Jessica Roemischer has written up an interview with Don Beck over on her blog. I particularly rejoice in Don's call for whoever wins the election to call together a wide spectrum of perspectives to re-invent the system, which is in so much trouble these days.

Oh how I pray that something different can come from this election. That the US can provide the rest of the world with an example of something different, something evolutionarily different that can focus the global mind on hope and action to move us towards the future we aspire to, rather than fear and blame that moves us further down the slippery slope to the Lord of the Flies - adult version.

This year's SDi EuroConfab is set for 31 October-2 November - Don't miss it!

Check out the details.

Reflections on Ethics

by Oscar Motomura

Reflections on ethics and the process of making things happen: effective implementation of solutions for critical sustainability equations.

If ethics is the choice for the common good (global reach and  including all living beings):

1. Deciding to act small because it is more comfortable… is not ethical;
2. Deciding to hold back (your proposals, ideas and actions) because  you don’t want to go against “the group” … is not ethical;
3. Deciding to do the possible instead of trying to make the  impossible possible… is not ethical;
4. Deciding to use just a part of your potential (to “save” it for self-interested purposes) … is not ethical;
5. Deciding not to act, to stay silent, letting fear stay in the way…  is not ethical;
6. Deciding to conform to the “letter of the law” instead of  persisting on the path defined by the “spirit of the law” … is not  ethical;
7. Deciding not to try because nobody tried it before… is not ethical;
8. Deciding not to pursue perfection but to conform to what seems  “negotiable” … is not ethical;
9. Deciding to postpone bold actions again and again “waiting for the  right moment” … is not ethical;
10. Deciding to “play the game” and pretend that you are not seeing  the manipulations underway… is not ethical;
11. Deciding to live in the realm of ideas, diagnosis and theories  instead of taking the risks and going for actions… is not ethical;
12. Deciding to act only when all is scientifically proven, even when  the truth is self evident… is not ethical;
13. Deciding to reject all radically creative ideas (yours included)  when the “traditional, not-so-radical ideas” have not been working… is  not ethical;
14. Deciding to reject every proposal that looks “idealistic” or  “utopic” … is not ethical;

(Insights of Oscar Motomura during Tallberg concert that followed a session of the Moral Boundaries Workshop, Summer 2008)

I just tried something new. For the four days immediately before moving house, I took off - out of time - to be with friends in an authentic collective exploration of what it means to be a warrior of the heart in today's world.

There were 24 of us - folks from Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, USA, Canada -  led by Bob Wing and Toke Møller - practicing sword training in the aikido tradition and the art of meaningul conversation. Some of us were beginners at one or other of these arts, and some were sensei already - true masters. We were a truly multigenerational gathering, from 13 to 60-something... And the children were omnipresent...



As is often the case when this particular extended family gets together, the place was one of the participants. Our gathering was hosted at the Kingsmill (Koningsmolen) in Eliksem-Landen (Belgium) - it's maiden voyage as an evolutionary learning centre since coming into the stewardship of Lieven Callewaert and Judith Heezen.

 

I wonder whether I will ever be able to articulate everything I learned.

• The warrior soul is not warlike - rather, it is dedicated. It is dedicated to seeking clarity and cutting away that which is not authentic. It is rooted in love and reverence for the earth and all things on it and does not waver from its heart's course.

• The soul families to which we belong are quite vast. As an individual steps into a collectively-held field of intent, he or she can quite literally be transformed. During these four days I witnessed the collective midwifing the birth of warrior souls.
  

• Battle is where you harvest your practice. During our time together, Toke mused that the highest that a human being can aspire to is to become a practitioner of something. Each of the people present was a practitioner of something. I learned that I can apprentice myself to each person I meet. It's good to have so many sensei's. Who are you, and what is your practice?

• I realise that I am no longer interested in individual work. Although my practice to hone my warriorship might happen in solitude when I am at home, I am constantly called to the collective. It is the large collective fields that nourish and intrigue me, that really give me something to sense.

• We were honoured to have among us tarot master Ulrik Golodnoff, whose cards made visible for us that which was holding us, supporting us, shaping us and challenging us. Learning to read tarot like Ulrik has become a real ambition for me.

• As a woman, I was struck by the wonderful quality of the men at this gathering. Watching them tune into their essence as men, and the way they were together, amongst themselves, made me contemplate starting a harem...

I can see myself re-editing this blog as gifts bubble up from my subconscious. But now, I must return to unpacking my boxes. You can see my photos here, and Justin's photos here.

This is another of those essays that slipped out of me unexpectedly while responding to a message on a list serve. In this case, the message was from Dr Don Beck, venerable guardian of the Spiral Dynamics integral pattern. It stirred up some interest, so I thought of publishing it here, too... With thanks to Russ Volckmann of the Integral Leadership Review for the title!

We are faced with a growing list of models designed to guide us in leading change in living systems. Too often we espouse one model or another and skirmish with ‘the competition’ in our conversations, failing to draw on their collective potential. In this essay I would like to explore the ways in which we can individually and collectively engage in the transformations that can move the organisations and communities to which we belong towards a dynamic and sustainable future.

There are a number of angles I'd like to comment from, coming out of my own personal experience of various approaches to change. I cannot claim to speak from any great theoretical wisdom, only as a curious pioneer with my sleeves rolled up who is writing as a way of clarifying my own thinking. After all, if we are to explore the process of change we need to find ways of integrating divergent perspectives.

Living systems

Don Beck often referred to his work using Spiral Dynamics integral to foster change (examples can be found in Integral Leadership Review - articles by Elza Maalouf, Rafi Nasser and others) as "integral design engineering". I can't help wondering whether "engineering" is the best metaphor for that work or for what needs to happen in the world. There is a danger of looking mechanistically at living systems and “doing to them” from the outside. Such efforts are not going to work for long— and the engineering metaphor does not do justice to the richness and sensitivity of Don's and others’ work!

I am greatly helped by the following list of 'properties' of living systems (I'll be revisiting some of these as I go along):

(1)    A living system only accepts its own solutions (we only support those things we are a part of creating).
(2)    A living system only pays attention to that which is meaningful to it (here and now).
(3)    In nature a living system participates in the development of its neighbour (an isolated system is doomed).
(4)    Nature and all of nature, including ourselves is in constant change (without ‘change management’).
(5)    Nature seeks diversity – new relations open up to new possibilities (not survival of the fittest).
(6)    ‘Tinkering’ opens up to what is possible here and now – nature is not intent on finding perfect solutions.
(7)    A living system cannot be steered or controlled – they can only be teased, nudged, titillated.
(8)    A system changes (identity) when its perception of itself changes.
(9)    All the answers do not exist ‘out there’ – we must (sometimes) experiment to find out what works.
(10)    Who we are together is always different and more than who we are alone (possibility of emergence).
(11)    We (human beings) are capable of self-organising – given the right conditions.
(12)    Self-organisation shifts to a higher order.
(These principles were formulated for me by the 'Art of Hosting' community)

What I understand of Don Beck’s work in Palestine shows clearly that he understands and incorporates these principles.

Diversity Rules - Especially if it Interacts!

It is also fair to say, I think, that an understanding of Spiral Dynamics integral – or any model, for that matter - on its own (as if it were possible to separate this out from the living minds in which such understanding is embedded!) is not enough. So all the other development and change models that have been developed over the years can be very beneficial. For example, I often use Theory U (Otto Scharmer) as a guideline when I work to give me an insight into where I might be in a process and what might be the next step, what I might have overlooked or forgotten and, most importantly, what attitudes of consciousness might be most helpful for me to adopt to move things on.

I am part of a small-but-growing community of change agents inside the EU Commission, where we are experimenting with systemic change. The Commission is a huge and rambling bureaucracy with real and valuable work to do in the world, but like all large public administrations, it is hampered (and knows it) by it's internal organization into departments (silos) which tend to seal themselves off from each other and compete rather than cooperate. We are playing with different ways to lure people into collaborating more in their work and into entering the necessary degree of authentic relationship with people elsewhere in the system (in other silos) who hold other, crucial parts of the picture. In this connection I see how true it is that "a system changes when its perception of itself changes". The community is also exercising (and exploring) collective leadership as one of the principles of sustainable change.

In fractal terms, I see the same tendency towards 'silo thinking' sometimes in the various communities of interest I belong to. These communities are drawn together by their fascination and passion for their field of interest and practice. They often have a tendency to compete with other communities—and to look at ways in which their model or approach is better or more effective than the others. A conversation about Theory U (or any other approach) inside, say, the Spiral Dynamics integral community, could go in that direction, but I would prefer to raise another kind of question:

What is it that Theory U contributes to the field of human flourishing that wouldn't be there without it? I ask the same question about Spiral Dynamics integral, Chaordic design principles (Dee Hock), the art of hosting meaningful conversations, other developmental models (Kegan, Torbert & Cook-Greuter, Laske), Wilber's Integral theory, Tarot as a presencing tool, Holacracy as a model of governance, systemic constellations as a tool for systemic insight and transformation, and so on. Each of these discoveries/inventions/insights adds something. And not one of them stands up on its own. Which reminds me that "in nature a living system participates in the development of its neighbor (an isolated system is doomed).”

To give an example, one of my current fascinations is how the different developmental theories fit together. I am acquainted with four or five of them, and have studied a couple in some depth. I experience the truth in each of them, so I can't say one is better than another—and yet they are all different and I assume they each serve particularly well in particular contexts. One thing that SDi does that none of the others appear to do, for example, is to map social currents so elegantly. The other models seem to me to be applicable to individuals alone. And yet, if I assume that all these models are different maps of the same territory, there are some complexities in each that mean I cannot map one model onto another without discrepancies.

For example, if I take Laske's scale of social-emotional development (based on Kegan's, with the refinement that he clearly and cleanly separates out social emotional development from cognitive development), I find I can't just overlay it onto the SDi spiral, because somehow it seems to run perpendicular to it (which doesn't make Laske horizontal where SDi is vertical). Laske's different stages, like Kegan's, look at how the individual constructs his/her reality, and where the focus is at each stage. Adult development starts at stage 2 (adolescent), which is very much about gratification of one's own needs with an instrumental view of others as pawns to be manipulated. It moves to stage 3, with full 'socialization' into the social norms—whatever 'games' the society at large happens to be playing. At this stage, conformity is key. Stage 4 brings individuation, when a person moves away from the conventional mindset to find his/her own voice and values, and one's own integrity must be preserved at all costs. Stage 5 (Laske and Kegan venture no further) is where we begin to deconstruct ourselves, understanding, among other things, that we are not our values, but beings with the capacity to generate value systems. Our focus moves towards transparency and insight into that which is and the ways in which our own inner constructs distort that.

My reason for laying all this out is to verify my understanding of how this system fits with the spiral. As I see it, the key lies in stage 3 (conventional), because a person can be completely identified with the social norm at any place on the spiral. I have seen this in my travels around Europe. You can be 'stage 3' in Greece, which is predominantly Blue—or in Sweden, which is as Green as you get. You can be identified with the counterculture as well as the culture. The point is that you are immersed (unaware) in a cultural surround. That is just one example of the way that the different models, when studied in relation to each other, can really add value (and I'm not claiming that SDi is valid only for social groups!!!)

Working Intentionally to Change Systems

Now we come to the work of changing systems ("Living systems cannot be steered or controlled – they can only be teased, nudged, titillated"). I make an assumption here that most readers are pretty interested in systemic change, one way and another. Personally, I cannot resist playing with it, whether or not it does any good. But I've watched 'management' try to steer and control the living system I am embedded in and the system just doesn't want to play, thus leaving everybody feeling pretty frustrated and disempowered. Why is this? Because we only support those things we are a part of creating. That's not because we're stubborn or stupid; it's because change needs to make sense to us.  It needs to be meaningful to us (here and now). Leaders with long-term vision can influence a system in a wise direction only if they are part of the system. Really part of the system! When you are working on a system from outside (and don't see yourself as part of the system – this is a pitfall for many consultants), you can provide environmental stimuli, but you cannot determine how the system will respond to those stimuli.

In these circumstances, teaching Spiral Dynamics, the Integral model, Theory U or anything else makes no sense. They are just more models you're trying to sell me (I've tried). What does seem to work is a chaordic approach (See the Birth of the Chaordic Age, by Dee Hock). The word 'chaord' comes from merging 'chaos' and 'order', and describes the interface between these two forces of nature where living systems reside. (As compared with the interface between order and control, which is where traditional 'management' tends to reside!) The chaordic approach starts by identifying/responding to a need that is sensed in the system. Some place of pain or discomfort (yes, the 'beta' phase—the change conditions model used in Spiral Dynamics is a very valid description of the territory). Those who make the first move to address the need (the 'early adapters') come together to find a solution. Until they find a clear sense of collective purpose, nothing will move. But regular meeting to explore the situation in search of solutions will deepen the relationships in the group and help it to clarify the principles that will govern how they pursue their purpose. A cohesive group with strong trust and a clear sense of collective purpose can move mountains. In this context, the practices of circle, Bohmian dialogue and action learning in conjunction with the movement down the left side of the U will help. Once the purpose and principles are clear, new people tend to be drawn into the group. The process experienced so far then needs another iteration. Each time new people come in, they need to go through the process of gaining clarity of purpose and buying into the principles (or adapting them). All this is in aid of understanding and engagement. We are building a living system that is creating its own solutions—concepts, organisational structures, products and even practices come later, almost as a by-product of the functioning living system.



Once this new living system—which is growing up inside the environment of, and as a generative response to, the dysfunctions in the old living system—starts engaging more actively with the surrounding system and encountering resistance (that can threaten its existence if it triggers the old system's immune system), that is when it will need—and be motivated—to learn new models and approaches (SDi among them) to wisely navigate the much more complex and entrenched (because successful in addressing the dysfunctions it was created to solve) older system. At this stage it is very useful to have very detailed models of adult development and very exquisite active listening skills in order to engage with key stakeholders in the larger system. And, too, this is the stage at which we start moving up the right side of the U, prototyping in the new system.

If the new system is doing well and achieving results that the surrounding, senior system wants, more and more people will be drawn to join the new system. It is important to keep iterating the process of achieving collective clarity about the purpose of the system and its principles as it grows, while constantly sensing (presencing) into the needs in the environment and realigning purpose when necessary. The alignment with the larger environment is crucial in order to institutionalize the new ways of doing business in a sustainable way.

All this is, of course, simply the sum of my own experience of working in the complex, multicultural, multilingual bureaucratic hierarchical system where I operate. I am aware that I am assuming that my perceptions are scalable and transferable to other systems, and you will all be able to sense from your own experience whether that is the case. Those of you who have read my review of Peter Merry's (still unpublished) 'Evolutionary Leadership' in the January 2008 issue of the Integral Leadership Review might recognize the 'imaginal cell scenario' of systemic change in what I have described here.

Within the context of the small system (in my own case this is the small but growing community of change agents in the EU commission), I have found that it is important to attend to the deepening and development of the individual members of the group and of the community itself. While it is advisable to greet the larger system as we find it— everybody is entitled to be wherever they are on the spiral—it is important, as a newly emergent system evolving out of the older one, to maximize our chances of survival by building our individual and collective capacity for deep insight, flexibility and wise action. We do this through collective practices—like learning to ask challenging questions (action learning is a great way to do this), presencing, systemic constellations, silence, circle practice, Bohmian dialogue, and the study of models—so that the group knows what each individual member knows and all members learn from each other and continually then take their collective practices to new levels. The diversity of backgrounds and contexts of the members makes it possible to bring the collective learning, wisdom and practices of the group to bear in the many different contexts in which the individual members habitually operate.

Evolutionary Leadership & Collective Leadership

This intentional work has to be set in a broader context of all the other movements emerging on the planet today, in particular the peer-to-peer movement in all its manifestations (which are being beautifully mapped by Michel Bauwens and his Foundation for Peer-to-Peer alternatives).

But this web of innovation and generative change is bubbling up spontaneously all over the planet without anybody engineering, coordinating or orchestrating it. It smells very much like evolution to me as we see it manifesting in the lower, collective quadrants. Synchronicity is at work everywhere in this brew. For example, the following quote (from a paper by the Tellus Institute) literally popped into my mailbox as I was writing this, sent me by soul-brother Mushin (a fellow community-straddler): "A specific type of leadership is emerging that is developing the authority and resources to convene and maintain the dialogues for developing shared visions and perspectives. Movement diplomats work to complement civil society's paid staff, charismatic visionaries, influential philanthropists, community organizers, and organizational heads. Trained and supported directly by organizations or communities, these diplomats are charged with the task of building systemic coalitions. They translate the rhetoric of different factions, foster communication and find common ground. They provoke learning in their own organizations in addition to reaching out to form alliances. This new evolution in leadership includes core competencies of facilitation, strategic dialogue, systems thinking, and familiarity with future scenarios and the requirements of a sustainable world." I can add to that list of capabilities: knowledge of many different models (including those I have referred to above), a wide network of deep and generative relationships with other such practitioners and diplomats, and an understanding of what kinds of interventions are most appropriate for what circumstances.

I'll close with a quote from John Heron over on the p2p foundation's forum in a discussion on 'Hierarchy in peer-to-peer': "Hierarchy here is the creative leadership which seeks to promote the values of autonomy and co-operation in a peer to peer association. Such leadership, as in the free software movement, is exercised in two ways. First, by the one or more people who take initiatives to set up such an association. And second, once the association is up and running, as spontaneous rotating leadership among the peers, when anyone takes initiatives that further enhance the autonomy and co-operation of other participating members.

"This also mirrored in the action research method of co-operative inquiry. Someone launches an inquiry, co-opts participating co-inquirers, and initiates them into the methodology. Once they have internalized it, a genuine peer inquiry is under way with different members at different times taking spontaneous leadership initiatives which raise key issues for peer decision-making and thereby take the inquiry in fruitful directions."

... and beyond?

But it goes deeper than this. In my experience, it is no longer just about networks of individuals or groups of networks. Evolution is marching on in ways that aren't showing up on all the radars. I do not yet have any evidence that it has been picked up by Ken Wilber and the integral crew, for example, though it may be one of the phenomena now emerging at SDi turquoise and beyond - at the collective level at least: "So human evolution has something to do with human consciousness awakening first to itself, then to its own evolution and to a recognition and finally an embodied experience of the ways in which we are organically part of a larger whole. As we enter this new stage of individual/collective awakening, individuals are being increasingly called to practice the new life-form composed of groups of individuated individuals merging their collective intelligence as the circle being." (From Why the Next Buddha will be a Collective. ).

And of course, to create the conditions for these 'circle beings' to emerge, many of the practices I have mentioned throughout this essay are wickedly effective...

Working with some colleagues the other day in an action learning session, we stumbled on a very powerful insight into why many organisations function the way they do and how that functioning can be released into something quite transformational.

Action learning is a small-group process which has one simple rule: no one may make any statement unless it is in response to a question. Commonly, this way of working brings to light many of the group's (and individual members') unexamined assumptions. This was the first time that most of the members of the group had experienced this format, and the problem we were inquiring into had to do with the EU Commission's annual strategic planning and programming (SPP) cycle. Having spent the better part of an hour unpacking this thorny organisational issue, it was time to distil our collective learnings from the process. One colleague said "I learned that we have an awful lot of assumptions, and that assumptions lead to expectations, which lead to frustration". When I formulated this on paper as the SPP cycle 1.0, the group exploded into laughter. We had hit the nail on the head.


So what would happen if, instead of just blindly following the chain reaction of assumptions to expectations to frustration ad nauseam, we were to reverse the flow and replace our statements with questions? So when we're sitting with frustration, rather than re-engage in the cycle, we acknowledge the frustration: "I'm frustrated. That means that I have some expectation that has not been met. What is that expectation? And what assumption of mine is that expectation based on?"

This looks very much like the work we do in our action learning sets. Only instead of doing it in secret, off in a corner somewhere where no one can witness, we do it together, as a collective discipline. This shared inquiry makes it possible to transform the vicious cycle of 'organisational life 1.0', step by step.

As we learn, as individuals, to become aware of our frustration and express it, we can begin to recognise the role played by our own expectations and understand that these flow from our own unexamined assumptions about reality. This helps us take responsibility for our own feelings, which is nothing if not empowering. When we do this with others - in our work or private environment - the different elements of the cycle can begin to metamorphose. The assumptions underlying our expectations, when made explicit, give way to clear purpose. The unexamined expectations which used to fuel our frustration, when openly articulated can lead to clear agreements (about our roles, our outcomes, our behaviours). And working together transparently in this way quickly results in mutual trust. Which, as a way of living and working, is so much more pleasant, healthy and balanced that no one in their right minds would not hang out there if given the choice. What's more, all the organisational bottom lines like performance, accountability, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness escalate off the scale as well.

When this new way of doing business becomes internalised and automatic among a group of people, it will tend to spread virally as the individual members sow the seeds of the new behaviours of questioning assumptions and expectations in the other arenas of their life and work. The conditions are then ripe for 'organisational life 2.0' to begin to emerge. Whatever the content of the work to be done, whatever the scale of the challenge, the surest way to wise action is through collective clarity achieved by inquiring together into the question that best holds the essence of the purpose to be served.

I shared this model with a friend of mine, and he saw in it the inner dimensions of the 'forming, storming, norming, performing' model of team development, which describes the behaviour of the team from the outside. However it may be, there are three dimensions that I find particularly important.

• Unearthing and shedding light on previously unconscious expectations and assumptions is the royal road to personal development. That to which one was previously subject becomes an object in awareness, something that we can see and therefore act on.

• In our increasingly complex and interdependent world, we cannot afford to keep blindly following the vicious circle down into conflict, exploitation and bloodshed. Once we move into collective inquiry, the social technologies of collaboration abound that can help us move to wise action at any scale, from local to global. The first step is to help the individuals to shift.

• The art form at the root and core of all these transformations is the wicked question. When people start practicing action learning, the first thing they discover is that questioning is an art the usefulness of which they had overlooked. In action learning, the leader is the person who can ask the best questions.
  

I just found out about Transitions - a grass-roots model adopted to respond to the twin challenges of Peak Oil and Climate Change. I am particularly impressed that their website is a wiki. What first caught my attention was the fact that they used Open Space Technology to host their annual conference. Not coincidentally, from the same source, I learned of a gathering of cultural creatives to be held in France, also to be hosted in Open Space format.

Across the Atlantic, the Food and Society movement, sponsored by the Kellogg Foundation, also held its 2008 conference using Open Space - among other techniques gathered under the banner of the art of hosting meaningful conversations. This was a very big gathering (600+ participants), bringing together people from the whole spectrum of food and society - as the name suggests. Since some of my friends were involved in the design and facilitation of the event, I followed with some interest and was impressed by the depth and breadth of the insights that emerged from the collective alchemy as these participative processes metabolised and presenced the system present in the room.



These are just three examples of mushrooming grass-roots practices that I read as symptomatic of the integral, peer-to-peer age that is emerging on our planet today. It is rare in 'conventional' integral circles (meaning communities gathering around the work of Ken Wilber and the Integral Institute) for this kind of thing to be recognised as 'integral', because there is no explicit reference to 'AQAL' (all quadrants, all levels, all lines, all states, all stages), and I yet I believe that it is an integral phenomenon, whether it is 'officially' recognised as such or not.

In my experience, these events tend to cover all the bases simply by dint of being participative and inclusive, so that what comes out of them is multi-quadrant, multi-level, multi-perspectival and yet integrated. But it's hard to appreciate just how much this is the case if you're looking in from the outside. It isn't until you experience them from the inside that you really grok how integral they are - without any particular individual or group deliberately holding any integral consciousness or design. That's how integral can truly be said to be an emergent phenomenon in the world (in my book): because nobody's orchestrating it.

Something that doesn't get enough attention (if any) in integral circles is the whole field of collective intelligence and collective consciousness (it tends to get dismissed as 'GREEN'). A few individuals with strongly developed consciousness coming together to 'hold a field' (it's the same phenomenon as darshan, I guess) can catalyze a 'normal' group to work at a heightened level of awareness quite systematically, in my experience. That's part of the prototyping we're playing with (unofficially, I need not add ;-)) inside the EU Commission - where there is a growing demand for these participative approaches, because they are so much more effective than the usual bureaucratic shenanigans.

On the evening of the third day of our women moving the edge retreat, Maria and Sarah did a tarot reading on the collective question that had emerged from the centre of our circle during the previous days.

The pattern they chose for the spread was the Celtic Cross, where the central card, represenging what is at the heart of the matter, is crossed by what stands in our way. The horizontal line represents time; the vertical line represents consciousness.

The question: What is the next level of women’s leadership connected to source?


Central card: What is at the heart of the matter

The tower




The next level of women's leadership connected to source is breaking out of every structure, every paradigm, every thought form that we’ve known. This is going to be like a divine intervention - the lightning rod that comes through.

This is fundamental change, and it’s shocking. It’s painful, it’s frightening. You don’t have a choice of staying in the tower. You’re evicted.

The old concepts of masculine and feminine as we have known them are shrugged off. From the top to the bottom, from the left to the right, from the in to the out, change. It’s absolutely radical.












Transversal card: what is the barrier to that happening?

Seven of swords reversed

The right way up, we call this card the nightmare of perfection. You take care of every little detail, and you have to make sure that everything is perfectly right.

The fact that it’s reversed in this spread means that what’s blocking us is that we’re always looking at the bigger picture! We want to get it all perfectly in the big picture, it’s all very conceptual, it’s all up here in the head: we’ve got to figure it all out, and then it’s going to be OK.

That’s blocking us. Because we’re too ‘up there’ in the conceptual realm. We’ve got to ground it. We don’t know how it’s going to be, but let’s just do it.

Actually, we don’t have the choice, given that the central card is the tower. So the more we are sitting with our heads up somebody’s plough… It’s falling to bits, you guys! Let’s be real, we’re in disintegration.







Upper card: What is visible

Eight of pentacles


This is the apprentice card.

One way of seeing this is that we are making a new contract. We are starting to learn practices and we are apprenticing to learning a new way.

What the apprentice does is the same thing, over and over and over. It looks really mundane, but that’s how you slip through into the mystery.

It’s the archer who becomes the arrow. It’s not about getting the bulls eye, it’s the act that lets the mystery come through. It’s practice, practice, practice… prototyping - and NOT waiting!













Lower card: What is coming to our consciousness

The Emperor

This is the masculine. This is the king.

So what’s coming into our consciousness is, perhaps, how the masculine worldview is so deeply ingrained in us – that’s one way of reading the card.

But the other interpretation is about creating order. So it’s not about throwing out the masculine, but  about creating a new order. Because that’s what the Emperor does.

We do need form. But we have to create from source. It’s not going to look like the tower. It’s going to be completely different. We're not going to sit down and design it: it’s just going to come through.

We’re realising – It’s not just about us feeling and loving and being nice to one another. It’s like: “What the fuck are we going to do now?” It’s creating more form. The form and structure are there, but it's what it serves that makes the difference… It’s going to be new, it’s not like the hierarchy.

This new level  of women’s leadership connected to source is going to have form. It actually does something. There’s a masculine energy. It’s very clear and manifest. It’s out of the fundamental shift represented by the Tower that the form will come through.

Card to the left: what we need to leave behind

Judgement



We are stepping into a new life. We’re already in a new life!

We’ve been waiting for the judgement call. We’ve been waiting to be awoken to our new lives. There are still a lot of people in this world that feel that they are waiting to step into a new life that somebody else will have made for them. There are a lot of people talking about how bad things are. "It’s really bad, and we need the new life… Someone has to do something about it… "

And that new life is already here! We’re in this time! This time has arrived and we need to let go of waiting for someone to call us into it.

We have to call ourselves into the new life. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!








Card to the right: what is the near future we are stepping into

Wheel of Fortune

The wheel is turning. Get out of the way, it’s happening anyway.

We are the right people in the right place at the right time. Things are lining up. This is like the slot machine, about to hit the jackpot.

The next level, in terms of our breaking out of that tower into collective feminine leadership, is that all of us have got to be awake to the alignment. So if you’re not aligned, get the hell out of it! And go find the alignment.

Because that’s what we do: when we find that collective space together, we align with source. That’s what’s going to happen. And we will also know our alignment. It will be more visible. We won’t have to think “Am I? Aren’t I?” It’ll just be there.

This is the culmination of the practice we see in the eight of pentacles. This, we know we must do.






Adding the numerical values of all the cards in the spread, we get the hidden message, the river below the river: Forty-one

We start with the One: is the Magician. The new beginning. Pooling all the tools that we have to create magic. It’s a masculine energy, it initiates, it moves forward to the Four: the Emperor, which is giving form; creating the container in which things can happen. And then you add 4+1 to get 5, which is the Heirophant – or perhaps, in this case, the High Priestesses – it’s the new level of wisdom. In Greek, it means ‘to make the sacred visible’. He is the wisdom holder. He brings through and sheds light on the sacred.

It’s interesting to see all these masculine archetypes here. Part of what we have talked about in this women’s circle is the fact that we have mastered the models (thinking here, in particular, of cutting edge models like Integral Theory, Spiral Dynamics, U Theory, systemic constellations, the adult development models of Kegan,