Dreamer Vs Doer - the archetypal conflict within transformation 11 comments

7 Oct 2015 @ 21:53, by Max Sandor Dreamer Vs Doer - the archetypal conflict within transformation by Max Sandor 5.10.15 (Reflections inspired by the first sessions of ULab's Case Clinic of Coaching Circle 1262.) Transformation in nature evolves without anyone thinking about it. Nobody seems to have a doubt about it, nobody seems afflicted by fears of failures, worried by uncertainties of the outcome, or by concerns about what someone else may think about it. Nobody is complaining, nobody criticizes anything, the absence of judgment is obvious. The transformation simply happens, subtle, from a first beginning, sometimes accelerating, even erupting, developing into new shapes and qualities, until the process settles and a new form, a new Gestalt, has been born and remains true to its archetype in the chain of its metamorphosis, only to initiate yet another transformation. Not so for human endeavors. We, me included, are commonly wondering before we even begin to engage in a transformation, whether in us, in others, in organizations, or in whole societies. Sometimes the biggest hurdle seems to be just that: not being able to start the process of transformation even when the path lies clear before us. We try hard to know the unknowable, predicting the final results of the metamorphosis of complex systems like our life, our, surroundings, our culture. It seems wrong to initiate a transformation before its results are completely 'known'. But can there ever be truly a final result? Are we not just entering another stage of a larger process of which we cannot know its future shape? How can we convince ourselves to start the start of a transformation? Here in the ULab, we have the process sequence of Theory U at hand, which we know has been based on intense observations of nature's own workings, whether we believe in it religiously, or recognize its value rationally. We are collecting and applying tools to let go of past conditioning and engage in new patterns of thought and action. All this is of vital importance for the transformation to unfold. For the initial deep-seated fears and doubts, it may still be of help to conscientize the deeper archetypal conflict that we find if we scratch away the rust of our old habits from the surface of our minds. This archetypal conflict I refer to, is the unresolved conflict between wo/man as a Dreamer and wo/man as a Doer, the subject of analysis of many great thinkers, and our main enemy in attempting to begin to transform our environment. It is certainly worthwhile to spend some thoughts about it. So, let us begin with the male side of its aspects! Why do we dream of other things than that what we have in the first place? We do it because we find something in us or around us either unacceptable or insufficient. Now, if that's the case, why don't we simply start changing this 'something'? This is nature's course of action, obviously, it adopts itself or changes its environment, like digging a hole in the ground, or building a nest. In contrast, man starts to make images of another reality before acting upon the current one. He would then choose one scenario over all others, he would set himself a goal, and, then, only then, he would embark on the voyage into a new reality within a transformed environment. But here we stumble. How does man select a new scenario? He does it by following his Heart and justifies it using his Head. So far so good. But dreams are sweet and work is hard. In order to engage, he must stop dreaming, he must stop thinking about his dreams, he must act. In other words, he must abandon his wishful thinking and replace it with physical activity of some sort. Tears of joy must change to drops of sweat; substituting harsh realities for wonderful dreams; changing excitement to endurance. And, at the bottom of this, man has a lingering doubt about how this newly created reality will compare to his own glorious dreams. Tough enough, but in doing so, he is undergoing the most fundamental metamorphosis of his basic pattern of existence, a change of his functional archetype from the Dreamer to the Doer, the transfer of control from the Heart to the Hand. Sure, if the Head would be awake and clear, we would have competent guidance in this task. But as long as we still thrive to arrive at 'pure thinking' (sense-free, in the sense of Steiner), we can safely assume a certain degree of mental pollution. OK, so are we there yet? Can we get the ball rolling on our new project? Not quite yet. because now we encounter our fiercest enemy, the reluctance of the 'Hand' to let go of what it thought was working in the past. And we see in our archetypal studies that the Hand has more often than not the most convincing arguments for the Head to NOT change anything. In other words, Hand wins hands-down in any such conflict, both in the male and the female aspects of its archetypal functionality. We can see this more easily when we consider that, for living species, survival has near-absolute priority over comfort or abundance. This means, only by creating convincing models, or 'prototyping', we can expect the 'Hand' to give an OK to the Head to proceed. 'Hand' has to see what evolves next, it needs its touch and smell, all of the physical senses and in all possible ways, In an initial archetypal stakeholder analysis of such an archetypal transformation (truly a meta-morphosis to its fullest extent possible!), we see that Heart sacrifices the plurality, purity, and identity of its dreams for a new, single, never-perfect reality to unfold; Hand sacrifices its own past reality, its own existence, for a new manifestation of reality to take place of what has been there before. In resumé, Heart risks disappointment, Head risks to be shown in error, and Hand risks its own life, which is the basis of survival for all three, Heart, Head, and Hand. The above scratches the surface of the 'male' aspect of Heart, Head, and Hand as good as words allow. For the female sides of the three H's, we can see an equally complex interaction evolve. The above, being of a fundamental archetypal character, applies separately AND as a whole for all '4 Levels', from the individual to mankind as a whole. In real life this means that a failure in patterns within one level will trigger responses in other levels and spread. As just one of many examples, corruption in governments leads to corruption in companies which leads to the corruption of individuals. Or is the other way around? Pollution of Earth and seas, victims of wars in foreign lands, tragic destinies in our own vicinity - we are distant, we are being blamed, we are being held responsible as individuals for systemic failures on higher levels. Where could we start if not with ourselves? Yes! If we identify the 'Level' correctly, and assign responsibilities where due, yes! Dear Coaching Circle members, I tried to abstain from giving advice here and restrained myself to share only my own reflections the best I could. Please feel free to ask and mirror-back :) ! To all of you, my best wishes on your journey! Max Sandor, Brazil, 5.10.15 https://www.facebook.com/MaximilianSandor

11 comments

---

Your Name:
Your URL:	(or email)
Subject:
Comment:
	For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

---

New Civilization Network - Personal News Logs - Workgroup News Logs - Syndication