[Oe List ...] The Spirit of the 10s

[R Williams]

John,
 
So appreciate your creative thinking and the use of the screen from the God lecture for doing this kind of analysis.  Seems so obvious, but none of the rest of us seems to have come up with it.
 
One initial observation--there appears to be at least one common strand that runs through all these decades and even before.  Since the onset of the industrial revolution we have relied on the machine as the model for how life works.  What seems to be emerging, according to many, is a new time in which nature and natural systems become our dominant paradigm.  Instead of seeing life in terms of static, disrelated parts (machine) we are beginning to view it  in terms of a web of living, interdependent relationships.
 
Here then is my contribution to this conversation, in addition to rather than in place of what you and the others have said.
 
External Situation--The Encroachment/Intensification of Diversity  We have seen that globalization is perhaps as much or more of a cultural phenomenon as it is an economic one.  Ethnic minorities are becoming majorities in many locales while immigration policy and its assumed connection with terrorism have become major preoccupations.
 
Internal Crisis--Loss of Privacy and Identity  Robert Reich called this "the mob at the gates."  Assaulted on all sides by the "other" and yet told that we all have a common destiny, I may feel that I have lost touch with my own unique identity and therefore my ability to survive.
 
Existential Question--How Shall We Be/Live in the World Together?  There are no other options.
 
Escape--Retreat Into Ideology  Like The Big Sort, I isolate myself, geographically, psychologically, philosophically, etc. in enclaves of people who are like me, while demonizing all those who fall outside my ideological parameters.
 
Response--Creation of New, Inclusive Stories of Reality  We must come up with new stories that lead to neighborliness, community, civil society and a quest for the common good.
 
I was particularly struck by your suggestion that we need to find more depth in everyday living, and more opportunities for collaboration.  This reminded me of Peter Senge in The Necessary Revolution who suggested three things we must do if we are to move toward a sustainable world: (1) systems thinking--(seeing deep patterns is more  important than thinking comprehensively); (2) collaborating across traditional boundaries (he talks about Paul Hawken's Blessed Unrest and the need to connect with the various mini-movements); (3) emphasizing creativity over problem solving (with problem solving we get rid of what we don't want but with creativity we participate in emerging new realities.)
 
John , thanks for initiating this conversation.  I appreciate the opportunity to participate in it and can't wait to see what we've come up with when the dust settles.
 
Merry Christmas,
Randy


From: jlepps at pc.jaring.my <jlepps at pc.jaring.my>
Subject: [Oe List ...] The Spirit of the 10s
To: "Order Ecumenical Community" <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 5:23 PM


Colleagues:

One contemporary task of this group of people is to keep track of the "signs of the times." I've tried it for the past 5 decades, and below are my current thoughts about the teens. Please comment with your perceptions. This task takes us all. Anyway, have a very Merry Christmas, and here are some thoughts:


The Spirit of the 10s
John Epps, December 2010               (draft)
 
     We have made a practice of looking at the various decades and seeking their underlying spirit quest. We have used the categories of External Situation which creates an Internal Crisis that leads to an Existential Question from which we tend to Escape. Those categories have provided a way to look beneath the surface and discern some underlying issues and struggles that provide a way of making sense of what’s happening and addressing it creatively. With a new decade well under way, it seems time to have another go at that task. But first a quick review.
     In the 70s we experienced expanded horizons.  The oil crisis and the Vietnam War brought globality home to us personally. Our internal experience was unity: we sensed a common humanity with people everywhere. Our existential question was “How can I participate?” and we often escaped the demand of that question through withdrawal, either into ourselves with a self-sufficient style or into the cheap euphoria of drugs. One authentic response to this existential question was the development and promulgation of the Technology of Participation (ToP).
     The 80s were a time when we experienced the collapse of separating boundaries and encountered the inescapable diversity of planet Earth. The existential question it raised was one of integrity: “Where do I stand?” With all the options so visible (and none of them universal) what standpoint can be the basis of my integrity? We tended to escape through mindless relativism (“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”). The authentic response in this decade came in the formation of collaborative efforts and alliances among dramatically different groups.
     In the 90s we encountered a time of the intangibles: in science, nano-physics disclosed that nothing is substantial in the materialistic sense. Everything is energy in motion. Technology focused on information management, business on vision and values, medicine on preventive practices, cultures on foundational traditions. Our internal crisis was meaning. The question raised was: “What’s worthwhile?” Where is it possible to find the significance that will add fizz and mischief into life? Spiritualism was our escape in which we pursued mysticism and various Eastern religions as a New Age search for human authenticity. Authentic responses came in the disclosure of depth in the midst of ordinary experiences, a transparency sometimes disclosed in photography and art. 
     In the 00s, the turn of the century was a decade in which we experienced the collapse of sustaining structures. It was not simply 9-11 that occasioned our perception of collapse. Economic, political and cultural institutions which had provided a sense of stability and predictability seemed no longer to work effectively. Even the environment showed its fragility. In this situation we encountered a terrifying crisis of security. Our underlying question was “What can I trust?” We attempted to escape the turmoil of that question through a belligerence that seemed prepared to do battle with anyone and anything that called into question dependence on our favorite institutions. Another attempt to escape the question was through establishing security systems, notably at airports in an attempt to thwart the aims of “terrorists.” We also developed regulatory systems for economic institutions. Authentic responses to this situation came in the
 formulation of new myths. This was the time of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in which authors were developing stories that showed heroism in the face of unavoidable insecurity and terrifying danger. 
     We've just turned into a new decade, and hopefully one that can diminish some of the hostility of the past ten years. Certainly Obama’s election seemed to herald a new time, though subsequent events have shown belligerence to have a residual persistence that remains disruptive. Still, there is a new scent in the air that may herald a distinctive decade ahead. I’d like to explore that a bit now.
     The 10s seem to be a time of intensifying technology. Our dependence on gizmos and gimmicks has never been stronger.  While watching young children lined up with their parents to see Santa Clause at a shopping mall, I noticed a couple with two children in the queue both intently fiddling with their smart phones,  probably surfing the Web or social networks. Even their two children were playing with toy cell phones. Later driving home I met numerous cars whose drivers were talking into their cell phones. A colleague spoke recently about college students who were unable to take a 4-hour examination because they couldn’t be away from their smart phones that long – they were addicted. Of course it’s not only the cell phones and their remarkable inclusion of apps for unimaginable activities that capture addicts. Computers, automobiles, TV’s, and other technologies that have defined modern life have developed their own dependents. A recent
 NY Times article describes a local coffee shop as “laptopistan,” complete with its own economics, polity, culture, and ethics.  Looking at research into energy generation, biotechnology, robotics, and artificial intelligence, technology seems only to be in its infancy (but in a phase of rapid growth).  It’s little surprise that Time magazine selected the founder of Facebook as their “Person of the Year” for 2010.
     The function of technology is to expand human potential.  Current research and inventions seem to offer undreamed of possibilities. Virtual meetings, satellite radio, microwave meals, robotic surgery, online shopping with digital assistants, self-driving automobiles, self-diagnosing body parts, space travel – even avatar immortality – are all either currently available or in pilot stages. The interior crisis occasioned by all this possibility is pure potential. Clearly the old structures are past their usefulness as we saw in the past decade. Now we have pure potential for creating a new functioning civilization. Technology is no longer a constraint: we can do even more than we can imagine. Our imaginations, however, seem constrained by established images of systems and structures that are no longer effective. We don’t know how to think in new categories, or even what those categories might be. People often speak of this as a digital
 generation gap, and to be sure there is one. But I suspect even the brightest young geeks haven’t set themselves to thinking of new ways to operate as a global society. Pure potential is an abyss – a gap with no place to stand, no security, and no certainty. That’s the situation in which we find ourselves.
     Our existential question is “How shall we operate?” and even the “we” is not clear. At one time it could refer to the family or our network of friends or colleagues or the community or the state or party or nation or race or even in our more generous moments, humanity as an inclusive whole. Now even that seems inadequate. The environmentalists have expanded our horizons. All animate beings now seem to have a claim on us, and that includes flora and fauna. Even the mineral resources which we’ve extracted and manipulated with abandon seem to be crying for attention. Neither our economic, political nor cultural systems are equipped to address those cries. 
     We seem to have developed two means of escape from this question. One is the more political in which we latch onto any person or group that pretends, not so much to have a solution as to point the blame at someone else. In the USA, the Tea Party is rich in its objections to “the system” but sparse in its alternatives. More radical groups and movements seek to destroy existing systems in favor of a greatly reduced grouping that is pure in its ideals but exclusive of diversity. 
     The other approach is more cultural and can be found in the media. Programs like “The Biggest Loser,” “Lost,” “The Survivor,” “Amazing Race,” “Apprentice,” “Undercover Boss,” “Slapdown,” and other so-called “reality shows” have captured a huge market in the US and abroad. Their common feature is the depiction of people in terribly difficult circumstances, and their appeal is in presenting the mental, physical, and emotional struggles of protagonists in agonizing detail. We seem to take some comfort in seeing others going through internal uproars similar to our own. The reason these are escapes is that on television there is always a way out, a winner, or a rescue. At that point their analogy to our experience of reality breaks down. 
Authentically facing up to the existential question requires us to build new models, models that are inclusive in their scope and in their development. We need models for a global economy, for a polity that is inclusive, for a culture that respects diversity. There are pilots in all these arenas, but none has the recognition that might lead to widespread adoption. And the old systems will not go quietly away. There is opposition to be faced. Much is at stake. The trap here (perhaps another escape) is to become enthralled with the newest technological gimmicks. It is important to be aware of developments, but continually to raise the question of applying them to development of new systems for civilization.
     In the 60s and 70s, the EI/ICA set out to develop a “New Social Vehicle” based on a “New Religious Mode.” We succeeded admirably in formulating the rational and spiritual frameworks for those realities. And we put into place numerous pilot projects demonstrating what the future called for. We even experimented with replication in which those pilots could set in motion a rapid expansion. Those are valuable resources for the task at hand. 
     After four or five decades, the environment has altered dramatically. Globality is no longer an edge concept; it’s an operating reality, thanks in part to technology. Instead of expanding people’s horizons, we now need to enhance the recognition and appreciation of diversity. Learning from the past, we will need collaboration with dissimilar groups, appreciation of depth in the ordinary, stories and myths that support creativity, and, of course, the technology that is newly at hand
     The alterations that have come to “us” as a group have been numerous and substantial going far beyond the inevitable process of aging. But, in the words of Tennyson (thanks to Gordon Harper),
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. 
     There are far more of “us” ready and willing to work on the project than were available in the 60s and 70s. There is much more potential for communications. “We” now represent a wide diversity of viewpoint and experience. Maybe these are the times and we are the people. 
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20101223/83292d33/attachment-0001.html>