John Renesch: Exploring the Better Future

Jim Carrey and Eckart Tolle Team Up to Bring Consciousness to Media

Over the last couple of decades I have been part of many, many discussions, dialogues and debates about how the Great Turning, the “new paradigm,” the Age of Consciousness. They have all been directed toward a shift from a social paradigm based on separation, fear and scarcity to one based on connection, love and sufficiency. In each of these conversations, both private and public ones, the final “yeah but” comes by way of this discourse stopper: “How will we ever get the media to change, after all they are driving much of what is unwanted in our culture?” or something to that effect.

Well, three years ago, an organization was birthed with a mission to transform the entertainment and media industry that has so much influence on so many people. It was formally inaugurated on June 4th, 2009, at the Zanuck Theater on the Fox Studios lot in Los Angeles. It seeks to empower entertainment and media professionals and companies to produce and distribute content that inspires new consciousness-based worldviews for global audiences by providing information in three primary arenas: 1. education, 2. collaboration and 3. advocacy.

1.    Education
It plans to provide resources and guidance supporting its members’ personal, inner education thereby assisting them in deepening their fundamental connection with themselves which, once achieved, results in the desire to express that essential sense of self and personal transformation in and through their work; to bring to members’ awareness the need for responsibility for the ideas, issues and events that they are shaping the world we live in – for both “good and ill;” and provide mentorship,  giving back and supporting the next generation of industry professionals.

2.    Collaboration
It will provide resources and services to help its members in the entertainment and media businesses, who are living a transformational lifestyle, to connect with their like-spirited peers; its offerings will encourage collaboration to create content that expresses transformational intentions and values.

3.    Advocacy
Within the trade, it will support the larger media and entertainment communities in understanding transformation and its importance in a cultural and global context, and to help them become comfortable with the reality of transformation; In the public arena, it plans to help legitimize the genre of transformational entertainment and of transformational content in the media.

Pretty ambitious. you say? Pie in the sky, you say?

Over the decades I have seen hundreds of well-intended initiatives fizzle out within a few years or even months. Could this be another?

Well, it might if it lacked credibility. In this case, there is credibility. The founder, John Raatz, who has introduced many transformational films and books into the world through his public relations firm Visioneering, brought in superstar actor Jim Carrey and bestselling author and spiritual leader Eckhart Tolle as his co-founders.

Here is a video of Carrey talking about the initiative and introducing Tolle at one of the inaugural events:

                                                                 Jim Carrey introduces Eckhart Tolle (13 mins)

The name of this membership organization in the Global Alliance for Transformational Entertainment (or “GATE”) which describes itself as a global movement to Transform the World by Transforming Entertainment and Media. Still evolving, GATE has just morphed its legal structure to a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization in the U.S.

GATE is now accepting memberships, so I urge you to join me as a member and, even better, forward this article to anyone you know in media or entertainment. This is the best initiative I have seen to dramatically transform an industry that, for better or worse, possesses so much influence in the world, for better or worse.

The Power of a Vulnerably-Shared Story

After World War II thousands of young U.S. veterans flooded the job market and, thanks to the G.I. Bill, purchased homes in newly-built neighborhoods. Frequently, the men and their brides would come together and share stories of their experience in the Pacific, Europe or Africa. One man shared that he landed on the Normandy beach on D-Day and was four miles inland before he was able to pry his fingers loose of his rifle. Others shared their harrowing experiences that their wives had never heard from their husbands privately. These young couples experienced a deep bonding and developed a community of friends that, in many cases, lasted a lifetime.
 

Post WWII family getting started

Groups of people stranded together by some unexpected situation such as a snowstorm or power outage often facilitates strangers getting to know one another. This is especially true when people aren’t sure they are going to survive or be rescued. Many people open up so much that they inspire reciprocal shares and sometimes lifetime bonds are formed. As collective intelligence theorist Tom Atlee says:

    Story is a powerful way of organizing and sharing individual experience and exploring and co-creating     shared realities…..every person, every being, everything has a story and contains stories -- and, in     fact, is a story -- and that all of these stories interconnect, that we are, in fact, surrounded by     stories, embedded in stories and made of stories.

    Lived stories are those real-life, actual stories that are happening in the real world all around us all     the time. The actual unfolding events relating to any one actual entity or subject comprise that     entity's or subject's lived story…..become sensitive to lived stories... to learn about the lived stories     of people, places, things... to share our own lived stories... to discover how all these stories     intersect, who or what is in the foreground and background of each other's lived stories. Ultimately,     this provides the guidance we need to find our own most meaningful place in the universal story.

    While analysis is good for control and prediction, story-sensibility is good for understanding meaning     and role.

Vulnerably shared stories evoke trust, inspire even greater vulnerability, and can build bonds that last forever. These are the seeds of community that people used to have and now miss. We have forgotten how to tell our stories vulnerably. We are socially conditioned to “play it safe” and not reveal too much of ourselves. Then we wonder why we miss community so badly.

Naturally, there is something to be said about “appropriate vulnerability.” With some people you may not feel entirely safe sharing deeply personal matters. This requires discernment on your part. But when you do feel safe and trust the people you are with, and desire a deeper connection, it may help to allow yourself some discomfort by opening up. Then, when you are asked to tell your story, share yourself from your heart, not your head. Recall life-defining moments and share those. What shaped you to be the person you are today?

If you feel stuck and can only think of your standard check-in, your “elevator speech,” look for something you have never shared about yourself and share that. This could start a flow of additional disclosures that people would like to know about you and you would like to know about them.

Doing Business with Boiled Frogs

The degree to which I hear reports of growing cynicism in today's workplace reminds me of the parable of the boiled frog. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this analogy, imagine an experiment involving a frog, a pan of water and a stove.

As the parable goes, the frog is placed in the pan which contains room temperature water. The frog is content to sit there, especially if it has been out of water for a long time. It has no compelling reason to move. When the heat under the pan of water is warmed ever so gradually, the frog slowly adjusts to the warming water and, in the absence of any sudden change in temperature, eventually doses off and is boiled to death.

    photo by Peter Turla

On the other hand, goes the parable, if you were to heat the water in the pan before the frog is placed in it, it will immediately sense the danger and leap from the pan to a place of presumed greater safety.

The purpose of the parable is to show how unaware we can be about insidious threats to our well-being. It graphically illustrates how easily humans can adapt to incremental changes, even changes which threaten their health and spirit, if these changes are slow and gradual enough.

In this parable, the frog represents people. The water represents the system - the places where we work and live. The pan represents the container, the larger system - society - which includes our workplaces, the market, entire nations, nature and the environment. The heat under the pan represents the energy that is threatening to destroy everything in the pan, albeit very gradually. The frog - people in this parable - slowly gets drowsy to the point of asphyxiation, as can happen when one spends too much time in a sauna or hot tub where the temperature is constantly increasing. Finally, it’s too late and the frog gets boiled, just to finish things off. Mercifully, the frog is by then oblivious to its eventual fate!  

Like the frog, people don't notice the small incremental changes in their environments, at work or in society in general. They become insensitive because they've adapted; they have done what their ancestors did to survive - adapt or perish. In adapting, they have learned to ignore creeping degradations in the quality of their lives and their work experiences. They have become desensitized to situations that would have caused previous generations to "leap from the pan."

An important distinction between people and frogs: frogs don't think. Frogs react. Frogs don't make choices. They respond by instinct. People think and can make choices. They can awaken from their complacency and choose different outcomes for themselves. They can respond to critical choice points when they become aware of them.

Who would you want on your team - a group of highly-adaptive cynics who had mastered coping in a spiritually hostile environment (like the boiled frog) or a group of people who are fully awake and alive, and bring their entire beings - their whole selves - to the job? For me, there's no way I'd want to depend upon a team of boiled frogs.

Bribery vs Lobbying: One is Illegal and Wrong; the Other is Legal, but Is It Right?

Thanks to the federal and state politicians who don’t possess the will to reform our campaign finance laws, the endless amounts of money that special interests are willing to spend to gain special advantages and a U.S. Supreme Court who thinks corporations are people, millions of anonymous dollars are pouring into political advertising and influence peddling without any accountability or transparency. Let’s look at the similarities between illegal bribery and legal influence peddling:

    •    Both buy favors.

    •    Both are anonymous or faceless.

    •    Both tilt the playing field of fairness.

    •    Both disenfranchise those who can’t afford to purchase favorable treatment. 

    •    Both compromise the politicians.

    •    And both subvert the system.

Bribery is illegal and frowned on by society. Lobbying is legal and thereby tacitly condoned by our society.
Who made campaign financing and lobbying legal? The beneficiaries are the ones who made the laws. The issue of morality versus legality I shall leave to you the reader.

This query was prompted by two recent media pieces. One was a June online piece by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor: see http://robertreich.org/post/24472398883?632ecf88

The other was a segment on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on July 8th where Lesley Stahl interviewed Jack Abramoff, one of the most notorious U.S. lobbyists of our time, who served more than three years in prison for his crimes – one of only a few lobbyists who ever served time. You can watch the interview here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57319068-10391709/jack-abramoff-inside-capitol-corruption/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.1

Please read the former and watch the latter. Then see if you have the same reaction that Stahl had during the interview: "I think the public's going to be furious watching this," she said after expressing her anger at what he’d done. I hope people do get angry. I hope you do. We need to get mad as hell and stop taking this anymore!!

Another Facet for the Conscious Organization

As I have written many times over the years, you cannot enter a dialogue about human consciousness without including the ego.  Well, you could, but you’d be avoiding a primary actor in the process. For all its darkness and lightness, the ego exists in us all – not as a thing to be exorcised, or be rid of, but to master, transcending the negative and utilizing the positive.

In my writings over the past 25 to 30 years on Conscious Leadership and The Conscious Organization, I have covered various facets of consciousness whereby the negative aspects of ego, or shadow, are minimalized, allowing the positive traits of the ego to better contribute.

I just finished reading the book Egonomics where the authors make an elegant case for three principles that not only require us to do things differently but they require us to be different. These three principles are humility, curiosity and veracity. 

      
It occurred to me that while the authors of the book are largely discussing ego in the individual context, as in a leader, I started thinking of it in the organizational context as in the corporate culture.  Here’s how they describe the first of these principles:

        "…humility is intelligent self-respect that keeps us from thinking too much or too little of         ourselves. It reminds us how far we have come while at the same time helping us see how far         short we are of what we can be."

Imagine an organization having this as a cornerstone to their culture. In his book  Beyond Ego: Influential Leadership Starts Within, Canadian consultant Art Horn  defines what I would call “negative ego” as “the part of you that sees yourself as above, below or against other people or circumstances.” This might be the most succinct definition I have come across for the dark side of human ego.

The second Egonomics principle is curiosity:

        "The highest concentration of curiosity isn’t created by adding an ounce of order to a pound of         openness, or vice versa. Trait curiosity requires equal parts of both."

What the authors call “trait curiosity” is built-in, intrinsic, always there - as opposed to episodic curiosity.

Imagine an organizational culture possessing trait curiosity, always curious, always exploring, asking questions. This reminds me of the “learning organization” that became so popular in the early 1990s after the publication of Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline. At the time, it was a departure from the “know it all” cultures that were so dominant, like the U.S. auto makers’ cultures until the 1980s when Japanese manufacturers started kicking Detroit’s butt. This arrogant Detroit culture could be seen as “organizational ego” run rampant.

The third principle for this conscious dominion over ego is veracity, a word we don’t hear much about these days. Here’s part of what the Egonomics authors have to say about it:

        "Fused with humility and curiosity, veracity…. keeps the capital of the ego working for us rather         than  against us. Veracity means truth. Truth refers to facts or reality; it implies accuracy and         honesty.  Truth is a destination. Veracity doesn’t differ from truth in its destination, but it         differs in action.  Veracity implies the habitual pursuit of and adherence to truth. Both pursuit         and adherence matter immensely; pursuit in arriving at truth, and adherence in making a         change once truth is discovered."

Now imagine all three of these principles embedded in an organizational culture where individuals expressing these characteristics are rewarded, respected and admired for their dominion over ego allowing the organization as a whole to exude that same dominion. After all, if one is alive one has an ego. But a healthy functioning ego takes dominion and mastery so it stays clear of those darker sides – like arrogance, defensiveness and bravado to name a few - that do so much damage.

I find these principles to be a great fit for my model of a conscious organization, where people are encouraged to seek out any darkness and shine light on any dysfunction. Thanks to Egonomics, we have more content on which to build.

Conscious leaders who adopt these principles are leaders who have dominion over their egos  and offer hope to all who work in the public or private sectors.


                                                                   * * * * * *
NOTES:

Egonomics: What Makes Ego Our Greatest Asset (or Our Most Expensive Liability), by David Marcum and Steven Smith, Fireside/Simon & Schuster, New York, 2007

Beyond Ego: Influential Leadership Starts Within, by Art Horn, ECW Press, Toronto, 2008

The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, by Peter Senge, Doubleday Currency, New York, 1990

What If Stephen Stills Had It Right?

Folk-rock legend Stephen Stills wrote and recorded a 1970s single entitled “Love the one you’re with” which went on to be recorded by many artists over the years. The thought conveyed in this popular song was, to paraphrase, if you can’t be with the one you love then love the one you are with.

Stephen Stills, songwriter, folk-rock legend, member, Crosby, Stills & Nash

It seems this message could be applied to all of humanity today, not just for a lover. Following the same common sense logic Stills expresses in his song, if we are all living on this Earth and there is no place else to go, why not love the ones who share our Spaceship Earth with us rather than squabbling, persecuting or hating them?

This planet Earth which we call home is getting smaller and smaller as we grow in population, communications speeds up and travel time continues to shrink. We possess the ability to destroy people half way around the world in an instant as we sit on fuses that could bring about humankind’s extinction. What if we simply loved the ones we’re with?

What would it cost us? Our egos? Our pride? Our righteousness? Our airs of superiority?

And what would we gain? Security? Serenity? Fellowship? Community? Additional friends?

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

Standing for an Adult Society

In my latest book – The Great Growing Up - I attempt to make a case for the urgent need for our species to grow into full adulthood, to voluntarily evolve, and to cease our adolescent indulgences that are creating such havoc in the world. Ceasing this immature behavior involves recognizing it, pointing it out and saying enough! Let us stop legitimizing this behavior and insist on adult responses to our challenges as a species. Remaining silent is to condone it. Worse yet, remaining silent gives it legitimacy!

My recent interest in Vaclav Havel’s work and, specifically, his 1978 essay “The Power of the Powerless” has revealed this pearl of wisdom (amongst many others):

    You have to begin with the imperative that you’re responsible for the whole world. And if young     people take that kind of position, there’s a lot of hope. In fact, it is the only hope there is.

This “position,” as Havel calls it, is the ultimate adult stand for humankind’s future – each of us needs to be responsible for “the whole world.”

The good news here is it won’t be necessary for everyone in the world to grow up. But it will take a critical mass to shift the culture so that adolescent behavior is frowned upon, where it is not only unfashionable but socially unacceptable. This requires taking a firm stand for something that is wanted, nay demanded, not a position against something that is unwanted.

Changes of this scale have occurred in our lifetimes so we know we can do it, if we have the collective will to do it.

Women’s right to vote, civil rights, and the environmental movement are all outcomes of mental models that have undergone large scale cultural shifts in the past century here in the U.S.  More recently we’ve seen this in the mass demonstrations against tyranny and oppression in the. Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement.

In closing, I quote Lynne Twist who writes about the distinction between a stand and a position:

    Taking a position does not create an environment of inclusiveness and tolerance; instead, it creates     even greater levels of entrenchment, often by insisting that for me to be right, you must be wrong.

    Taking a stand does not preclude you from taking a position. One needs to take a position from time     to time to get things done or to make a point. But when a stand is taken it inspires everyone. It     elevates the quality of the dialogue and engenders integrity, alignment, and deep trust.

When you find yourself in the midst of it, speak out against silly “acting outs” by politicians, the media you consume and any other places where you observe it. You may have to muster up some courage and risk some criticism but I guarantee you will feel better.


[To see my editorial on Havel – “The Myth of Powerlessness” - from my March newsletter click here]

Evolutionary Architects Wanted

The other day, I had a most unusual conversation with long time friend and colleague Bill Veltrop and a more recent colleague Max Shkud. Max has joined Bill in an extraordinary visionary endeavor – forming a guild of “evolutionary architects” that will bring about what they describe as a “societal metamorphosis, an irreversible transformation of our organizing forms, a shift in beliefs and culture unlike anything seen in our short history as a species.” This is how they show it in a diagram:

[Note: the hot links included in the text below will take you to the website where Bill and Max have embedded definitions of these terms. To return to this blog simply back up on your browser.]

Bill and Max assert that a metamorphosis of our social systems can become as natural for us as it is in nature. They further assert that the emergence of the Information Age within the last half century has set the stage for this “Age of Conscious Evolution.” They envision that we humans will design our social systems to serve the well-being of all life — for all time! This requires a rethinking of our social architecture or what they are calling “evolutionary architecture.”

I had been aware of the phrase “social architects” as people who design and redesign social systems but I had not heard the term evolutionary architect until Bill and Max invited me into the conversation. 

Here is their definition of an evolutionary architect:

        ….a social architect who:
        1.    Is committed to free humanity from the tyranny of unconscious social design — to make the         shift from “mechanistic” to “generative design principles.”
        2.    Sees humans and their social systems as having the potential to consciously evolve to         ever-higher levels of well-being — and is committed to that quest.
        3.    Strives to achieve the same level of design excellence for our social forms as is present         throughout the rest of nature.
        4.    Is concerned with the interplay of whole ecosystems — natural, social, economic, etc., in the         service of maximizing the contribution of these systems to the well-being of all life — for all time.
        5.    Is committed to master the emerging field of generative design as it applies to all systems at         all levels of system.

        While an individual evolutionary architect can have a powerful influence, we see the “evolutionary         architect” needing to take the form of a unique kind of community — generative action-learning         organism.

This community or “organism” they talk about is one they envision as a guild - a community of allies who help grow generative alliances with pioneering leaders, providers and organizational entities “who are ready and able to step up to this great evolutionary challenge and opportunity.” The name of this community is Global Guild of Evolutionary Architects (or “GlobalGEA” for short).

Who will be these allies, these leaders and providers, these organizations who will step up? They will be visionaries – able to see the real possibility of bringing this kind of future about. They will be entrepreneurs – able to launch this initiative, take it from vision to reality. They will be system thinkers who can see the relational dynamics amongst and between everything and everyone. They will be critical thinkers - very skilled at how they think. They will be talented – very skilled in what they do and how they do it. They will be transformational thinkers – familiar with taking huge leaps in worldviews, frame changing, and comfortable in the midst of paradigm shifts. And they will be collaborators – people who can be part of generative alliances, leaving their egos at the door. Instead of asking “what’s in it for me?” these people will ask “what’s in it for the world?”

Make no mistake here: while this is a huge undertaking it simply means we must work together. A societal metamorphosis on this scale, an irreversible transformation of our social systems, a paradigm shift in our collective beliefs and cultural norms unlike anything seen in human history is beyond the ability of one person or one organization. But, together we can do it.

If you or anyone you know could be a candidate, as an ally, leader, service provider or organizational partner in this global metamorphosis, check out www.GlobalGEA.net and immerse yourself in the content. Dive deep – don’t stay in the shadows. When you feel you have integrated the scope and vision there, you will be directed to the initiative’s Offer, Request and Promise, then to contact Bill or Max. 

They Have It Upside Down: We the People Get the Short Stick

 
Scene from “Network”

When we elect politicians, we expect them to serve their constituents – “we the people” - first and foremost. It is the basis for a modern democracy, that “we the people” are represented by those we elect, those who ask us to trust them.

Given the predominately two-party system we have in place in this democracy, we might expect our elected representatives to remain loyal to the platform on which they ran their campaign, regardless of their party. After all, they can assume their electors are likely members of the same party and that the platform or the promises made to the voters are important to them.

It is natural, we suppose, that once elected, these people who represent us may wish to get re-elected and remain in office. So their second priority might be to get re-elected next time an election rolls around. Thus their constituency becomes the people and corporations who pay for their campaigns to get re-elected.

But our present day politicians seem to have these priorities upside down!

Their first loyalty is to get themselves re-elected, raising money so they can buy votes. Their party loyalty comes next and, finally, last on the list, is serving the people who elected them in the first place.

There is no wonder why gridlock is so pervasive in our politics today given these upside down priorities. We are paying politicians to work for us and all they give us is gridlock and excuses, blaming the other party for their failures. Their first loyalty is to themselves and to the lobbyists and their clients who finance their campaigns. This assures their reelection. Their second loyalty is to their party, which shows up so conspicuously when they stand united in their explanations for their failures to govern. Finally, the last priority in the queue, is “we the people” – the ones whose interests they solemnly swear to represent  – but only after they have achieved their first two priorities.

The Occupy Movement is evidence that many people are “mad as hell and don’t want to take this anymore” as was so powerfully portrayed in the movie “Network” (see six minute video clip). Maybe our politicians will respond, get their priorities straight and start serving the people they claim to represent.

Paradise on Earth: Why Not?

   As regular readers of this blog know, I rarely feature the work of others here as I usually have something to say myself. But in late December, a colleague published a video on YouTube about a project he has been working on for 35 years. He calls it “Mission: Paradise”.  I think it is worth it to postpone one more stand on my soapbox. First a few words about the creator/architect of this vision.

His name is Jim Channon, a genius and a visionary in my view. Jim was an officer in the U.S. Army and founded the “First Earth Battalion.” I first met Jim when I was Managing Director and a Founding Trustee of the World Business Academy (WBA) in 1990. He lives in Hawaii where he facilitated a retreat for the WBA in 1991. He also contributed to my first anthology – New Traditions in Business: Spirit and Leadership in the 21st Century.

Jim’s powerful vision for the future reminds me of another colleague’s idea for a transformed humanity, Martin Rutte, who talks and writes about “Heaven on Earth”. Of course both these visions are aligned with the one I put forth in my new book – The Great Growing Up – which I call the “New Great Dream.“ But you can’t beat video for a compelling presentation!

I suggest you watch the first 15 minutes of Jim’s presentation. The last 10 minutes you can watch at your leisure but plan on the first 15 as a minimum.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GsUKSBqYhg4

Watch this with an open mind and notice any cynicism that may rear its head from time to time. Notice also that Jim has been having this conversation with thousands of pragmatic people in the world , including corporate leaders, political and military leaders, and knows his way around these communities. Of course these conversations are private as most high-profile people won’t want to acknowledge these exchanges publicly. 

As always, I’d appreciate any feedback you’d like to share here after you watch the video.