Presence

The book is hesitant, inconsistent, difficult to wade through and alive with its authors’ passion. It is a work of remarkable synthesis of a myriad of ideas from religion, philosophy, science and business. Ken Wilbur calls it “leading edge” and “an altogether important book”. Its pages contain references to the ideas of no fewer than two dozen of the writers, philosophers, scientists and others I have discussed here on How to Save the World.

The idea is clearly unfinished, and the authors make no apology for the “much effort, confusion and ambiguity” that remain, but feel that the unfinished journey that the four of them have taken bears telling. Rather than an exposition, the book reads as a chronology of meetings and conversations. What makes the book most challenging is that the English language, at least, is inadequate to capture many of the ideas and perceptions in the book, so the authors cycle through one anecdote after another, using different words and examples, in the hope that each reader will relate to at least one explanation of each element in the model — possibly a model for saving the world — illustrated above.

It is impossible for me to paraphrase their words, and I would urge you to pick up a copy and join the conversation. Instead, I present some extracts that try to capture each of the elements in the model, so that you can, hopefully, get enough of an idea of what it’s about to get you oriented in your reading. My comments are in square brackets. After that, I summarize just one practical example from the book where the model was used, more or less, to extraordinary effect. Ready? Here we go:

Wholes and Parts:

The Future of Humanity:

The Model Part 1: Sensing: Suspending & Redirecting:

The Model Part 2: Presencing: Letting Go, Letting Come:

The Model Part 3: Realizing: Crystallizing Intent, Iterative Prototyping/Experiments/Improvisation, Institutionalizing

Whew! Tough work, isn’t it. I’ve been through it three times and I think I understand most of it. It makes sense, but at a level I’m not (yet) comfortable with. You need to read the whole book (and probably more) to really understand the model.

The most compelling example of the model in application was a study in Stuttgart, Germany of ways to improve the intensive health care system, but which involved a multidisciplinary exploratory team. They initially identified four levels of increasingly profound relationship between doctors and patients (my paraphrasing):

1. Transactional — the doctor prescribes a solution for the immediate problem
2. Attitudinal — the doctor instructs changes to the behaviours that gave rise to the problem
3. Consultative — the doctor and patient come to an understanding of the behaviours that gave rise to the problem
4. Co-creative — the doctor and patient come to an understanding of the entire ‘field’ in which the behaviour that gave rise to the problem emerged, and open new perspectives on the identity of the patient that operated within that field, so that the patient and doctor can co-prescribe actions that preclude the need for the problematic behaviour

The group assessed that, for the most part, most existing relationships between doctors and patients were level 1 or 2, while relationships of level 3 or 4 would be more effective. But then an amazing thing happened. the politicians on the team diagnosed their relationships with their constituents in identically the same way. Then teachers diagnosed their relationships with their students in identically the same way. Then others did the same. Ultimately, farmers on the team diagnosed their relationship with the land the same way. A history of how these problems had emerged had been told, in reverse time order. Suddenly there was a collective understanding that analogous dysfunction underlay all of the ‘Wicked Problems’ facing the team members in their respective professions. There was a simultaneous ‘letting go’ of the well-established excuses why things had to be done the way they were done, an empathy among all the team members, and a willingness to ‘let come’ other ways of dealing with these endemic situations. A number of bold initiatives were proposed in one or another of these professions, and taken up and amplified and refined by others by analogy in their profession. An enormous creative energy galvanized the team, a collective intention to ‘re-form’ these situations in response to the newly emerged understanding, and as a result, some amazing, revolutionary, and wildly successful changes have been introduced in Stuttgart in all of the participating disciplines. I wish I had been there!

The Presence model corresponds amazingly well with Open Space’s Four Practices: Opening, Inviting, Holding/Making Room and Acting/Realizing, and also with Snowden’s Complexity Dealing Process: Probe, Sense, Respond, both of which I have discussed in previous articles. The fact that these have evolved independently and each has powerful anecdotal and historical evidence of its value in dealing with complex situations is very compelling, and exciting. We must hope that their proponents connect and learn from each others’ models, and perhaps synthesize one with the best qualities of all three.

The authors refer to The Marblehead Letter, an amazing joint statement by a group of large businesses and public organizations, which indicates substantial enthusiasm for approaches like the Presence model and concludes:

The final sections of the book, on institutionalizing, leadership and application to science, are much weaker than the rest of the book, and seem to have been rushed together to give it a sense of completeness — hopefully future editions of this book with deal with these issues more thoroughly.

In contrast, the Epilogue, which returns to the Future of Humanity theme and introduces the lessons from Daniel Quinn’s book Ishmael, is intriguing. The authors note: “We do act as if evolution stopped with us, as if ‘we’re it’, the whole purpose of nature’s four billion year project on planet Earth. It would probably shift things to realize that may not be so. We may be just here to enable what comes next”. Countering John Gray’s arguments I referred to Tuesday they suggest perhaps that the other species need us not to steward the planet, but to rejoin them in the co-evolution of the planet’s future, that they long for our return as much as we, in our saner moments, long to return to a life in concert with nature and our fellow creatures. The final quote is from environmental architect Bill McDonough (who I’ve also written about here), saying “What will it take for us to become indigenous once again — not as we were, but as we might be?” Their answer: “I think if we can find our place, we will find our purpose”.

Something is happening here, though I’m not quite sure yet what it is. But I have to believe there is more to such remarkable coincidence and congruence of thinking than serendipity. I’m not ready to buy into the hype of a newly emerging collective human consciousness. But despite appearances, I’m an optimist at heart, and there’s much here to warm the spirit and quicken the heart. Just maybe…