C4Chaos
July 2008 
A Reflection on Conscious Capitalism
Posted on Oct 10th, 2007
by 
Jeff Klein
Jeff Klein
This post is the fourth in a series on the topic of Conscious Capitalism & Green Business.
To see the previous posts check out:
Julian Walker's announcement
Siona van Dijk's Meditation on Conscious Capitalism
Brian Johnson's The “Consciousness” in Conscious Capitalism
Christiana Wyly’s Zymposium on Conscious Capitalism & Green Business
Greetings all. What an honor to participate in this Zymposium with such brilliant and thoughtful colleagues. Thank you Julian for organizing this, and to all the participants contributing to the dialogue.
As you will note, Christiana and I just emerged from a two-day Conscious Capitalism retreat at The Crossings in Austin, produced by FLOW and convened by John Mackey, a great practitioner of and passionate flag carrier for Conscious Capitalism. Coming out of the retreat, we (the FLOW team, including Christiana and Randy Eisenman, a new addition to the FLOW core team, introduced to us by Brian) are charged with developing an integrated Conscious Capitalism program and producing a Conscious Capitalism conference in the next 18 months.
Given this context, I intend and expect to be increasingly immersed in the theory and practice of Conscious Capitalism. At this point, I consider myself a student and, perhaps, an apprentice in the practice of Conscious Capitalism, so please take what I write in that context.
I noted a fairly wide range of perspectives in the postings by Brian, Siona, and Christiana, and even wider in the comments. Clearly, quite a bit of skepticism about, even hostility towards the notion of Conscious Capitalism, principally based on perceptions of the nature and role of Capitalism.
In the text that follows, I intend to briefly address…
Here is a story I tell myself about the origins of capitalism, which may or may not be true, but certainly hold some truth…. The first capitalists (or proto-capitalists) were farmers. They gathered seeds, held them over time, and planted them when conditions were right. Somehow, they got the idea that, if they held the seeds and planted them, they would be able to grow more and more over time, and not have to worry about whether they had enough to eat, since they could store some of what they produced. Hence, the definition of Capitalism – a system of production and exchanged based on the generation of wealth for the purpose of generating more wealth. (Wealth being broadly defined). Not a bad idea.
Since some people (and tribes, cultures, etc) produce or collect or create more of some things than others, and need things other than what they generate and also want what others produce, they have various options for attaining the things they don’t have that others do. They can produce them themselves, take them from those who have them (i.e. war), or trade. “I’ll give you some of what I have if I can have some of what you have.” Not a bad idea. And, in the process, complex relationships between individuals and communities are forged, as they gain greater understanding of each other through the process of exchange, and they exchange many things beyond the products they are trading – a taste of food, a song or tow, a perspective on life, etc. Marketplaces are always places where ideas, information, beliefs, and much more are exchanged.
What monarchs, oligarchs, collectivists/statists (communists, socialists, etc) have in common, is their interest in limiting the “movement” of people and controlling what they do and how they conduct their economic activity.
In its essential form, capitalism aims to protect the freedom of individuals to generate, innovate, and engage in the process of wealth creation, in all its forms, and to freely exchange value with others voluntarily. Not a bad idea.
A note on competition: Brian once pointed out to me that, the root of the word and idea of competition is the latin competere, which means to meet, to come together. In competition we come together with our competitor, and support each other to be our bests, to strive for improvement and excellence, arête.
The role of government in Capitalism is to set and enforce the rules of the game, and to protect the commons (e.g. the environment, and the resources therein). This includes protecting the rights of individuals to generate wealth and own the fruits of their productive activity, their property. Not a bad idea.
Christiana defined Consciousness as “a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one’s environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience and cognitive science.
In common parlance, consciousness denotes being awake and responsive to one’s environment; this contrasts with being asleep or being in a coma.”
“The ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one’s environment. “Being awake and responsive to one’s environment.” This is a good place to start…
Conscious Capitalism
I will posit that the essence of Capitalism is to facilitate of voluntary exchange of value and provide incentive for creativity, innovation, and initiative to solve problems, fulfill needs, and express the imagination.
If this is so, then it is an exceptional system for fostering self actualization and human progress (witness the existence of Zaadz and the conditions in which most of us live, with the freedom and resources to afford us the opportunity to have such a conversation and exploration).
Since Capitalism, as the reigning ideology and social/cultural system on the planet, is clearly not perfect, and its application has caused countless adverse effects, even as it has generated countless favorable benefits, it warrants refinement.
Fortunately, individual consciousness continues to evolve and adapt, to reflect on its/our relationship to ourselves and our environment. And we note that our wealth generating system has also created waste and in many ways is undermining its long term ability to generate wealth. (And I define wealth in the broadest terms – sustenance, money or other abstract representations of other value, health, friendship, security, etc). Fortunately, many of us recognize this and, in the context of a system which fosters innovation and voluntary exchange, we come up with new ideas about how Capitalism can work (ways to update the operating system) and we develop new applications built on top of the operating system. with respect to ths issue of evironmental sustainability, I refer readers to Michael Strong's piece entitled Sustainability in a Bright Green Future). This is a good thing.
As I posted in my comment on Brian’s offering to this Zymposium, John Mackey presents a view of Conscious Capitalism as characterized by enterprises which are created and built to serve a higher purpose, and which operate to optimize the system of interdependent stakeholders, which include customers, team members, investors, vendors, the community, and the environment. As a system of aggregated Conscious Capitalists, CC is the most productive economic system (producing better results than conventional capitalism), as well as the most just and sustainable.
While I could go on here, my purpose is to stimulate more dialogue, not to make a definitive statement.
I will add that, true to FLOW’s intention, I encourage others to criticize by creating, (rather than criticize by villainizing). This is another of the virtues of Capitalism. It encourages criticism through creation, and allows the wisdom of the crowd to speak, rather than the will of the state or its representatives.
Here’s to liberating the entrepreneurial spirit for good.
~ Jeff Klein, Chief Activation Officer
Stay tuned tomorrow for Tommy Rosen’s contribution to this dilogue.
To see the previous posts check out:
Julian Walker's announcement
Siona van Dijk's Meditation on Conscious Capitalism
Brian Johnson's The “Consciousness” in Conscious Capitalism
Christiana Wyly’s Zymposium on Conscious Capitalism & Green Business
Greetings all. What an honor to participate in this Zymposium with such brilliant and thoughtful colleagues. Thank you Julian for organizing this, and to all the participants contributing to the dialogue.
As you will note, Christiana and I just emerged from a two-day Conscious Capitalism retreat at The Crossings in Austin, produced by FLOW and convened by John Mackey, a great practitioner of and passionate flag carrier for Conscious Capitalism. Coming out of the retreat, we (the FLOW team, including Christiana and Randy Eisenman, a new addition to the FLOW core team, introduced to us by Brian) are charged with developing an integrated Conscious Capitalism program and producing a Conscious Capitalism conference in the next 18 months.
Given this context, I intend and expect to be increasingly immersed in the theory and practice of Conscious Capitalism. At this point, I consider myself a student and, perhaps, an apprentice in the practice of Conscious Capitalism, so please take what I write in that context.
I noted a fairly wide range of perspectives in the postings by Brian, Siona, and Christiana, and even wider in the comments. Clearly, quite a bit of skepticism about, even hostility towards the notion of Conscious Capitalism, principally based on perceptions of the nature and role of Capitalism.
In the text that follows, I intend to briefly address…
- My basic understanding of the essential nature and functioning of capitalism
- The role of freedom and voluntary exchange (i.e. markets) in fostering innovation, and establishing conditions for self-actualization and human progress
- The role of competition
- The role of government – to set and enforce the rules of the game and to protect the commons
- A definition of Consciousness
- A basic definition of Conscious Capitalism and opening the “case” for Conscious Capitalism
Here is a story I tell myself about the origins of capitalism, which may or may not be true, but certainly hold some truth…. The first capitalists (or proto-capitalists) were farmers. They gathered seeds, held them over time, and planted them when conditions were right. Somehow, they got the idea that, if they held the seeds and planted them, they would be able to grow more and more over time, and not have to worry about whether they had enough to eat, since they could store some of what they produced. Hence, the definition of Capitalism – a system of production and exchanged based on the generation of wealth for the purpose of generating more wealth. (Wealth being broadly defined). Not a bad idea.
Since some people (and tribes, cultures, etc) produce or collect or create more of some things than others, and need things other than what they generate and also want what others produce, they have various options for attaining the things they don’t have that others do. They can produce them themselves, take them from those who have them (i.e. war), or trade. “I’ll give you some of what I have if I can have some of what you have.” Not a bad idea. And, in the process, complex relationships between individuals and communities are forged, as they gain greater understanding of each other through the process of exchange, and they exchange many things beyond the products they are trading – a taste of food, a song or tow, a perspective on life, etc. Marketplaces are always places where ideas, information, beliefs, and much more are exchanged.
What monarchs, oligarchs, collectivists/statists (communists, socialists, etc) have in common, is their interest in limiting the “movement” of people and controlling what they do and how they conduct their economic activity.
In its essential form, capitalism aims to protect the freedom of individuals to generate, innovate, and engage in the process of wealth creation, in all its forms, and to freely exchange value with others voluntarily. Not a bad idea.
A note on competition: Brian once pointed out to me that, the root of the word and idea of competition is the latin competere, which means to meet, to come together. In competition we come together with our competitor, and support each other to be our bests, to strive for improvement and excellence, arête.
The role of government in Capitalism is to set and enforce the rules of the game, and to protect the commons (e.g. the environment, and the resources therein). This includes protecting the rights of individuals to generate wealth and own the fruits of their productive activity, their property. Not a bad idea.
Christiana defined Consciousness as “a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one’s environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience and cognitive science.
In common parlance, consciousness denotes being awake and responsive to one’s environment; this contrasts with being asleep or being in a coma.”
“The ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one’s environment. “Being awake and responsive to one’s environment.” This is a good place to start…
Conscious Capitalism
I will posit that the essence of Capitalism is to facilitate of voluntary exchange of value and provide incentive for creativity, innovation, and initiative to solve problems, fulfill needs, and express the imagination.
If this is so, then it is an exceptional system for fostering self actualization and human progress (witness the existence of Zaadz and the conditions in which most of us live, with the freedom and resources to afford us the opportunity to have such a conversation and exploration).
Since Capitalism, as the reigning ideology and social/cultural system on the planet, is clearly not perfect, and its application has caused countless adverse effects, even as it has generated countless favorable benefits, it warrants refinement.
Fortunately, individual consciousness continues to evolve and adapt, to reflect on its/our relationship to ourselves and our environment. And we note that our wealth generating system has also created waste and in many ways is undermining its long term ability to generate wealth. (And I define wealth in the broadest terms – sustenance, money or other abstract representations of other value, health, friendship, security, etc). Fortunately, many of us recognize this and, in the context of a system which fosters innovation and voluntary exchange, we come up with new ideas about how Capitalism can work (ways to update the operating system) and we develop new applications built on top of the operating system. with respect to ths issue of evironmental sustainability, I refer readers to Michael Strong's piece entitled Sustainability in a Bright Green Future). This is a good thing.
As I posted in my comment on Brian’s offering to this Zymposium, John Mackey presents a view of Conscious Capitalism as characterized by enterprises which are created and built to serve a higher purpose, and which operate to optimize the system of interdependent stakeholders, which include customers, team members, investors, vendors, the community, and the environment. As a system of aggregated Conscious Capitalists, CC is the most productive economic system (producing better results than conventional capitalism), as well as the most just and sustainable.
While I could go on here, my purpose is to stimulate more dialogue, not to make a definitive statement.
I will add that, true to FLOW’s intention, I encourage others to criticize by creating, (rather than criticize by villainizing). This is another of the virtues of Capitalism. It encourages criticism through creation, and allows the wisdom of the crowd to speak, rather than the will of the state or its representatives.
Here’s to liberating the entrepreneurial spirit for good.
~ Jeff Klein, Chief Activation Officer
Stay tuned tomorrow for Tommy Rosen’s contribution to this dilogue.
Access: Public
well said, sir!
Hey Jeff,
Great note, much appreciated, and thanks for creating so many thought explosions in my head.
Your description of the essence of capitalism as a model for sharing value is very good.
The term Conscious Capitalism is powerful, and those of the Zaadz community certainly understand Conscience, Conscious and Consciousness, I would ventrue to say that everyone engaging in these discussions has a different view of what capitalism is, or is not.
We should not treat these differences in understanding lightly, for we run the risk of limiting how broadly CC can be embraced as a new vision for exchanging value.
While there is great historical debate about the roots of capitalism, it is hard to argue that Adam Smith's works on capitalism are the definitive foundation for capitalism as it works (or does not work) today.
In 1776, Smith published “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” his vision, like yours, of sharing value was paramount to his message. However, the rules or laws associated with the vision, which has become the globally accepted definition of capitalism, is:
1) All people act out of self-interest, a measure of which is to acquire wealth
2) Competition is the only natural means of balancing out self-interest for the benefit of all.
It is these two rules that people most associate with Capitalism as we have known it for over 200 years now. I believe it is these rules of Capitalism that need to change if CC is to succeed.
My questions are:
1) by adding Conscious to Capitalism, what are the specific new rules of the game that differentiate new action from the norm? (note: I believe the rules need to address both individual action as well as organizational action)
2) For the majority, the word capitalism is steeped in patriotism, and relates to the individudal rights and freedoms that we were gifted by the founding fathers. Is the name Conscious Capitalism only understood by those who appreciate the power of collective consciousness and have a disdain for capitalism as it is today, and is that sufficient? How do we break down the historical barriers that have caused, and continue to promote acting purely out of self interest? Like Smith determined, it cannot be edicted into law, it must be an individual choice to take action in line with one's character.
If these questions have been answered in previous dialogue, forgive me, I must have missed it, and would be happy to be pointed in the right direction.
Take care,
Dave
Here is a great link on Adam Smith and the Capitalist ideal.
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/pdf/ess_adamsmithorigin.pdf
Great Jeff! (guess I'll just skip lunch today!)
One of the things that I often hear, generally in relation to Capitalism (but it would apply to Communism, for example, too) is:
“Those guys are only doing what they are doing, making the decisions they make, to benefit the Shareholders - they don't really care about anything else”
And the people who say this often have a very valid point.
Now, I've already put in my two-penny-worth on Brian's and Christiana's Z3 blogs, regarding the inappropriateness of Hierarchy and so on…so I won't expand on that here.
But how about this:
There are, in reality, basically 3 different kinds of Shareholders in any activity - and obsiously we are looking at commercial activities in the context of this Zymposium.
Those Shareholders or Stakeholders obviously include:
The Individual People or Organisations or Estates who put in the necessary Investment that made (this, that or the other) possible. In this context the individuals or organisations who put up the money, knowhow and so on are, quite clearly:
a] DIRECT SHAREHOLDERS.
But there are always at least two other kinds of Shareholders, who aren't always recognised as being Shareholders, and so they are not always included in the sharing of financial profits or other benefits.
These other two types of Shareholders are:
b] INDIRECT SHAREHOLDERS
c] INFINITE SHAREHOLDERS
An example of different kinds of INDIRECT SHAREHOLDERS includes:
- The staff and workers of the business or organisation, created by the DIRECT SHAREHOLDERS.
- The local Human Community within which that business or organisation exists, since they have had to share space and perhaps other facilities with this business or organisation - which obviously may turn out to be a benefit to that community (providing jobs, for example) but which also causes that community to incurr a COST (we now have less land for our kids to play on - less room to park our cars - less room for our houses, and so on.)
- The local Natural Environment - which at the very least includes the Air surrounding the premises of the new business or organisation, though very often that Natural Environment has had to sacrifice more than some cubic feet of air-space to accommodate this new entity.
- The global Natural Environment - just because all natural things (via GAIA) are connected in this world, and the inclusion of the new business / organisation, at the very least, will contribute towards The Butterfly Effect, either by increasing order in its vicinity or increasing chaos in its vicinity.
And an example of INFINITE SHAREHOLDERS includes:
- Paradise Reality, its inhabitants (which we all hope to be, someday) and God - to name but a few.
Say what? God's a shareholder in my business?
Yep
If this new business or organisation is draining of the Earth's resources in any way - and that includes the inhabitants of the Earth - then this draining activity will tend to support the realisation on Earth of a Parasite Reality at worst, or a Paradox Reality at best, in Reality….
It Really will…
Naturally enough, Paradise Reality would prefer that the earth and its inhabitants would survive, thrive and enabled to be truly be alive in a Paradise Reality, rather than struggling along, or going down the toilet in something less than this.
So when any new business or organisation is established on Earth, it is not only the DIRECT SHAREHOLDERS who incurr COSTS when this happens. It is not only the DIRECT SHAREHOLDERS who have a real vested interest in what that business does, what it manifests, what it impacts and so on.
All three types of shareholders should benefit from the activities of any organisation or business that we create….and part of the fun of the journey ahead of us will be finding out what constitutes, and becoming good at giving, an appropriate return on the investments made by all three groups of shareholders.
- Money is OK for some…
- Putting clean water back into the earth is OK for others…
- Love, Friendship, Community, Vision and so on is OK for others…
As we go along, we'll figure it out… how best to say:
THANK YOU!!!!!!
We're talking about Conscious Capitalism here…and whilst I personally advocate Compassionism as being the next thing beyond Capitalism…the fact is that we are where we are and one way to evolve Capitalism from where it was, (Robber Baron type Capitalism) to where it could be (True Compassionism) the bridge between these two different states, to my mind, is Conscious Capitalism…
So I don't see Conscious Capitalism as being a bad thing at all…
Quite the reverse - like the big game hunter who becomes the dedicated conservationist, we AND OUR VARIOUS SYSTEMS (of which Capitalism is a biggy) are going up the spiral of ever increasing Consciousness….
And as we do so, we transform ourselves and we transform the world around us, moving away from inhabiting and supporting a Parasite Reality, all the way through this current Paradox Reality and on into true and rightful Paradise Reality, that we and this beautiful planet will deserve to live in.
(Not arriving there out of charity, on the part of Heaven, but because we opened up, more and MORE, to that which is Good, Great and Godly….and left behind us those things that we learned were Bad, Mad or Ugly.)
Conscious Capitalism is not a destination, it is a vehicle that can, if driven wisely, help us on our journey….
A true Paradise Reality is our destination, and until we get there, we aint there!
LOL!
Ray
argh! i wish i was around all day to really get into this great conversation - i look forward to responding in greater detail when i return…
thanks for a great piece jeff!
Jeff, thank you for your thoughts. What struck me in reading your piece was the idea of improving the system we have, humbly seeing it for its benefits and challenges and honing it from that enlightened (read: truthful) place. This is so refreshing and falls squarely in the “Yes, and” category of life which is so affirming. I look so forward to meeting you. Will you or anyone be attending the SVN Fall Conference this weekend in San Diego. If so please email me. I'd love to connect. AND I will post my piece to conclude this week's Z3 later on this evening or perhaps in the wee hours. My best to you,
Tommy Rosen
Jeff, Thank you for that clearly articulated, piece embodying the spirit of FLOW. The link to
Michael Strong's piece entitled Sustainability in a Bright Green Future does not go through, and you KNOW i want to read that!
Dave- Thank You for outlining 2 ESSENTIAL questions
1) by adding Conscious to Capitalism, what are the specific new rules of the game that differentiate new action from the norm? (note: I believe the rules need to address both individual action as well as organizational action)
2) For the majority, the word capitalism is steeped in patriotism, and relates to the individudal rights and freedoms that we were gifted by the founding fathers. Is the name Conscious Capitalism only understood by those who appreciate the power of collective consciousness and have a disdain for capitalism as it is today, and is that sufficient? How do we break down the historical barriers that have caused, and continue to promote acting purely out of self interest? Like Smith determined, it cannot be edicted into law, it must be an individual choice to take action in line with one's character.
Thanks Jeff, for getting today's conscious capitalism dialog started.
As I posted in my comment on Brian’s offering to this Zymposium, John Mackey presents a view of Conscious Capitalism as characterized by enterprises which are created and built to serve a higher purpose, and which operate to optimize the system of interdependent stakeholders, which include customers, team members, investors, vendors, the community, and the environment.
Great view! The key here is the higher purpose
Dave, this is extremely insightful:
The term Conscious Capitalism is powerful, and those of the Zaadz community certainly understand Conscience, Conscious and Consciousness, I would ventrue to say that everyone engaging in these discussions has a different view of what capitalism is, or is not.
We should not treat these differences in understanding lightly, for we run the risk of limiting how broadly CC can be embraced as a new vision for exchanging value.
Where we base our beliefs in capitalism is so important to moving our conservations toward conscious action.
Ray, I love how you explained the 3 types of shareholders in detail and Compassionism is definitely resonating with me. I LOVE that you shared this:
We're talking about Conscious Capitalism here…and whilst I personally advocate Compassionism as being the next thing beyond Capitalism…the fact is that we are where we are and one way to evolve Capitalism from where it was, (Robber Baron type Capitalism) to where it could be (True Compassionism) the bridge between these two different states, to my mind, is Conscious Capitalism…
Lets keep flowing….
:)
I too really like Dave's two essential questions and will take a stab at them in a bit. First, one thing that hasn't been tackled to the depth I would like to see is Julian's comment in one of the other blog entries in the Zymposium about whether conscious capitalism is a luxury for individuals in developed countries who are in the middle or upper class. I think there is a lot to this concept. A quote that I read a few years ago in a story in National Geographic about poverty in Bolivia really has stuck with me. It went something along the lines of “Try to earn your money doing the right thing. If you can't, earn it any way way you can.” In some circumstances, I really can't blame poor farmers in Brazil for cutting down the rainforest as a way to make money because their life conditions may not afford them a choice (i.e., do this or your family starves); I am not saying it is ok to decimate the rain forests at all. Instead, it is important to help people improve their life situation to the point where doing as much is not felt to be compelling, or to teach and encourage them to do activities in a more sustainable way.
With regards to Dave's first question, I think different things need to be expected of different groups and that the solutions need to be developmentally appropriate. For example, in terms of the socioeconomic modes of production (or lower right quadrant to use integral theory), the progression needs to be from foraging to agrarian to industrial to informational. That means encouraging industrial growth in some parts of the world and the movement to an agrarian economy in others. I think the same is true with individuals and cultures. In terms of the different expectations, people who haven't cognitively developed to a stage where they can take a second-person perspective can't be expected to operate with worldcentric values (which require the ability to take a third-person perspective). Generally speaking, I think the same is true with the other developmental lines (i.e., values, emotional, self-sense, etc.) or else the people will be “in over their heads” as developmentalist Robert Kegan describes in an excellent book with that name (except replace their with our).
Now to the second question. First, I am not exactly sure what is meant by “collective consciousness.” I have a few ideas for what it could mean, but different definitions would result in different responses. Also, I don't think people need to have a disdain for capitalism as it is today to appreciate conscious capitalism, although I do think some understanding about the limitations of capitalism is necessary (otherwise, why change a good thing). I'm not sure if I agree with Dave's statement about “breaking down the historical barriers.” I think acting out of self interest in a typical capitalist sense can be a really healthy thing for some people, namely those trying to progress from blue to orange using spiral dynamics (I really don't like the wikipedia entry though and recommend checking out this page on Ken Wilber's Shambhala Site http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/interviews/interview1220.cfm/ although you have to scroll down until you find SPIRAL DYNAMICS AND THE WAVES OF EXISTENCE). It is important to note too that developmentalists indicate that around 70% of the world's population is at the blue (ethnocentric) stage or lower, so capitalism can be a highly positive thing for some groups. At the same time, I think some fraction of the world has reached this stage, is ready to move beyond it, and should do so. I'm not sure about that whole Smith quote at the end. Laws together with other societal institutions help reflect and influence the level of individual development for people in a culture, so I do think they at least encourage behavior around a few developmental stages.
Jeff, thanks for a quick run down on the history of Capitalism and referring to Michael Strong's essay. (btw, here's the link to the PDF: Sustainability in a Bright Green Future)
reading up on it right now :)
~C
Hi all.
Thank you for your comments.
Dave, key to CC is that the beings engaging in it are “evolved” - call it second tier, so they are operating in a distinctly different way, reflecting a different way of seeing the world, the nature of existence. Seeing interdenpendency, complexity… Re: motivation of the actors. Conscious Capitalists (and others) understand that self interest is A human motivation, but not THE ONLY motivation. Big surprise. So, to your questions - CC's recognize the full range of human motivation, they understand interdependency, and the role of purpose. As for patriotism, my sense is capitalism has been entwined with “democracy” and “our country,” as they are related in some respect by their inherent celebration and protection of freedom, and generative innovation that comes from it. I think I will defer trying to unravel the complex and charged relationship and manipulations of the relationship between them. Good to consult Michael Strong on that one.
Ray, I love the spirit of your comments. We distinguish between shareholders (those owning shares in a compnay) and stakeholders (representing the array of aggregated interests).
Will write more later. Packed today!
Jeff
Thank you for your appreciation Tommy. I look forward to meeting you too. Christiana will be at SVN on behalf of FLOW (right C*?).
Jeff
you deserve a round of applause for being so very conscise! You are a master… Im gonna squeeze something out from your idea of ‘incentive’ in your statement.
Dave
The Conscious Capitalism 747 is about to land on its rubber with those excellent questions… will it crash and burn, or do we have the controls?
Mark
‘ …The key here is the higher purpose’. I believe this is the BINGO statement. How do we get folks flowing in that direction? Upping their stage?
Ray
COMPASSION… YES, and that comes from upstaging yourself (no Brian that’s mine, and you can’t have it…), it is part of the secret ingredient.
So… he said rolling up his sleeves and waiting for divine inspiration (breathe….)
Ok. Here goes… my answers to Daves two Questions:
Rule 3: Individuals, corporations and govrnment must become aware of Cause and Effect.
(Zaadz and all those books we all read helps us, OECD helps Governments and Corps). We can evolve again, we did it in the past…
For example:
First there was just profit for the well positioned industry owners. But people died, the planet was bountiful… nobody cared for the collective.
Second came pre-socialism (care for others) brought in by the Quakers in Britain (Cadbury’s for example) who looked after their workers, educated them, housed them etc. Unions followed etc etc. The war of ideologies began… but the planet was still perhaps bountiful. The collective was somewhat cared for, but the planet not.
Third comes now (and probably since the second world war or before). Ooops, the planet is dying. Shit. Now we better think about that. It takes a bunch of people (like the Quakers in the past) to set the example, it takes lots of people dying/suffering greatly for the collective to be open to great change. It is the collective who suffer most, not the ones with the ideas, (they are aware of other possibilities - other than doom). The collective are still ‘victims’ of ‘reality’.
So once people start suffering greatly, and the ‘aware folks’ keep beavering away at getting the word out about dealing individualiy with cause and effect (especially with our purchases and our awareness), there will come a tipping point of having all our ducks lined up, and the ideas are being readied to implement when the shit is hits the fan.
Does this make sense?
Compassion is ‘aware folks’ incentive. Compassion is the cause, change is the effect.
Survival is the ‘unaware folks’ incentive. Survival is the cause, change is the effect.
They are both incentives for change and work naturally all the time this way. This seems to make a lot of sense to me.
It sounds rather brutal and simplistic but I am of course being brutally clear, as it might get very, very bad. Just thinking of Al Gores melting ice-caps and the 20ft increase in sea-level! In emergencies we don’t ask please, we act.
Is it Peter, or is it the Wolf? This is where we are at for most of the world…
There are layers and layers of other tangents, but I wanted to focus on what seemed the intangible rule that is governing things for us now for conscious capitalism –it is cause and effect.
IMHO anyways! And thank you all so very much for helping me use my new TED functions. Brian is selling ideas for nothing folks, get them cheap before he becomes greedy!!
Wonderful Sanjuro!
Brilliant Sanjuro!
(Hey an entry from me, less than four chapters long! That's a first!)
And I take your point Jeff about Shareholders and Stakeholders…. nice one.
Ray :)
Beautifully written Sanjuro. I am definitely on the compassion bandwagon. Does compassion derive from passion for community? It should.
Did you know that the only Deep Sea Scroll that was fully intact, was written by the prophet Isaiah? It was a prophecy of a future time of great turbulence, pestilence and great fear, and that mankind would be on the brink of destroying themselves and the earth. Isaiah prophesized that there was only one way to stop what appeared to be inevitable at the time. That one thing was “LOVE”.
Almost 2500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah spoke of levels of consciousness within the universe, all of which are of God's making, and that these levels are available to anyone who chooses to seek them. They have always been, and always will be.
The higher the consciousness levels, the greater the compassion and love that flows through our physical bodies.
The only way to save the world and humanity from itself, is for all of those compassionate, loving people to resonate their energies together, through thier actions and their prayers, for evil and fear can never win against a higher level of consciousness and awareness.
I am not an advocate of some people on the planet being more 'evolved' than anyone else, but I am a strong believer that the compassion / awareness that this group knows, is available to everyone, if given the chance to step out of their own unconscious way.
That is my passion, my 'com'passion… to help those who do not see what we see, what we feel, and what we know in our hearts.
Dave
Good food for thought. Thanks Jeff!
I meant Dead Sea Scrolls.. guess I filled the bath too full this morning.
:)