UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon described our world this way: "Throughout the ages, people have said that the world is in the midst of big change. But the level and degree of global change that we face today is far more profound than at any other period in my adult lifetime. I call this period the Great Transition."

::::::::

Introduction

This series of essays is offered as an inquiry into such questions as:

"What does it mean to be human? What are the obstacles to our 'full flowering'? What is possible for a human being and for society?"

I will attempt to focus on the invisible paradigms (or worldviews) that guide our thoughts, perceptions, and actions. The dominator paradigm is one thoughtform driving societal behavior. Our unconscious penchant for reductionism and fragmentation is another.

In exploring these subjects, I have found an enormous sense of affirmation, and validation--along with a priceless expansion and deepening of perspective. For me it is truly like stumbling upon buried treasure (or perhaps more descriptively, looking carefully and long and deeply into a mystery, and then suddenly unearthing an "open secret" with a feeling of "Aha!"

My conclusion has been that our social institutions, our politicians, power brokers, etc., are using obsolete paradigms to solve our problems - a worldview that is no longer appropriate.

As previously discussed, the "power-over," centralized model is passe'. Philip Slater and Warren Bennis stated more than 50 years ago that democratic systems, for all their disorder and sloppiness, are better equipped to deal with complexity and adaptation to change.

Our dominant culture is in decline because it subscribes to outdated concepts and values.

At the same time, we are seeing a change in consciousness, an emerging, inspiring new vision of reality.

**

There is a habitual, mundane way of operating in which the whole is obscured by the parts of a project. People working on subprojects are isolated from one another. This is how the first atom bomb was constructed. It is now utilized in the massive industry dealing with extraterrestrial visitors.

Compartmentalization, as I am depicting it, is the tight-lipped form: to keep secretive and non-secretive worlds separate from each other. To accomplish this, an internal-mental-emotional segregation needs to occur. Self-partitions help to sever your inner experiences, thoughts and feelings from one another and from external events.

My sense is that without bringing conscious awareness to this level of our existence - the massive, intertwining problems of our 21^st century will go unsolved, possibly bringing our world to demise.

We will experience the haunting phenomenon of: "The more things change the more things remain the same" - except that our direction will be downhill.

**

We will be exploring the nature of consciousness itself - and the way we know ourselves and our world through "lenses."

Paradigms are like glasses we wear. Most often we look through our lenses/paradigms, without looking at the lenses themselves. But, as long as we see the world through our filters, we remain blind to any distortions they create.

For example, we may simply assume dominator premises, while not realizing that this is merely one way of viewing the world. When we attempt to solve problems from within this frame, we fail to realize that the frame itself is creating the problems.

Some investment firms insist that new employees carry the briefcases of senior partners, as a form of initiation. Obviously, this filter creates a scenario of "men over other men." It is demeaning and diminishes self-esteem. Paying women less than men reflects the meme of "men over women." The conundrums regarding the destruction of our ecology fail to take into account our dominator assumptions, which include "man over nature."

I must ask your indulgence for the complexity of this write-up, which is relatively technical. We are not used to thinking in these terms. However, I feel that the issues are important enough to warrant this level of in-depth treatment.

Authoritarianism

We previously looked at the dominator/authoritarian system, which began in earnest thousands of years ago, and is still very much with us.

Slater articulates "four pillars of authoritarianism":

1) The practice of deference or submissiveness

The trick is to get people to give automatic obedience and unearned respect to any person "higher" in the social order. The habit of self-abasement becomes deeply ingrained.

2) Systematic oppression through brutality and terror

Some serfs and slaves may not buy the myth of legitimacy. There are usually more oppressed people than there are oppressors. Therefore, there is a need to terrorize them at regular intervals. (9/11 would be an example.)

3) Secrecy

If you wish to maintain control over a group that outnumbers you, it only makes sense to corner the information market. You need to establish a communication network from which they are excluded. (The extraterrestrial issue would be an example.)

4) Deflection

It is important to deflect your serf's hostility and resentment onto other targets. If "the natives are getting restless," it is a common practice to set them against some foreigners.

Fragmentation

Edgar Morin suggests the following:

Up to the mid-twentieth century, most scientific disciplines obeyed the principle of reduction of the knowledge of a whole to knowledge of its parts, as if the organization of an entity did not produce new qualities or properties in contrast to the parts taken in isolation. These new qualities arise through a process called "emergence."

Currently, the objective of understanding nature by breaking it down into ever smaller parts is being transposed by the desire to understand how nature organizes itself.

To be clear, the goal is not to obliterate the older paradigm, but instead to "transcend, while including" it, similar to way relativity theory has not replaced Newtonian physics but has gone beyond it. (We still use Newtonian physics for building buildings and driving cars.)

The principle of reduction inevitably resulted in reduction of the complex to the simplistic. It especially "atomizes" living beings, applying the mechanical determinist logic of artificial machines to human complexities.

This process can obscure the truth of wholeness and eliminate all elements that cannot be measured and quantified, taking the human out of what is human, such as passions, emotions, sorrows and joys. Further, when the principle of reduction follows a determinist premise, it obscures what is fortuitous, new, and inventive.

According to Edgar Morin - because we were taught to separate, compartmentalize and isolate learning instead of making connections, the whole of our knowledge forms an unintelligible puzzle.

Interactions, retroactions, contexts and complexities - lost in the no-man's land between different disciplines - and became invisible. Major human problems disappeared from our view, obscured by specific technical problems. The inability to organize scattered compartmentalized learning leads to atrophy of our natural mental disposition to perceive connections and "wholes."

"Fragmented, compartmentalized, mechanized, disjunctive, reductionist, intelligence breaks the 'world-complex' into disjointed fragments, fractures problems, separates what is connected, and makes the multidimensional unidimensional.

"This intelligence is nearsighted and often goes blind. Possibilities of comprehension and reflection are nipped in the bud: the chances of corrective judgement or a long-term view are drastically reduced.

"We find ourselves in a vicious cycle of increasingly multidimensional problems combined with a growing incapacity to think multidimensionally; our crisis worsens as fast as the incapacity to reflect on the crisis increases; the more planetary our problems, more they are left unthought.

"Blind intelligence - unable to envisage the planetary context and complex - makes us unaware, unconcerned and irresponsible."

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY

GST was an effort to perceive and scientifically understand phenomena that eluded the mechanistic model of reality, which von Bertalanffy called "the analytic, mechanistic, one-way causal paradigm of classical science."

Prior to the emergence of systems theory, the human mind had made great progress in working toward an accurate and pragmatic understanding of our world. Classical science assumed that reality (or any phenomenon or whole) could be adequately understood in terms of its parts.

To repeat: the mechanistic model assumed that the nature and function of a substance or an organism could be comprehended by reducing it to its material, externally observable components.

Joanna Macy clarifies:

"Until our century, classical western science had proceeded on the assumption that the world could be understood and controlled by dissecting it. Breaking the world down into ever-smaller pieces, classical western science divided mind from matter, organs from bodies, plants from ecosystems, and analyzed each separate part.

"This mechanistic approach left some questions unanswered - such as how do these separate parts interact to sustain life and evolve... As a result of such questions, scientists from various disciplines, starting with biology, began to look at wholes instead of parts, at processes instead of substances.

"What they discovered was these wholes - be they bodies, cells, ecosystems and even the planet itself - are not just a heap of disjunctive parts, but dynamic, intricately organized and balanced systems.

"... They saw that each element is part of a vaster pattern, a pattern that connects and evolves by discernible principles. The discernment of these principles is what is known as general systems theory."

Ludwig von Bertalanffy (often considered the father of General Systems Theory) reported: "I became puzzled about the obvious lacunae in.research and theory, which appeared to neglect or actively deny just what is essential in the phenomena of life."

He began with a general definition of a systems as "a set of elements standing in interrelations." Originally based on work in biology, GST is now considered a general scientific approach whose principles are valid for nonliving, as well as living, systems.

A more sophisticated description suggests that a system can be defined as a grouping of elements that possess a wholeness and in which the various levels of subsystems stand in relation to one another. One aim of GST is to notice general isomorphisms in systems - i.e., to look for the general organization or structure in terms of similarities, differences and relationships instead of dichotomies.

According to Ervin Laszlo, the formulation of General Systems Theory was much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory: it created a new paradigm for the development of theories. Work along these lines was continued by Gregory Bateson, who addressed attention to systems theory as a "bridge between conventionally separated domains." GST has also had a profoundly transformative effect on family therapy. It is still trickling down into our understanding of geopolitics and economics.

Systems theory is also an interdisciplinary model or metaphor that seeks to address a science of wholes at different hierarchical levels. Macy asserts that Laszlo has offered the clearest definition of a system: "an ordered whole in relation to its relevant environment."

Systems are embedded within surrounding environments with which they continually interact. Macy re-introduces here the concept of "synergy," a term coined by Buckminster Fuller, which refers to the reality that the output of a total system is not reducible to or predictable from the behavior of separate subparts within the system. The metaphor here is one of process, or organic imagery, and of field theory: "fields within fields... within fields."

As noted above, systems are arranged in hierarchies, with systems embedded within larger systems. But, as Macy points out, this is not a hierarchy of rank and authority, as in an army or church, nor is it a hierarchy of being and value, as in the thought of Plato and Plotinus. It is more like a set of nested boxes. Because this is an important distinction from conventional notions of hierarchy, a new word - holarchy - has been used.

In The Dharma of Natural Systems Joanna Macy presents four systemic properties:

1) The systems cannot be reduced to its parts without altering their pattern;

2) The system is homeostatic, stabilizing itself through negative feedback. The system adjusts its output to produce and sustain a match between the input it will receive and its internally coded requirements.

3) The system is self-organizing. When a mismatch between input and code persists, the system searches for and encodes a new pattern by which it can function. Incorporating positive feedback - differentiation and complexification of structure emerge.

4) The system is not only a whole, but a part within a larger whole. Whether the whole is a cell or organ, atom or animal, it is comprised of subsystems. It is also a subsystem within a wider system of whose character and functioning it is an integral and co-determinative component. Open systems in interaction form more inclusive structures or patterns as a function of their mutual adaptations.

In sum, a systemic approach, as opposed to a merely analytical approach, includes the totality of the elements in the system under study, as well as their interaction and relational interdependence with other systems.

Openness

The key to examining the existence and usefulness of paradigms is openness. (I must have been ahead of the time: in high school I founded an after-school gathering called "The Open Mind Club".)

Whether we are speaking about openness in terms of our participation in relationships with others or referring to an internal willingness to renounce preconceptions as we reflect on new information - we can greatly benefit from this attitude.

Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline has observed:

"Nothing undermines openness more surely than certainty. Once we feel as if we have 'the answer' all motivation to question our thinking disappears. But the discipline of systems thinking shows that there simply is 'no right answer' when dealing with complexity.

"It is most accurate to think of openness as a characteristic of relationships [rather than] individuals... openness emerges when two or more individuals become willing to suspend their certainty in each other's presence. They become willing to share their thinking and susceptible to having their thinking influenced by one another."

Clearly, fear has many disguises; one we can recognize is the wish to control others; another can be identified as "the demand for certainty." As Pema Chodron observes:

"To me, the point where people get stuck is exactly here. They have so little trust in their ability to rest with negativity and uncertainty that whenever they detect a hint of paradox or not knowing, they become afraid and do all kinds of conformist, fundamentalist things to become secure again.

"It takes a lot of bravery even to consider that uncertainty is not a threat--The future is uncertain... but such uncertainty lies at the very heart of human creativity."

Complexity

Today, just as we need the paradigm of systems thinking, we need a paradigm that addresses complexity because we are becoming overwhelmed by the interrelationships of phenomena.

Peter Senge:

"Perhaps for the first time in history, humankind has the ability to create far more information than anyone can absorb--and to accelerate change far faster than anyone's ability to keep pace on a scale of complexity that is without precedent."

All around us are "systemic breakdowns," which include problems that have no simple, local cause, including climate change, the proliferation of authoritarianism, the rapidly increasing gap between the very rich and very poor, human trafficking, the international weapons and drug trade.

Complexity can easily undermine confidence and responsibility - as in the refrain - "It's all too complex for me, there's nothing I can do. It's the system."

Senge states:

"Systems thinking is the antidote to this sense of helplessness...[it is] a discipline for seeing the 'structures' that underlie complex situations, and for discerning high from low level change... by seeing wholes we learn to how to foster health."

The Dominator (Control) Paradigm and "Splitting the Universe"

We can remember that between 5000 BC and 3000 BC there existed "partnership" societies all over Europe and the Middle East (no warriors or weapons per se have been found in the art of pre-authoritarian times). These societies were conquered by waves of invaders who worshiped warlike sky gods.

Hunter gatherer tribes steadily lost ground to warlike authoritarians. By 3000 BC we find a full-fledged control culture in Sumer - with kings, trained armies, centralized male power with women reduced to property, social classes, hierarchies and slaves. This "dominator" culture has become a way of life that has lasted - in various permutations - until the present.

Naturally, there were always individuals - sages, mystics, prophets and literary figures - who challenged controller values. But, for every one of these people there were thousands singing the glories of war.

Controller-authoritarian culture is rooted in separation and conflict. War demands dualistic thinking: "us vs. them;" the soldier is taught to deny him- or herself any relationship to the enemy; fraternization is treason; the enemy is best thought of as not human. Yet, the warrior must also split himself from himself - from his own emotionality and vulnerability.

Because power was seen as profoundly important - a "knowledge is power" assumption prevailed. Given the obsession with controlling others, information has been restricted from the top down. in the interest of controlling people, information was restricted from the top down.

Obedience has been a central value. For instance, it is also assumed that nature and women must obey men. We were all taught to obey anyone "above" us.

Since everything in control culture is defined vertically, "higher" and "lower" acquired moral overtones; the words "superior" and "inferior" came to mean better and worse. Rulers were placed on elevated thrones and their subjects were expected to physically lower themselves by bowing, kneeling, prostrating themselves, etc.

Controller, authoritarian culture has been rooted in separation and conflict. War demands dualistic thinking: "us vs. them"; the soldier is taught to deny him or herself any relationship to the enemy; fraternization is treason; the enemy is best thought of as not human. Yet, the warrior must also split himself from himself - from his own emotionality and vulnerability.

Once the world is split into higher and lower, everyone must be assigned a carrier and a rank. For example, women were seen as belonging to the "lowly" domain of the earth, taking care of things like food, childbirth, clothing, emotions and so on. They were, by definition, considered lower due to their mediocre skills at homicide.

Today we hear such metaphors as "making it to the top of the ladder of success."

"Higher" also meant closer to heaven and to God. Yet, it was only a few thousand years ago that God was put up in the sky. For hunter-gathers, the power of Divinity was everywhere - in the earth, the water and in all living and inanimate things.

In the hunter-gatherer societies, the hunter wooed his prey, begged its forgiveness, danced in gratitude to it for having allowed itself to be killed so he or she might live. The hunter and his prey were apparently experienced as parts of the same organic whole.

In sum, authoritarianism created a divided world. It is a universe permanently split into warring elements founded on irreconcilable strife. It included assumptions concerning the "strong" and the "weak." (We can notice Donald Trump's obsession with these terms.)

Symbols of unity were rejected, and conquest was expressed by the myth of slaying the dragon, which was a universal symbol of wisdom. Our authoritarian heritage makes it difficult to see beyond dualities to the totality that embraces them.

David Bohm

As Juliana Genevieve Souza Andre and Raisse Rocha Bombini say in their discussion of "David Bohm and the Challenge of a Fragmented Society."

"Fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them.

"We are not used to seeing a totality, but only small parts of it. Practically speaking, people separate into groups and defend their ideologies and their egos in opposition to other groups, other ideologies and other egos, preventing humanity from working together for the common good and for survival."

General systems theory aims at meaningful integration of all knowledge. Its goal is unification of social science knowledge, as well as scientific analysis.

Obviously, secrets and lies that are an inherent component of dominance social structures radically disrupt a systems perspective in at least four ways. We can speak of (1) the rigid compartmentalization of information, (2) duplication of efforts, and (3) inefficiency due to lack of cross-disciplinary inquiry and (4) the destruction of trust and sharing.

Fragmentation is another underground paradigm we must become aware of and find ways to address, if we hope to survive the 21^st century.

(Article changed on Sep 11, 2022 at 12:19 PM EDT)

Authors Bio:

I work as a psychotherapist with an emphasis on transformational learning - a blend of psychoanalytic and transpersonal approaches, and am the author of Self Actualization and Unselfish Love and co-author of Families Helping Families: Living with Schizophrenia, as well as Mental Illness as an Opportunity for Transformation. My interests and life have taken parallel courses, which together have woven a complex tapestry: spirituality and meditation on the one hand, and political psychology on the other. I have studied and practiced with Ram Dass, Jack Kornfield, Mata Amritanandamayi and Gurumayi Chidvilasanda, and continue a daily practice of meditation. My early political education began with the writings of the founding fathers. Over time this led to involvement in the anti-Vietnam war and anti-nuclear movements. I was interested in the powerful molding of prevailing political and economic dynamics by what C. Wright Mills called the military-industrial complex. In time I have come to the conclusion that, despite various interest groups' attempts to minimize or trivialize the concept, the deep state is a reality - decisively and covertly shaping events on both the domestic and international fronts. I am interested in an exceptionally promising alternative source of energy that has yet to see the light of day. I see the current period as a precarious form of initiation rite into the beginning of adulthood for our species, and hope to do whatever I can to help us reach this goal. Meanwhile, I seek daily to recall the reality that the same awareness (the Ever-Present-Origin) looks out through all of our eyes, and actualize this in my relationship with other beings.