Re. The Big Mindedness of Holding Paradox (my title) Gayle Karen Young’s original title was Apex Perspectives: Leadership Applications of Big Mind

The world needs more conscious leaders. That’s just such a no-brainer to me, so every possible practice I encounter to help develop that becomes seed for thought about how it can be used. The question then arises about how you develop …the ability to hold paradox. On the one hand, there’s the lived experience, where the lived experience of the world is so undeniably, fundamentally one in which one moves constantly through the paradoxes we face that one is forced to hold it, or else go insane or into denial.

Existence is not paradoxical. It is unity. The abominal mental slavery of humanity as machine-mind bristles with paradox = read, mendacity and delusion. To hold paradox is apex validation of the lie that machine is human and denial that the human mind is down on the plate no matter how our legs are kicking and we are up for lunch. Also, note the primary paradox we have been ultimately seduced to hold: that we are simultaneously everything and anything, so as to be able to shift into any rationalization, in satisfying the demand of assimilating the self as optimized universe.

re. previous quote.

From a leadership development perspective, this isn’t exactly a credible or viable thing to relate to executives grappling with the realities they’re facing in this increasingly complex, turbulent, ambiguous, fearful marketplace. What are the practices that offer perspective taking? Big Mind, amongst others, certainly does—and it does so in a very unique way.

This quote shows glaring denial about the parasitic to predatory nature of the acceleration of natural selection in terms of memetic code, in the way it demands that we develop as optimal productivity machines, instead of fundamentally dismantling and restructuring a rising dystopian technological singularity. The natural selection of memetic code, or the competitive proliferation of ideas, is the genetic structure of the evolution of the machine.

Note:

The inherent paradoxical fertility of meaning making in civilized development is that it divides and conquers. A point conveniently ignored is that in the early civilized developmental stages, children are indeed implored to develop an intricate self as object.

When Einstein says that the problems of this world can’t be solved at the same level of consciousness that created them, I believe that an implication of his words means that issues can’t be solved from the place of polarity and paradox but from the place of increasing the tension, making cleaner the distinctions, in order to then include and transcend them.

So, this is how shallow the mendacity is. We cannot see the mechanically binary nature of the exercise. To transcend perspective holding, we 1) sharply accentuate two or just a few perspectives, usually in the thesis-antithesis-synthesis form. 2) test it in the world 3) modulate errors. We do not realize that we have lived and thought the emergence of an artificial virtual symbolic world in which paradox is prime, and the emergence of a world of increasing turbulence and accelerating change is the underlying dynamic. Hence the demand that leadership conciousness be so BIG on holding so-called “paradox.”

And in conclusion, a homy quote to illustrate the delusion of the happy Zen vibration, the general nature of the civilized human condition as mind-pleasuring into unconsciousness, …. known as “consciousness.”

He (The Zen master) holds the space of the voices themselves, creating a subtle resonance that we key into on an intuitive level, while also holding the space of all voices at once from the space of the truly Big Mind with grace and compassion. He mindfully moves with flow and adapts precisely to where everyone is in a roomful of people. I guess they don’t call someone a Zen Master for just any old reason.

Done, 2010:07:28 11:55 US central time.