Collective Intelligence/We-space Dominant Monads?

Invitation to a Second-Tier Conversation about:

Collective Intelligence/We-space 

Dominant Monads

Please note that I'm using Ken Wilber's term "we-space" here but my intended referent is pretty much the same as for the terms "collective intelligence," "collective presencing," "collective insight," "transparent communication field," etc. 

In his talk with Terry Patten on July 23, 2013, (available currently to Integral Living Room Event participants) Ken Wilber asserted that no We-spaces have a dominant monad. Based on my experience and experiences I have read about, I suggest that for me, the reality is a bit more complex than that, and I am inviting further conversation here with anyone who would like! What kind of conversation could we have about this? I am offering some seeds.

(And what difference does it make?) I will suggest below it can make a lot of difference, what we sense or believe on this question.

First, Ken's characterization of a "dominant monad" was that when his dog gets up and crosses a room, all the dog's cells have no choice but to go along. Well, his dog might be exceptional, but most dogs have many cells which would not make it across the room. They are most commonly called DOG HAIRS. :) But there are also skin flakes and just possibly the occasional drop or two of saliva. :) This doesn't seem like pushing a ridiculous point, to me; it seems relevant.

That's just one example, of course, but it suggests there might be degrees of dominant monadness, which could be a reasonable assumption: that dominant monadness (monadicity?) is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon or characteristic.

Second, it stands to reason for me that with the huge variety of we-spaces there are -- CoG developmental stage of the group being only one of the differences --that most of the space's characteristics, including this one of dominant monadness, would have some variances between groups.

Third, Ken said that in a we-space, no one individual can control the others/situation, which is evidence that there is no dominant monad. I see more complexity there. 

---First, if there were a dominant monad, it would be more likely to be the emergent field and not one individual. That is my experience for example in group toning: the experiential reality reported by participants is that a single voice is operating all the throats, and that single voice is the field itself. And this is but one of many examples, which could be an entire article unto itself.

---Second, however, he gave the example of a mob as a "we-space" and as far as I know, it is entirely possible and not uncommon for a single individual to "control" a mob. That's what Hitler did very well. And a mite further out into woo-woo land, there are IMO shall we call them dark magicians who can create and then control "we-spaces" with nearly total domination over both the experiences and the actions of the others. One can read about these; I don't recall specifics, but again for me it simply stands to reason that the phenomenon exists and I suspect nearly everyone can "grok" this phenomenon, if not actually recall experiences of it.

In sum, I think it's very likely that some "We-spaces" have dominant monads and others do not. And that there are degrees of dominance and even differences in the "location" of that dominant monad.

So what differences could it make, whether all or some or none of 'we-spaces' have a dominant monad? Is this question just splitting hairs and doesn't matter? I suspect it matters greatly. One example might be that if there is a dominant monad and group members are not aware of that, they can be controlled to the possible detriment of themselves and others -- whether the d.m. is an individual or "the field" which could be, in my metaphysics, an astral plane entity operating in duality-consciousness and with malevolent intent. So it's important to learn whether this can happen, and how to avoid or deal with it, if it does happen.

Another example is that if a group's purpose for co-creating a we-space would be better served by having a dominant monad located somewhere, they can deliberately co-create that. Given that one gets co-created, another example of the importance of it is simply the quality of the people's experience desired; there are degrees of ecstasy available from that variable, I believe.

Overall, the importance is that if this variable shows up in we-spaces, then to become skilled and able to optimize human participation in/benefit from we-spaces, the variable needs to be looked at, studied, and learned about. Obviously, if it doesn't exist, no such attention is needed -- unless and until it might start to show up without having previously existed!

(I add that last possibility because there does appear to be a what Terry referred to as "triple-loop learning" going on in we-spaces, so the phenomenon or capacity is evolving in many ways, even as we speak! (My wording for the triple-loop learning is a "field of fields" which is being strengthened by every co-creation/manifestation of a we-space anywhere in the world, so that we-spaces are showing up more often, among more diverse people, and being stronger/more robust to diffusing influences, and lasting longer, with more people showing an interest in the phenomenon. From asking around, my impression is that almost everyone ongoingly involved in we-space production reports observing these changes over the years and now over the months.)

So what do YOU think or what have you experienced/interpreted about this question of dominant monads and we-spaces? Have I missed or mischaracterized anything, as you see it? I think this matter is worth a lot of attention!

• Postscript: None of the above addresses the open questions of whether a "we-space" is ever a self-aware identity (which I think it commonly is) and how much and what kinds of "agency" such a "we-space" could have. And I must admit I didn't understand what Ken said about a we-space being alive; the distinction between being alive and being a dominant monad isn't clear to me. Further listening and contemplation and conversations needed on that.

by Rev. Alia Aurami, Ph.D., Head Minister, Amplifying Divine Light in All Church

"Amplifying Divine Light in All" is a completely independent church fostering empowerment of people to co-create loving, thriving God-realized lives, and wellbeing for everyone, on a clean, peaceful Earth.

Our main religious purpose and mission is to amplify the Divine Light in everyone. When you read this article, you will agree or disagree with its various points, and then you will know more about what is true for you. Knowing more of your own Truth amplifies your Divine Light. Thus providing/presenting this article is one way for us to accomplish our purpose and mission. 

This article and our providing/presenting it are therefore a central and essential part of our exercise and practice of our religion. 

None of the contents herein are claimed as absolute truth. They represent one possible perspective which might prove useful for you.

All rights reserved under the Common Law. This means please respect our creatorship.