Menu
header photo

Project Vision 21

Transforming lives, renewing minds, cocreating the future

16 years      OF Archives

WEEKLY COMMENTARY(AUDIO)

DISCLAIMER

The commentaries we share here are merely our thoughts and reflections at the time of their writing. They are never our final word about any topic, nor they necessarily guide our professional work. 

 

Addictive attachment to the present disconnects us from the past and creates fear of the future

Over the last few decades, the idea of ​​“now” as the only reference point in our lives has been popularized almost to death, an idea that, although attractive, is too often devalued and distorted in such a way that it is presented as disconnecting. of a past that has already passed and not worry about a future that has not yet arrived.

However, this interpretation of “now” as an ephemeral moment of total carelessness and even irresponsibility does not consider that neither the past has already passed nor the future has arrived, nor, much less, does it consider that the “now” in What must be present is an extended “now” that consciously includes both the past and the future.

As philosopher Tim Freke says, the past does not pass, but rather “stacks up” and, therefore, each new element (each experience, each thought, each memory) that is added to that conglomerate of the past changes the entire past. After all, we can only access the past from the present and, as a result, the past is constantly changing.

And as MIT's Dr. Otto Scharmer teaches, the future does not arrive but emerges. In some ways, the future is always already there as a potential adjacent reality that we only have access to when we expand our consciousness to include it. In other words, the future is not a chronological event (the “tomorrow”), but rather an expanded consciousness.

Therefore, the idea of ​​being totally present in the present (sometimes known as mindfulness), far from being a call to a life unconcerned by previous or subsequent actions or circumstances, is, in fact, a call to reach such level of presence that synoptically includes mutually interconnected perceptions of the past, present and future.

This is not something that is learned by watching videos, much less through mere words. As we said before, it is a convocation, a call together (literally) to an experience. Nobody learns to swim by watching swimming videos. Nobody understands what love is by reading the definition of “love” in the dictionary.

In this time of constant, profound, unresolved, unexpected and irreversible changes that anticipate the arrival of a new stage in human history, locking oneself in an ephemeral “now” (represented in the jump from one message to another on social networks) ) is an irresponsible defense mechanism against the responsibility that is required to co-create the new future and, therefore, to transform the past.

Being present in the present does not mean, as is commonly believed, submitting to banality, superficiality and triviality. On the contrary, being present in the present means, paradoxically, distancing oneself from that present in order to be able to see and understand it from both the past and the future, that is, from a broad perspective that allows us to examine and challenge the assumptions and underlying structures that shape the present.

Being committed to the present does not mean disconnecting from or ignoring the present. Rather, it refers to mindful awareness leading to deeper insights.

 Posted in General

Just because you don’t understand me doesn’t mean I don’t know what I am doing

Recently, an organization asked for my help with a community project that involved conducting a certain number of interviews with a group that had no prior contact with the organization. I implemented my strategy, and within a few hours, I surpassed the minimum number of interviews they had requested. That’s when the problems began.

The conclusion reached by the leaders who hired me was that I must have cheated or committed some kind of fraud or deception because, as they told me, "there was no way" to achieve the result I had, given that they had tried themselves and couldn’t get a single response.

Naturally, they had no interest in hearing about my decades of experience in community work, my background in the humanities—including education and languages—or my work on community outreach projects in various countries. The only thing that concerned them was that if they couldn’t do it and I could, then I must be doing something wrong.

Another example: Someone called me, having been referred by someone else, saying they urgently needed my translation services. Since it was a short document, I completed the translation and sent it over. A week later, the same person called again to ask when I would be sending the text. I told them I had already sent it a week ago and resent it to them.

A few days later, I received another call—this time to inform me that they wouldn’t be paying me because, after back-translating from Spanish to English using an automatic translator (since they didn’t speak Spanish), the result didn’t match the original text they had sent me. There was no way to explain to them that translation is not about swapping words from one language to another.

These are examples of people who, due to their arrogance and lack of intellectual humility, believe that if they don’t know something or can’t do something, then no one else can either—or if someone else manages to do it, they must be cheating or don’t really know what they’re doing. Arrogant ignorance is one of the great ills of our time, though it is by no means new.

The ancient myth of Procrustes teaches us that there have always been people unable to tolerate any divergence from what they considered "normal," seeing themselves as the "measure of all things." I wonder how much more damage Procrustes would have caused if he had had access to social media.

We might also think of the unfortunate prisoners in Plato’s famous Allegory of the Cave, who believed that the reality within their reach was the entirety of reality.

Or consider the case (recounted by Dr. Otto Scharmer) of U.S. automotive executives who visited automated car factories in Japan and thought they were being deceived because there was no noise, no people, and no inventory in those factories.

As theologian and philosopher Arturo Bravo Retamal aptly said, every Procrustes is "the antithesis of dialogue."

 Posted in General

Forging new paths: from a poem by Antonio Machado to commercial spacewalks

As Antonio Machado  says in his well-known poem, "Wayfarer, there is no way, / the path is made by walking," emphasizing that " Wayfarer, there is no way, / only wake-trails in the sea." But there is no doubt that some travelers intentionally undo the path they’ve walked so that no one else can follow.

Recently, on Mount Shavano in southern Colorado, at an elevation of just over 4,300 meters, a group of 15 coworkers reached the summit, but only 14 descended, erasing the trail markers as they went down. Without those markers, the abandoned man could not find the path and was forced to spend a night outdoors, enduring low temperatures and strong winds. He was located by his cell phone, rescued the next day, and needed medical attention.

Paradoxically, the climb was intended to strengthen relationships among the group members. Yet, apparently, no one thought that by erasing the trail, they were endangering the health and perhaps the life of another person. Or perhaps they did think about it.

Machado’s poem seems to suggest that there is no predetermined path to follow and that the path unfolds in each moment of the unrepeatable process of living. One could even interpret it as an invitation to reject pre-established norms and ideologies and to take responsibility for our own lives, but not in a selfish or narcissistic way.

On the contrary, in this postmodern, metamodern, anthropocenic world—or however you choose to label it—marked by constant and cataclysmic changes, where we build our identity based on separating ourselves from others and from the universe, we become so vulnerably self-protective that we intentionally erase paths and close doors for others.

Building paths and leaving trails in the sea is an act of openness to new possibilities, of living in rhythm with life itself, in a perpetual act of co-creation that renews our own identity and reconnects us with others, with the universe, and with ourselves within a new horizon of existence for which we are unprepared and for which no preparation is possible.

At the same time, we must be grateful to those travelers who open new paths and leave them open for others to find their own ways, like the recent spacewalk by the Polaris Dawn mission crew, the first spacewalk conducted by a private company.

In this case, they are trails in space that forge a new future, inviting a journey of discovery and self-discovery by going beyond the well-trodden paths in our search for deeper wisdom and meaning.

This invitation is not new. Across time and cultures, the idea of the "path" (way) has been a central metaphor for human experience, whether it is seen as a spiritual journey, a philosophical reflection on existence, or an existential challenge. Machado’s poem is a "meeting point" of ancestral paths, including Heraclitus' hodós, the Tao, and the well-known teaching, "I am the way."

While many destroy paths, others actively participate in a dynamic pilgrimage along the path (way) of life.

 Posted in General

Social media’s dangerous trivialization of discrimination and racism

Recently, for reasons known only to the unknown gods who govern the mysterious algorithms, short videos with a common theme—discrimination and racism—started appearing on my social media feed. However, the message presented in these videos, far from addressing this serious social issue, clearly aims to exacerbate it.

In every case, a variation of the same scene unfolds: Someone is discriminated against based on their appearance, physical ability, or the way they dress, and as a result, they are not allowed to enter a certain place or make a purchase. Then it’s revealed that this person is, in fact, the manager of the place, a millionaire, or someone influential and well-connected.

And therein lies the problem with these little videos: apparently, it's only wrong to discriminate against those who, because of their power, authority, or resources, can defend themselves and even impose sanctions on those who acted in a racist or discriminatory way.

In other words, according to these videos, the way to avoid discrimination is to climb a social rung above the discriminator, whether by amassing a large bank account, becoming the owner of the company, being closely related to someone powerful and recognized, or transforming into an "influencer."

However, a deeper reflection reveals that from this perspective, someone might believe that having wealth, power, or influence gives them the opportunity—and even the right—to discriminate freely against whomever they wish. And that is exactly what happens in real life, as we witness and experience almost every day.

These videos (and surely many others like them, focused on different issues), far from raising awareness of a real problem, proclaim that the reason we are discriminated against is that we haven't climbed high enough on the ladder of success for others to be forced to accept us or pay the consequences for not doing so.

Worse yet, in many cases, these videos present discrimination in the context of someone who intentionally hides or masks their true identity precisely to provoke certain reactions. And while these reactions may be repugnant and unacceptable, one must question whether deception is the best way to expose discrimination.

It must be clear, then, that these videos are nothing more than another example of not only superficial and harmful misinformation but of a profound trivialization of a serious social issue, with the sole goal of getting people to watch the videos and thus collect “likes.”

This is nothing new. In the 1960s, in her study of the banality of evil, philosopher Hannah Arendt warned of the dangers posed by those who operate within the rules of the system they belong to but who do not reflect on those rules or on the origins or consequences of their actions.

We are still the same, or perhaps even worse, because, as Arendt explains, by trivializing evil, we actively or passively contribute to the horror of evil, thereby nullifying all thought and dialogue.

 Posted in General

From fiction to reality: the imaginal as access to new levels of reality

Less than 30 years ago (1995), the episode "Explorers" from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine featured Commander Benjamin Sisko creating a replica of an ancient spacecraft powered by solar sails. Now, NASA has announced that a new spacecraft has successfully deployed its solar sails.

Also, 30 years ago (1993), Jurassic Park focused on recreating extinct animals, specifically dinosaurs, using genetic material. In that fantasy, with the right technology and setting aside ethical considerations, various species of dinosaurs were cloned. But according to the company Colossal Biosciences, we are now close to cloning mammoths.

In both cases (and in many other examples that could be given), the situation is the same: what was only science fiction a few decades ago, presented within the framework of an hour or two of entertainment, has now become a reality. Not a possibility. Not a topic of study, but a reality.

In the case of solar sails, NASA confirmed in a press release that at 1:33 pm (Eastern US time) on August 29, the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System (ACS3) successfully deployed the new technology. A day later, Ben Lamm, CEO of Colossal Biosciences, reported that the "de-extinction" of mammoths "is closer than people think."

When what was once unimaginable has already happened, when fiction becomes real, and reality surpasses fiction, when the boundaries between fantasy and reality, between the possible and the impossible, blur—this is the moment when we should open ourselves up to and connect with the imaginal. Read carefully: we are talking about the imaginal, not the imaginary.

Henry Corbin, a French philosopher and orientalist from the last century, developed the idea of the imaginal as a central concept in the context of understanding Sufi and Iranian Islamic mysticism and philosophy.

Corbin distinguishes between the imaginary, generally associated with fantasies or inventions without reality, and the imaginal, which refers to an intermediary reality, an autonomous and objective world as real as the material or spiritual world but perceived through active imagination. Opening up to the imaginal is learning to perceive a new level of reality.

Obviously, fiction in general, and science fiction in particular, exemplifies—just as art does—that mental and emotional openness, and in many cases even spiritual, to another level of reality, or, as Corbin said, to a "mundus imaginalis," where spiritual forms and symbols acquire a concrete presence beyond reason and sensory experiences.

In this way, the absurd, the impossible, and the unthinkable cease to be mere excuses for consuming entertainment, that is, they stop being an escape from reality, to become gateways to deeper levels of that same reality through experiences that cannot be reduced to abstractions or concepts.

As we stand at the intersection of fiction and reality, it is imperative that we consciously expand our understanding and embrace the imaginal as a vital aspect of our new and expanded perception. This is not just an intellectual exercise: it is a necessary evolution of our awareness as we navigate an increasingly complex and interconnected universe.

 Posted in General

Astropolitics and the Corporate Space Race: A Dangerous Rebirth of Colonial Ambitions

While we dedicate all our attention to new videos, all our concern to the "Likes," and all our anxiety to the results of our favorite team (in whatever sport it may be), the new space exploration seems dangerously to recreate the colonial and exploitative imperialism that has prevailed in the world for the past half-millennium.

For decades, experts in the field have warned that, beyond the undeniable scientific curiosity and the impressive advances in technoscience, the clear geopolitical ambitions of the countries participating in space exploration reveal the potential for a new era of exploitation and colonization, this time in space.

We are exporting beyond Earth the same behaviors and attitudes that have led humanity to its current precarious situation of constant conflicts on an increasingly degraded planet.

In this context, Dr. Mary-Jane Rubenstein, a philosopher specializing in science and religion at Wesleyan University, has repeatedly pointed out the undeniable parallels between the imperialism of the Modern Age (which, instead of ending, now seems to be moving beyond Earth's atmosphere) and the current tasks of space exploration.

In her book Astrotopia: The Dangerous Religion of the Corporate Space Race, Rubenstein argues that, unlike what happened between the 15th and 19th centuries, the new imperialism uses "high forms of technology," previously unimaginable, framed in a kind of "quasi-religious" rhetoric with ideas like "cosmic destiny" or "salvation of humanity."

Moreover, there is mention of a long list of "natural resources" that could be "extracted" from asteroids, and there is talk of "colonizing" the Moon or Mars, creating a "new world" there.

If anyone doubts the existence of this rhetoric, it is enough to mention that numerous movies and TV series focus precisely on presenting and propagating this vision, which resembles more the conquest by force, commerce, or religion presented by Asimov in the Foundation trilogy than the almost utopian vision of Roddenberry's Star Trek.

Be that as it may, the recent (literally) launch of corporate space exploration, aside from leaving astronauts stranded in space or taking celebrities on joyrides, raises serious questions about sidelining science in favor of profits, disputes over rights and properties in space, and new forms of injustice and exploitation.

For his part, Dr. Bleddyn E. Bowen, an expert in international relations at the University of Leicester, asserts in his book Original Sin: Power, Technology, and War in Outer Space that the space race is based on an "astropolitics" whose essential element is "the military capability to have global influence," without regard for human beings.

Bowen argues that space has been a military domain since the beginning of the Space Age. He contends that the militarization of space is not a recent development, but has been an integral part of space activities since their inception after WWII.

Taking the imperialist and colonial mindset of modernity into space is merely transporting those ideas to a new location. But, as the end of Lazarillo de Tormes (1554) says, "life never improves for those who merely change geography without changing their habits."

 Posted in General

Algorithms and monologues: from fragmented communication to the loss of the sacred

I recently witnessed (by chance, without participating) a strange exchange at a social gathering in which one person brought up a topic and shared a very brief comment, and then another person spoke about another topic, unconnected to the previous one, and so on. It was seeing the flow of posts on Facebook in real life.

I clarify that this was not a programmed activity in which the participants were asked to speak in that way. It was a spontaneous event in an informal meeting in which concatenated, but disconnected, thoughts emerged and disappeared as quickly as messages on social networks.

There are, obviously, several examples of fragmented thoughts. For example, much of the material written and produced by the earliest Greek philosophers has only survived in fragments. And the same is true of most of the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are fragmented thoughts that were once complete.

Another form of fragmented thinking is one that is similar to collecting gold nuggets: each nugget is only a part of the total collected, but at the same time each nugget adds something of value (its own) to the total. Or, if you prefer, there are thoughts that are like pieces of a puzzle. When joined together, each fragment brings us closer to a better version of the final image.

But none of those elements were present in the exchange I heard the other day. There were no missing fragments, nor was there any attempt to generate anything of value or form a more accurate picture of the world. It was not a conversation, much less a dialogue, but a rapid exchange of micro monologues with no connection to the previous or the next.

This unconscious internalization of algorithms is not fun and very dangerous. This danger lies in leaving aside dialogue (dia-logos), a key element, one would even say essential, of the humanity of the human being because, ultimately, we are dialogic beings in all aspects of our life. We are not little messages, videos or “Likes”.

In an interview published on August 16, Dr. John Vervaeke expressed that “interconnected distributed cognition is accessed and personal wisdom is cultivated dialogically,” stressing that we should even seek “a dialogic relationship with the sacred,” i.e. , “to be able to speak with the sacred, engage in a conversation with the sacred.”

In fact, this philosopher and neuroscientist states, reason is “dialogical by nature,” so we must “try to recover dialogue” because dialoguing is “deeply embedded” in our “psyches and societies”.

It is painfully obvious that if we can barely converse with other people, even if they are next to us, that is because there is no longer an internal dialogue prior, simultaneous, and subsequent to the external dialogue. Therefore, little hope seems to remain that we could speak with the sacred, because the dialogue with the sacred is not unidirectional.

If dialogue is “immovable” of the human being, if we are “essentially dialogic beings” (Vervaeke), losing dialogue is losing ourselves.

 Posted in General

Embracing the Limits of Wisdom: Socratic Insights for Our Times

In the Apology of Socrates (23a), Plato presents Socrates explaining that when the Oracle of Delphi declared him the wisest of all human beings, what the oracle really meant was that Socrates' wisdom lay in understanding that "human wisdom is worth little or nothing." Almost two and a half millennia later, this perspective remains profoundly relevant, and we need to recover this wisdom to navigate the challenges of the modern world.

Socrates, who never wrote a book about his thoughts, remains undoubtedly one of the most influential philosophers in Western culture and, very likely, one of the most ambiguous thinkers (if the expression is allowed) due precisely to his capacity for self-knowledge.

When Socrates asserts that the true message from the divinity is that "human wisdom is worth little or nothing," this statement does not express disdain or contempt for human wisdom, but rather laments the fact that, even in that era, and even more so in our own, we have "downgraded" wisdom to something akin to the mere accumulation of knowledge or, worse yet, the ability to achieve certain goals.

In other words, Socrates warns us that the "value" of wisdom does not lie in its potential utility; that is, wisdom is not a "tool" with which "things are done." More strictly speaking, wisdom does not consist of the accumulation of knowledge or the acquisition of technical skills.

For Socrates, recognizing our own ignorance ("I only know I know nothing") and accepting that human wisdom "is worth little or nothing" form the foundations of true wisdom. From this perspective, and by this measure, the "experts" and "intellectuals" of both that time and our own, Socrates would say, are not truly wise.

The reason is clear: we have become so addicted to our own ideas (to recall a phrase by Father Richard Rohr) that we are blinded by our beliefs, knowledge, and skills, to the point of confusing them with wisdom. This ignorance not only ignores itself but is an arrogant ignorance that proclaims itself as wisdom.

In contrast, for Socrates, "the human being emerges as an imperfect entity, but through lifelong learning, humanity can achieve a level of personal fulfillment and completeness," as Fatih Demirci says in the article "Socrates: The Prophet of Lifelong Learning."

"Socrates called his conduct 'philosophy' and himself a 'philosopher,' suggesting that learning is an unceasing quest for knowledge without the intention of reaching an end," adds Demirci.

In the 21st century, the Socratic ideal of the "examined life," the limitations of human wisdom, and the centrality of self-knowledge have profound relevance. As our world becomes increasingly complex and interconnected, the humility to recognize the limits of our understanding and the willingness to continuously question our assumptions are essential qualities for facing the challenges we confront individually and globally.

A self-reflective mindset and the humility and willingness to challenge our preconceptions can lead to meaningful personal growth and informed decision-making, ultimately contributing to more constructive and collaborative solutions to the complex issues facing society today.

 Posted in General

Echoes of Enlightenment: The Perils of Delegating Thought in a Fragmented World

With some frequency, both in direct conversations and through social networks, I hear or read people who are looking for a guru, or reference, or influencer who provides them with answers and solutions for the problems that these people face in their lives in the context of an increasingly chaotic, complex, and unpredictable world.

What catches my attention is not only the increasing frequency with which these requests are expressed but, at the same time, what is being sought is not someone who facilitates a dialogue, both internal and external, in order to find the answers that are desperately sought. , but rather they want to receive those answers directly, delegating that responsibility to the “referent”.

In other words (and unduly simplifying and generalizing), there is no desire for dialogue but rather a one-way monologue is expected in which the unquestionable “wise man” expresses his “wisdom” with such authority and charisma so that this “wisdom” can be accepted uncritically. This uncritical acceptance of charismatic authoritarians is extremely dangerous.

The situation is not new, but it seems to have worsened in a global sociocultural context in which the known world is fragmenting and blurring day after day before our very eyes to be replaced by something still too diffuse to understand, similar (but in real life real) to the fictitious Chinese encyclopedia “Heavenly Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge” mentioned by Borges in The Analytical Language of John Wilkins (1952).

In his preface to The Order of Things (1970, xv), Foucault, after explaining that the origin of his book is precisely the aforementioned Borges passage, adds that Borges captures how disturbed we now are “by the collapse of the millennia-old distinction between the Same and the Other” and, as a consequence, by “the limitations of our own system of thought.”

But already in 1784, in his booklet What is Enlightenment, Kant lamented the “laziness and cowardice” of those people who “will gladly remain in immaturity throughout their lives” because “it is very easy for them to be immature.”

As Kant says, these are people who replace their own consciousness and understanding with something external (a book, a pastor, a doctor). In our time we must add an influencer, a video, a post. 

As Kant explains, in the presence of a “benevolent guardian,” many prefer (we prefer) that that person take charge and be responsible for the “tedious work” of having to think for oneself. The result, this philosopher states, is to stop being human (that is, being responsible for our own lives) to transform ourselves into “docile” and “domesticated creatures.”

But to think for ourselves we must have the freedom to think, a freedom that had already been strongly restricted in Kant's time and that in our time is restricted by replacing "think" with "calculate" and "calculate" with the possibility of choosing between certain predetermined options.

I know very well that this mostly incoherent babbling contributes little and nothing to one's own thinking, but clearly understanding it, we still wanted to express it.

 Posted in General

The perpetual cycle of limiting narratives: Resisting activation of quantum narratives

I recently met, entirely by chance, a young man who, shortly after beginning a casual conversation, indicated to me that he had already abandoned a certain limiting belief to which he had been attached since childhood. But before I could say anything it was clear that this young man had replaced his belief with another that was so limiting to the previous one.

I know very well that people often become attached to a particular narrative or story that offers them a certain understanding of the world that allows them to feel safe and even in control. But when those narratives are challenged (whether by changes in the person's life or changes in the world), many people prefer not to abandon that narrative, even if it is ineffective.

The alternative would be to embrace and activate a more flexible and fluid approach, that is, a narrative that allows and facilitates access to adjacent reality and to new possibilities, and even to a new future, what is known as quantum narrative (paraphrasing David Boje).

But this alternative of activating a quantum narrative is almost impossible if someone is so attached, so immersed within their own narrative that they consider that this narrative constitutes the entirety of reality, of the world, of history and even of the possibilities that that person has for himself in the present and in the future.

It is obvious that this is precisely the effect of limiting narratives: to trap us within our own fiction through a web of mental representations of the characters, events and values ​​that define the world presented by those narratives. But sooner or later every narrative faces cognitive or emotional challenges that force us to rethink them.

Unfortunately, however, instead of recognizing the limitations of their current narrative and exploring new ways of thinking and acting to make sense of their past, present, and future experiences, many people cling to a limiting narrative simply because they already know it or They replace it with another narrative that is equally limiting, but “new.”

This pattern of exchanging limiting narratives without ever arriving at a quantum narrative or story (that is, uncertain, ambiguous and complex, but always full of possibilities) reflects a fundamental human tendency to seek certainty and stability in the face of uncertainty and change, but rejecting the opportunity to mature as a person in the face of that challenge.

The reasons for this resistance to letting go of a limiting narrative and activating a quantum narrative are complex and rooted in the psychological and cognitive dynamics of narrative engagement, thus exceeding the limits of this brief commentary.

Whatever the case, it is clear that it is very difficult to abandon those stories and beliefs acquired uncritically during the formative years of childhood and adopt a more open and multifaceted understanding of our lives.

But to move toward a deeper understanding of the world and ourselves that is what we should do to reflect the true nature of our lives and reality.

 Posted in General

View older posts »