Indwelling intelligence within collectives and communities

Implication of Indwelling Intelligence in Global Confidence-building (Part #9)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Collective spirit and Zeitgeist: As articulated in the past by G. W. F. Hegel, the constitution is the collective spirit of the nation. The government,through the written constitution, is then the embodiment of that spirit. Each nation has its own individual spirit, and the greatest of crimes is the act by which that spirit is stifled. Political rhetoric continues to refer to the national spirit and constraints imposed on it by current developments and crises. More generally it could be understood in relation to the Zeitgeist, namely the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.

Reference is readily made to the "spirit of Europe" or the "European spirit" -- and the possibility of experiencing it through academic, cultural programes and tourism. This may be related to rhetoric regarding the "soul of Europe" and concerns about its "soullessness", or that of its institutions. Similar language is used in relation to the United Nations, as in the words of the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon: The Charter of the United Nations is the animating spirit and soul of our great institution (22 June 2011). The UN NGO Committee on Spirituality, Values and Global Concerns presents an annual Spirit of the United Nations Award. It is to be assumed that such references imply a collective form of indwelling intelligence. Unfortunately with respect to the "spirit" of the United Nations, the principal guardians of its Charter are precisely those who are the primary manufacturers of arms and who ensure their uncontrolled dissemination worldwide. It is also they who have obstructed the process of reform of the United Nations for decades.

The sense of collective spirit is of course well-recognized in local initiatives and especially through teams (cf. Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith, The Wisdom of Teams: creating the high-performance organization, 2003).

Collective consciousness and planetary consciousness: The shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society may be described as collective consciousness and contrasted with collective unconsciousness (cf John Ralston Saul, The Unconscious Civilization, 1995). The growing awareness among human beings that they belong to the planet Earth as much as they belong to their nations, provinces, districts, cities or villages is termed planetary consciousness. This consciousness is integral insofar as it does not suppress or deny other levels of identity and belonging, but instead adds a holistic view to them that includes humanity and the planet as a whole (cf. Shinichi Takemura, Designing a Multiperson Planetary Consciousness, Huffington Post, 16 July 2010). These notions may again imply a degree of recognition of some form of indwelling intelligence (Ervin Laszlo, Science and the Akashic Field: an Integral Theory of Everything, 2007).

Collective memory: Indwelling intelligence takes a different form through the sense of collective memory, traditionally as folk memory and its appreciation as folk wisdom and folklore -- and the connection with ancestral knowledge. It refers to the shared pool of information held by any group. It is appropriate to note that Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) is promoted by UNESCO as a counterpart to the World Heritage focus on tangible aspects of culture. Again the question is the extent to which active "intelligence" is implied by collective memory in its various manifestations.

Of related concern is the manner in which collective memory is progressively eroded, as discussed separately (Societal Learning and the Erosion of Collective Memory: a critique of the Club of Rome Report: No Limits to Learning, 1980). Should this be considered as a form of collective (or civilizational) dementia? (cf. Pointers to the Pathology of Collective Memory, 1980).

Socially distributed cognition: Using insights from sociology, cognitive science, and the psychology of Vygotsky (cf. cultural-historical psychology), distributed cognition is a psychological theory which emphasizes the social aspects of cognition. This recognizes the coordination between individuals, artefacts and the environment through: embodiment of information that is embedded in representations of interaction, coordination of enaction among embodied agents, and ecological contributions to a cognitive ecosystem. Cognition is expressed as the process of information that occurs from interaction with symbols in the world. It considers and labels all phenomena responsible for this processing as ecological elements of a cognitive ecosystem. Cognition is then shaped by the transduction of information across extended and embodied modalities, the representations formed as result of their interactions and the attentive distribution of those representations toward a cognitive goal. Intelligence is then recognized as distributed, both between people, and a person and an object.

Civic intelligence: The term civic intelligence has been applied to individuals and to collective bodies, like organizations, institutions, or societies devoted to addressing public or civic issues. It is similar to John Dewey's "cooperative intelligence" or the "democratic faith" that asserts that each individual has something to contribute, and the value of each contribution can be assessed only as it entered into the final pooled intelligence constituted by the contributions of all. It is implied by the subtitle of the book by Jared Diamond (Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, 2004) and to the question posed by that of Thomas Homer-Dixon (Ingenuity Gap: How Can We Solve the Problems of the Future? 2000). This suggests that civic intelligence will be needed if humankind is to stave off problems related to climate change and other potentially catastrophic occurrences. With these meanings, civic intelligence is less a phenomenon to be studied and more of a dynamic process or tool to be shaped and wielded.

Collective intelligence: A form of indwelling intelligence is implied as being engendered from the collaboration and competition of many individuals as collective intelligence, shared intelligence or group intelligence (cf. Tom Atlee, et al., Collective Intelligence: creating a prosperous world at peace, 2008). It appears through consensus decision making, in animals, humans and computer networks, as noted in sociobiology, and political science. It can be understood as an emergent property from the synergies among: data-information-knowledge; software-hardware; and experts (those with new insights as well as recognized authorities) that continually learns from feedback to produce just-in-time knowledge for better decisions than these three elements acting alone. More narrowly it is understood as an emergent property between people and ways of processing information -- termed symbiotic intelligence.

It is recognized in a context of mass peer review and crowdsourcing applications. Reservations regarding those applications (cf. peer review failure) highlight the manner in which potential intelligence, effectively indwelling, can in practice be curtailed. Of particular interest in the case of crowdsourcing is its cynical use as a means of claiming the widespread quest for relevant ideas and solutions, whilst making ever provision to suppress or ignore the feedback -- except through selection of isolated items as a tokenistic demonstration that this suppression is not occurring (cf. Considering All the Strategic Options: whilst ignoring alternatives and disclaiming cognitive protectionism, 2009; Framing the Global Future by Ignoring Alternatives: unfreezing categories as a vital necessity, 2009), and notably as illustrated by emergencies (Enabling Collective Intelligence in Response to Emergencies: illustrated by the case of deep oil spill containment, 2010). One consequence is the progressive fragmentation of the "crowd" from which intelligence might be elicited (Dynamically Gated Conceptual Communities: emergent patterns of isolation within knowledge society, 2004).

Little is said about the pathologies of collective intelligence of which there are arguably some very recent examples (cf. Pointers to the Pathology of Collective Memory, 1980; From Apartheid to Schizophrenia: ecological ignorance and the logic of depersonalized "separate development", 1971). Especially intriguing are the legal issues consequent on the relatively recent recognition of dissociative identity disorder (or multiple personality disorder) of an individual. The question raised is whether an individual can be acquitted because an "alter" personality is claimed to have committed the crime. Similarly, by acknowledging such a possible pathology within a collective, especially a nation, could one "personality" of a collective (claiming legal personality) be similarly exonerated -- by framing the other as "guilty". The dilemma is all the greater in that democracy could then be viewed as a form of collective personality disorder in which problematic actions are systematically blamed on the previous government -- the "opposition", now out of power.

Intelligent organization and Organizational intelligence: Focus was seemingly first given to this understanding from a cybernetic perspective by Stafford Beer (Brain of the Firm, 1972; The Intelligent Organization, 1990). That perspective has been notably developed by Markus Schwaninger (A Cybernetic Model to Enhance Organizational Intelligence, Journal Systems Analysis Modelling Simulation, 2003; Intelligent Organizations: powerful models for systemic management, 2008). The difficulty is now that the theme has been confusedly interwoven with information management, knowledge management and with business intelligence (Gifford Pinchot, The Intelligent Organization, 1996; Frederich Boch. The Intelligent Organization. Arthur D. Little; Mohammad Shamsuddoha, Knowledge Management in the Intelligent Organization, Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 2005; Dan Pratte, The Intelligent Organization: an introduction to BI, TechRepublic, 2001).

It would seem to be unclear from this perspective as to what meaning could be attached to the question as to whether any of the following, as examples, were in and of themselves characterized by "intelligence", and especially of an "indwelling intelligence":  United Nations, CIA, Communist Pasrty of China, Cosa Nostra, or others with a long tradition.

Centres of excellence and think tanks: Reference was made above (with respect to buildings) as to how they might constitute intelligent environments, possibly characterized by a form of "indwelling intelligence", especially when computer-enabled. The question was raised whether, as a "centre of excellence", this was especially the case. How might a "think tank" be understood as characterized by indwelling intelligence -- or, by extension, a university in providing a framework for a number of research communities? Based on claims made regarding the unique "spirit" characterizing particular centres -- of which Institute for Advanced Studies (Princeton) is a primary example -- there is a sense that a degree of indwelling intelligence is to be found there. In following the model of monastic institutes, the favoured qualifier of "hallowed walls" is also suggestive of an indwelling spirit.

In a period of global crisis it is however appropriate to ask how the indwelling intelligence of such thinking communities is manifesting and engaging with the dilemmas of the times. One approach is to consider how they might be metaphorically constrained, as discussed separately ("Tank-thoughts" from "Think-tanks": metaphors constraining development of global governance, 2003).

Intelligence of the market: This understanding of indwelling intelligence is intimately associated with the "Invisible Hand" of Adam Smith. This is the process by which each market participant acts to render the annual revenue of society as great as possible. He demonstrated that individuals generally, neither intend to promote the public interest, nor know how much they are promoting it. The theory explains and uncovers structures and processes which people unintentionally and without recognition perform as if they were guided by an Invisible Hand (cf. Pawel Skrzynski and Tadeusz Szuba, Invisible Hand Process Simulation based on Collective Intelligence Computational Model, Recent Advances in Intelligent Information Systems, 2009, pp. 541-550).

The collective intelligence of the market is thus held to depend on diversity of thought and independence of action. government is then understood as being able to do little appropriately because, apart from being constrained by self-interest, central planning is always inferior to the distributed intelligence of the market. Many individuals taking small, local decisions are then recognized as able to allocate resources more efficiently than bureaucrats.

A helpful articulation is provided by John Stewart (Evolution's Arrow: the direction of evolution and the future of humanity, 2008) notes, with respect to the rise of governed societies (chapter 15):

From where does the intelligence of the market come? ... the superior ability of the market to solve economic problems comes from its use of supra-individual change-and-test processes. These processes use trial-and-error in addition to the knowledge of participants to solve complex adaptive problems. Markets can solve economic problems even though they do not contain the knowledge to build a model that could be used to work out a solution. Change-and-test processes are particularly superior to mental models where there is insufficient knowledge to build an accurate model. Because of this, the best that humans can do to solve complex social problems where there is uncertainty and incomplete knowledge is to set up supra-individual change-and-test adaptive processes such as a market. The use of the intellect alone will fail, as central planners have demonstrated. In these circumstances, governments and other rulers have found that they can promote cooperation better by establishing markets than by direct intervention. Markets are better than calculated and planned interventions at ensuring that citizens can capture all the effects on others of their actions.

Social construction of reality: Social constructionism and social constructivism are sociological theories of knowledge that consider how social phenomena or objects of consciousness develop in social contexts as the artefact of a particular group. Social constructs are generally understood to be the by-products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature. Social constructionism is usually opposed to essentialism, which instead defines specific phenomena in terms of inherent and transhistorical essences independent of conscious beings that determine the categorical structure of reality (cf. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge, 1967; Paul Watzlawick, The Invented Reality: how do we know what we believe we know? 1984).

Security intelligence: There is clearly considerable preoccupation with emergence of collective "intelligence" by the intelligence services of many countries, notably through their cooperation and the support of electronic facilities, including surveillance. the worldwide intelligence gathering by ECHELON has offered a striking example (cf. Gregory F. Treverton, Reshaping National Intelligence For an Age of Information, 2003). It is unclear to what degree this constitutes a manifestation of "indwelling intelligence", notably as a consequence of the well-documented failures of its anticipatory functions regarding weapons of mass destruction. The volume of classified information is also suggestive of constraints on the capacity to process information intelligently -- offering the stores of unprocessed information as a caricature of "indwelling intelligence". The issue is further highlighted by the apparently constrained emergency preparedness capacity, as suggested by the many crises emergent and foreseen and the questionable capacity to enable timely remedial responses (cf. From ECHELON to NOLEHCE: enabling a strategic conversion to a faith-based global brain, 2007).

Emergent "global brain": Much is made of the global interconnection of information services as providing the infrastructure of the emergent "global brain" of a global knowledge society. The global brain is a metaphor for the worldwide intelligent network formed by people together with the information and communication technologies that connect them into an organic whole. It is intimately related to understandings of the emergence of "planetary consciousness". Although explicit recognition is given to "intelligence", it remains unclear what is to be distinguished as implicit and potential rather than explicit (cf. Simulating a Global Brain -- using networks of international organizations, world problems, strategies, and values, 2001).

Collective wisdom: Indwelling intelligence may be variously recognized through the assembly and interaction of those esteemed as wise, possibly explicitly as a "Council of the Wise". Given the crises of the times, it is appropriate to ask whether these various initiatives are appropriately to be challenged as a failure to elicit the collective intelligence that may be indwelling in those so gathered, as separately explored (Emergence of a Global Misleadership Council: misleading as vital to governance of the future? 2007). Examples discussed include:

• World Economic Forum through its seeming degree of complicity in the logic enabling the current global financial crisis
• World Social Forum, as exemplifying a curious process of "ranting and raving" -- ranting about the irresponsibility of others and raving about preferred alternatives -- with little demonstrated capacity to reconcile these extremes, and no ability to reframe the relationship with its counterpart, as separately discussed (All Blacks of Davos vs All Greens of Porto Alegre: reframing global strategic discord through polyphony? 2007).
• Club of Rome, especially in the light of its inability to integrate the insights of some 50 reports produced over decades, as noted with respect to the latest (Engendering 2052 through Re-imagining the Present: review of 2052: a Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years as presented to the Club of Rome, 2012)
• various (interlinked) groups of elites, whose operations are notably challenged by conspiracy theorists: Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, The Elders, InterAction Council of Former Heads of State and Government, and the like
• controversial interface bodies involving multinational corporations, such as the United Nations Global Compact, as separately discussed ('Globalization': the UN's 'Safe Haven' for the World's Marginalized: the Global Compact with Multinational Corporations as the UN's 'Final Solution', 2001).
• other NGOs such as the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO).
• bodies explicitly interrelating contrasting worldviews, such as the: Parliament of the World's Religions, World Academy of Art and Science, International Center for Transdisciplinary Research, and the International Society for the Systems Sciences
• various bodies whose titles invite a fundamental question in relation to their role in the larger social context, including "wisdom keepers" and "stakeholders" (as at Earth Summits).

With respect to this argument, it may be asked in what way the style of operation of those above demonstrates or elicits "indwelling intelligence" rather than an undue "indwelling status consciousness" and a preoccupation with maintaining the status quo. If they are not self-organizing, to what extent are they to be considered appropriately "self-challenging" as might be said of the style of the World Question Center (sponsored by the Edge Foundation) or the TED conference series formed to disseminate "ideas worth spreading." (cf. Consciously Self-reflexive Global Initiatives: Renaissance zones, complex adaptive systems, and third order organizations, 2007).

Eliciting indwelling intelligence through dialogue: Conferences of every form can be considered as a gathering of the intelligent to elicit a synthesis, suggesting recognition of indwelling intelligence. The dialogue process within such a gathering can be understood as eliciting a form of indwelling knowledge as argued by Allan Kaplan (Emerging Out of Goethe: Conversation as a Form of Social Inquiry Janus Head, 8,, 1, 2005):

In Goethe's Metamorphosis of Plants the idea is clear. Every living entity's whole formation bears evidence of a certain underlying principle of form. This formative relationship-the 'more'-does not express itself in an external, causal manner, as by the putting together of such and such external factors. It reveals itself intrinsically, livingly. It is enfolded within, emerging together with its parts. George Adams put it this way: It may be of a plastic nature or more musical and rhythmical-as a motif, an underlying theme. Unfolding as a living process, as an indwelling idea, it comes to expression in all parts and organs of the entity in question. In every plant such a formative idea is living, and with the eye of imagination we can recognise the same in constant metamorphosis, true to itself in leaf and bract, petal and capsule.

I note that he says with the eye of imagination we can recognise it (the indwelling idea) -- it seems to me that this is the organising character or particular gesture (the indwelling idea) of the Goethean method itself. The question though is whether we can apply this method to the study of social phenomena. In my work with social organisms I try to do this, and facilitate others to do it.... The more instrumental, quantitative approach to the social -- reducing complexity in the attempt to manipulate fragmented pieces -- does not appeal; neither can it assist development, if the social is a living whole. I want here to explore one such process of social inquiry... in order to begin to understand a different way of thinking.

Related arguments are presented by Thomas R. Flanagan and Kenneth C. Bausch (Body Wisdom in Dialogue: Rediscovering the Voice of the Goddess, 2012), Anthony Blake (The Supreme Art of Dialogue, 2009). Kenneth C. Bausch and Alexander Christakis (Co-laboratories of Democracy: how people harness their collective wisdom to create the future, 2006), and Alexander Christakis and T. R. Flanagan (The Talking Point: creating an environment for exploring complex meaning, 2009). Especially relevant is the sense in which a gathering is ("magically") transformative, implying an active form of indwelling intelligence (cf. Transformative Conferencing: problems and possibilities on the new frontier of high-risk gatherings concerning social development, 1984). The possibility implies the need to question the degree of fulfillment of claims to such transformation (Evaluating Synthesis Initiatives and their Sustaining Dialogues, 2000).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]