Theory U
Posted on May 5th, 2008
by 
DrBren (2b)
DrBren (2b)
I am sharing with you another letter to the editor I wrote today. Otto Scharmer has a new book out called Theory U which seems to be fantastic. Jonathan Reams reviews it and critiques it called “Illuminating the Blind Spot in Theory U”. Here I am critiquing his critique. Enjoy. Bren
Dear Jonathan,
I just finished reading your critique of Otto Scharmer’s Theory U in Integral Review 5, 2007. First I must mention that I appreciate your summary of his book. You have enticed me to purchase it and read it intentionally / attentionally. I believe the “blind spot” you reveal in this critique – the polarity between “the world is fundamentally flawed or exactly as it should be” – is the most important spiritual “tension of the opposites” to be held in our times, the marriage between heaven and earth, what the alchemists called their highest quest, hieros gamos, the sacred marriage.
Carl Jung introduced the psychological technique of “holding the tension of the opposites” to help allow the emergence of the third thing to arise, a process he called the transcendent function.
Out of [the] collision of opposites the unconscious psyche always creates a third thing of an irrational nature, which the conscious mind neither expects nor understands. It presents itself in a form that is neither a straight “yes” nor a straight “no.” [“ Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 285.]
From the heavenly perspective (non-attachment, acceptance and compassion) one could say “the world is as it should be”, yet from the earthly perspective one could say “the world is fundamentally flawed.” Both perspectives are right! By using Jung’s technique of “holding the tension of these opposites” until the transcendent function sweeps us up to an all-inclusive new perspective (holonic transcend and include) we can stop the madness of either/or and embrace both/and.
Going back to the conversation with your Jesuit friend, again I say both perspectives are right. “Humans have a soul;” and “soul is having a human experience.” One of the fundamental theological arguments throughout Christian history still being fought over to this day is the nature of Jesus Christ. Was he God, or was he human? Jesus answered this question by saying, “I and my Father are one.” I think it is safe to say given how this story ends the Jewish clergy at that time could not understand the depth of meaning in Jesus’ statement. They collapsed the delicate balance between the eternal and temporal by interpreting Jesus’ statement as simply -- a man calling himself God. And thus they picked up stones to cast at him for being blasphemous.
It is practically an impossible task to hold the tension between the opposites we see in the world today. As much as I despise the war crimes committed by the White House I am grateful for their hubristic transparency allowing the whole world to see their atrocities. Our task as cultural healers is to say – I am that, pointing to the White House with one hand, and with our other hand pointing to the center of our hearts where the eternal lives, thou art that, tat tvam asi. As we expand our consciousness we become more and more capable of embodying this tragic tension of the opposites giving birth to the creative third coming through us from the Higher Self. In the Gospel of St. Thomas its says, “Your capacity for Darkness is your capacity for Light. The greater your capacity for Darkness, the greater your capacity for Light. It is one in the same capacity.”
I agree with your premise, “The tension between the two poles of a spiritual and social consciousness, and the tendency prevalent in our society today to act from an interior condition charged with energy more from the social consciousness end of things could be a limiting factor in attempting to solve the very issues the approach is intended to deal with.” Yet I would like to reframe your earlier statement about social consciousness where you wrote, “social consciousness often wants to ‘save the world’ from its fundamental flaw.” In this statement you posit social consciousness as unmoored from its deeper spiritual roots striving to be the hero and saving the world from evil. Is it possible for social consciousness to be moored to its deeper spiritual truths? As such, would it be possible for the socially and spiritually conscious hero in the world drama as you describe it to be a vessel, a sacred place rather than a character, for the transcendent function to come through? I believe this is what is meant by the phrase co-creating with spirit. And I believe this is the point Otto Scharmer is making when he describes presencing and generative dialogue.
I do believe the cultural creatives are an elite spectrum of the population, and your discussion about creating higher states of consciousness with other facilitators is the same solution I too have come upon. Unfortunately, I see no other way around the fundamental point of holoarchical conscious development. Perhaps this is why our founding fathers structured a representative democratic system, also knowing there is no way around this fundamental point that humans develop differently. I believe many of us have made the mistake of trying to rise above the world and our bodies into the Nondual realm. The question is – do we get there by denying the world’s problems (a psychotic defense mechanism per Anna Freud) or by knowing them deeply and not attaching to them?
Sincerely,
Bren Hudson, M.S., Ph.D. (abd) is writing her doctoral dissertation on the archetypal relationship between the divine and the human as revealed in the 12th century De Operatione Dei vision of St. Hildegard of Bingen. Prior to her studies in Depth Psychology at Pacifica Graduate Institute she spent 20 years in business management information systems, working 6 years as Senior Manager at Ernst & Young Consulting, one of the world’s largest and most prestigious international consulting firm.
Dear Jonathan,
I just finished reading your critique of Otto Scharmer’s Theory U in Integral Review 5, 2007. First I must mention that I appreciate your summary of his book. You have enticed me to purchase it and read it intentionally / attentionally. I believe the “blind spot” you reveal in this critique – the polarity between “the world is fundamentally flawed or exactly as it should be” – is the most important spiritual “tension of the opposites” to be held in our times, the marriage between heaven and earth, what the alchemists called their highest quest, hieros gamos, the sacred marriage.
Carl Jung introduced the psychological technique of “holding the tension of the opposites” to help allow the emergence of the third thing to arise, a process he called the transcendent function.
Out of [the] collision of opposites the unconscious psyche always creates a third thing of an irrational nature, which the conscious mind neither expects nor understands. It presents itself in a form that is neither a straight “yes” nor a straight “no.” [“ Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 285.]
From the heavenly perspective (non-attachment, acceptance and compassion) one could say “the world is as it should be”, yet from the earthly perspective one could say “the world is fundamentally flawed.” Both perspectives are right! By using Jung’s technique of “holding the tension of these opposites” until the transcendent function sweeps us up to an all-inclusive new perspective (holonic transcend and include) we can stop the madness of either/or and embrace both/and.
Going back to the conversation with your Jesuit friend, again I say both perspectives are right. “Humans have a soul;” and “soul is having a human experience.” One of the fundamental theological arguments throughout Christian history still being fought over to this day is the nature of Jesus Christ. Was he God, or was he human? Jesus answered this question by saying, “I and my Father are one.” I think it is safe to say given how this story ends the Jewish clergy at that time could not understand the depth of meaning in Jesus’ statement. They collapsed the delicate balance between the eternal and temporal by interpreting Jesus’ statement as simply -- a man calling himself God. And thus they picked up stones to cast at him for being blasphemous.
It is practically an impossible task to hold the tension between the opposites we see in the world today. As much as I despise the war crimes committed by the White House I am grateful for their hubristic transparency allowing the whole world to see their atrocities. Our task as cultural healers is to say – I am that, pointing to the White House with one hand, and with our other hand pointing to the center of our hearts where the eternal lives, thou art that, tat tvam asi. As we expand our consciousness we become more and more capable of embodying this tragic tension of the opposites giving birth to the creative third coming through us from the Higher Self. In the Gospel of St. Thomas its says, “Your capacity for Darkness is your capacity for Light. The greater your capacity for Darkness, the greater your capacity for Light. It is one in the same capacity.”
I agree with your premise, “The tension between the two poles of a spiritual and social consciousness, and the tendency prevalent in our society today to act from an interior condition charged with energy more from the social consciousness end of things could be a limiting factor in attempting to solve the very issues the approach is intended to deal with.” Yet I would like to reframe your earlier statement about social consciousness where you wrote, “social consciousness often wants to ‘save the world’ from its fundamental flaw.” In this statement you posit social consciousness as unmoored from its deeper spiritual roots striving to be the hero and saving the world from evil. Is it possible for social consciousness to be moored to its deeper spiritual truths? As such, would it be possible for the socially and spiritually conscious hero in the world drama as you describe it to be a vessel, a sacred place rather than a character, for the transcendent function to come through? I believe this is what is meant by the phrase co-creating with spirit. And I believe this is the point Otto Scharmer is making when he describes presencing and generative dialogue.
I do believe the cultural creatives are an elite spectrum of the population, and your discussion about creating higher states of consciousness with other facilitators is the same solution I too have come upon. Unfortunately, I see no other way around the fundamental point of holoarchical conscious development. Perhaps this is why our founding fathers structured a representative democratic system, also knowing there is no way around this fundamental point that humans develop differently. I believe many of us have made the mistake of trying to rise above the world and our bodies into the Nondual realm. The question is – do we get there by denying the world’s problems (a psychotic defense mechanism per Anna Freud) or by knowing them deeply and not attaching to them?
Sincerely,
Bren Hudson, M.S., Ph.D. (abd) is writing her doctoral dissertation on the archetypal relationship between the divine and the human as revealed in the 12th century De Operatione Dei vision of St. Hildegard of Bingen. Prior to her studies in Depth Psychology at Pacifica Graduate Institute she spent 20 years in business management information systems, working 6 years as Senior Manager at Ernst & Young Consulting, one of the world’s largest and most prestigious international consulting firm.
Access: Public
consciousness
July 2008 