decay we can't help but live in fear of change. In such a world, any change exhausts our store of valuable energy and leaves us empty (Wheatley, 2005). Keeping our balance is a means of defense against the eroding forces of nature. Yet, equilibrium is neither the goal nor the fate of living systems as they can continously import energy from the environment. They don't sit quietly by as their energy dissipates. On the contrary, they maintain a state of non-equilibrium so that the system can change and grow. They participate in an open exchange with their world using what is there for their own growth (Wheatley, 2007). Every organism in nature behaves in this way.

In order to develop the life-saving quality of adaptability, we need to open ourselves in many ways, especially in terms of seeking new and disturbing information. Rather than looking for information that might make us feel good we should be open to disturbances to avoid atrophy.

Comments

Time-bound awareness occurs when the self is relinquished for the self-image which acts like a protective mask behind which we hide (Chopra, 2002). Time-bound awareness is burdened by guilt and sorrow which is rooted in fear and might cause entropy.

As Chopra states, the self is between our thoughts. Trusting that the right response would come to every situation as it occurs and not being fearful of the future creates a state of bliss. This might also be referred to as the state of intuition. Time-bound awareness is in the intellect; it calculates. On the contrary, timeless awareness is in the heart; it feels.

In Emerson's words "Without a rich heart, wealth is an ugly beggar."

Comments