Ecosystems Thinking For Mind Ecosystems

By Bala Pillai Sydney, Australia "Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be." -Kahlil Gibran, "A Handful of Sand on the Shore" Imagine a world where enough of us can telepathically find and match with our complements instantly. Any moment we have a want or a have. Call that point downstream, in the flowing river of our and our childrens' lives, "N". Work backwards, upstream, from N. What is N-1?, What is N-2? Let us say N-5= us being able to find and match our complements very quickly using the Internet and through minds that bridge the wired with the unwired. In short N-5 = Halls Without Walls, Metrics-Rich Automated Matchmaking & Human Bridges What stands in the way of super-conductivity between minds for frictionless synchronization? What are the problems (for which there are rewards to those who solve them), that we have to address to reach N-5? Insentience? Awareness of Memetics? Readiness to reveal our complementaries? Knowing what it is that we really want and have? Hierarchy of values dissonance? Semantic dissonance? Cognition dissonance? Valuation (of our respective traits and talents) dissonance? Distrust? Commitment (Unconditional love) dissonance? Ethos dissonance? Interfacing our minds with the tools, protocols and processes that find, search and bridge us with our complements? How do we swim with the current more, in finding the metrics for the answers, as we head towards N-5? If we have put Man on the Moon, can't we make it to N-5? Can we try Ecosystems Thinking? Can we try "reverse engineering" Nature for clues? Each of us can see only up to a certain big picture cause-effect level. To see cause-effect beyond that big picture level, one has to think and reflect deeply or be attentive and be able to ask questions of one who does. As well, one has to interact with unlike minds, for the very existence of greater pictures to be sparked. Ecosystems thinking has us to look at some of the biggest pictures possible. The small picture-big picture continuum is best imagined by its representation, nested concentric spheres. Concentric spheres in turn are best recalled by their two-dimensional equivalents, nested concentric circles -- yes, those reverberating circles you see when you throw a stone into a pond. You may see 20 concentric circles. Average man only sees with his eyes and he tends to believe that his eyes cannot belie him. He is wrong. What you see is *not* the truth, though it may be. For example, if you understood a tree by what you see, you will understand wrongly, because you cannot see the photosynthesis process. Neither can you see the crown roots. The most important parts of the tree, are hidden to the naked eye. Perhaps the single biggest reason for average man's misperception is him thinking that he is aware of his environment. To paraphrase mind and media genius, Marshall McLuhan, a fish is not aware of water. A man who loses his legs is more aware of steps than one with legs. We are *not* aware of our environment. We only become aware of our *last* environment, when either the environment or we change. And by environment we mean the whole range of our environments including relationships, family, societal, cultural, social, physical - the works. If you trust your eyes fully, you are seeing the smallest concentric sphere. It will not occur to you that much of what happens in this concentric sphere, is caused by a sphere one size larger. And much of what happens in the one size larger sphere was caused by a sphere yet another size larger. This goes on and on. Why is ecosystems thinking crucial today? Let us take the Internet. It is really an emerging ecosystem of online-orchestrated offline humans. It is working best where minds share a similar ethos -- where minds have comfortable references to build trust and relationships off on the path towards becoming aware of and acting on complementaries. When the ecosystem is more complete, it will thrive lots more than it is thriving today. Some questions you may ask are:(a) Why is the ecosystem of minds on the Internet not working perfectly?

(b) What components are missing? (c) What processes are missing? (d) What components or processes are already there, but are not understood well or not accorded the priority they deserve? The answers to these are best found in paralleling Nature's ecosystem to that of what the ecosystem of minds should have viz (a) to (d) when it is much closer to the completeness of Nature's ecosystem, than it is now. For example, let us for argument sake, say that there are (i) 300 components and (ii) 200 processes in Nature's ecosystem. We know that one of the topmost processes in Nature is photosynthesis. Other topmost ones are symbiosis, osmosis and catalysis. Question: What are the equivalents of these processes in the minds ecosystem? What are the hurdles to them forming? What returns are there if these hurdles are removed? Remember, the harder the problem, the greater the reward to they who solve it. Problems = opportunities. No problems = no opportunities. The easier the problem, the more the competition. What ingredients are needed to remove these hurdles and to forge these processes? Why is photosynthesis important? It is at the bottom of the food chain. It is the process by which trees and plants obtain resources to start the whole food chain. Now ask, what is the equivalent of photosynthesis in the ecosystem of minds on the Internet? What is the most significant source of resources for significant new Internet ventures? In the West, it is passionbits including Open Source and venture capital. How about your ethos' space? What are the parallels to the other 300 components and 198 processes in Nature's ecosystem, in your mind ecosystem? Would trust between participants be one? Would more intensive networking between minds be another? Would networking between complementary folks, as in Nature, make it more worthwhile? How can complementariness be revealed easier? Would a database of profiles that is shared by participants be a way? Would a rating on each of the 7Rs & 3Ss be one? [7Rs = risk-taking,resourcefulness, responsibility, responsiveness, reliability, rapport-building,resolve; 3Ss= sentience,synchrony,stamina] How do we rate the 7Rs & 3Ss? Can we experiment with some of the models currently used in psychological testing, while we find better ways? Is interaction a precursor to trust building? How do we increase interaction? What are the key ingredients of interaction, that make it a precursor to trust building? Would the sense of "presence" when we see each other face-toface, be one? How do we recreate this in the minds ecosystem? Can we go some way through the sense of presence in Instant Messaging and Webcams? Of these which is of a higher priority than another? Why? The prioritised and sequenced solving of all these needs are income opportunities for minds in your ethos space. The unearthing of other whitespace, unfilled space in your mind ecosystem, will show up all the other opportunities. And that comes from ecosystems thinking. That is why ecosystems thinking is important.

'Ants have no (or little) problems with food and shelter. Ditto with birds and nearly every other species. With minds shouldn't humans be thousands of times ahead, not trailing fractions behind ants?' And ants do not have government, NGOs, universities, religion, media or bank accounts to pass the buck to.
(This message is released f or use, redistribution, or modif ication under the OpenContent License . In plain English, the license reliev es the author of any liability or implication of warranty, grants others permission to use the Content in whole or in part, and ensures that the original author will be properly credited when the Content is used. It also grants others permission to modif y and redistribute the Content if they clearly mark what changes hav e been made, when they were made, and who made them. Finally, the license ensures that if someone else bases a work on OpenContent, the resultant work will be made av ailable as OpenContent as well. Please send comments, suggestions or edits to the author, Bala Pillai at bala@apic.net Thanks)

Bala Pillai, 2002.