“Everything said is said by an observer to another which could be him or herself in coherence to the biological-cultural matrix of human

existence”

Ethical Matrix of Human Habitat

Ximena Dávila Y.Humberto Maturana R.

Ignacio Muñoz C.Riane Eisler

Dennis SandowGabriel Acosta-Mikulasek

Sayra PintoRodrigo Jordán

Ana María BravoChristopher Kindblad

Claudio YustaLuis FloresJane Cull

Mauricio TolosaSebastian Gaggero

Luis David GrajedaJuanita BrownOscar AzmitiaManfred Mack

Alejandro MoralesJosé Manuel Saavedra

Cristián MoragaRodrigo Da Rocha Loures

Margarita BoschGuilherme Branco

Gloria CanoAna María Estrada

Robert HaningRajiv Meta

Simón Ramirez

Peter SengeMolly Baldwin de RocaRodolfo Paiz Andrade

Hue ShueNick Zenuick

Miguel MaliksiBradford Keeney

Tamara WoodburyAnne Murray Allen

Tania MuñozVíctor García

Edmundo RuízOmar Ossés

Leonardo MorenoMauricio RosenblüthEdson Araujo Cabral

We human beings are cultural-biological beings that arise in our living in an inseparable recursive interweaving of the biological and cultural from the beginning of our existence in the evolutionary transformation of our lineage. We arise in a unity that we, as observers, destroy in an analytical act that blinds us in its arbitrariness. This blindness alienates us as it interferes with our acting and reflecting about the consequences of our living and feeling. In that way we become blind to the systemic-systemic unity of our living and living together, which has brought us along the path of self-destruction that we live as humanity at this moment. This is a path that we invite you to leave in a conscious act through this proposal.

Hence, we find ourselves in a living and living together that appear to trap us in the apparent complexity of so many independent processes that are interwoven. And we become discouraged since we feel that we can find no local action that could take us out of this trap, because all the local actions seem to offer only more of the same.

One example of this is constituted by the conceptual-reflexive shadow that is revealed, in the eyes of an observer, in our speaking about sustainability without the awareness that with this, sustainability can become part of a dynamics of conservation of lineal events. This shadow will not disappear unless we are conscious about the systemic-systemic character of everything that what we do, revealing the relational-operational dynamics of our living together as humans that we want to conserve, as generator of the harmony of our sharing of the biosphere we live in and that corresponds to the desires brought forth by the distinction of sustainability.

In our opinion there are several persons that have illuminated this reflexion by talking about sustainability. And by doing so they are showing our responsibility with the implicit desire to conserve the systemic-systemic harmony of our well-being in a human ethical living together as a central component of the biosphere that makes us possible and sustains us when talking about sustainability. The epistemological shadow cast by our own doings and the responsibility of being generators of the world-reality that is lived, which lineal thought brings including that only searching for ”objective causes independently of the actors (observers)” to explain everything that happens to us in our living, can only be dissipated in the systemic-systemic reflexion based on the consciousness that we are always generators of the worlds-realities that we live from our existence as cultural-biological beings.

From this perspective it is not the sustainability that should occupy us, but the relational-operational dynamics that is invoked, that is, the conservation of the integral harmony of our human living together with the transformation of the anthroposphere-biosphere where our living happens, and whose transformation now depends completely on us even though we would not like it to be this way.

These illustrious observers that were mentioned above invite us, from their own reflexions about sustainability - if we know how to listen to it – to the conscious act of becoming aware that given that our cultural-biological living is systemic-systemic, no local action that is blind to that living will divert us from the path we follow, as we conserve our blindness about the systemic-systemic nature of the worlds that we generate in our cultural-biological living. Probably the answers that point to a crucial factor do not appear neatly because there are none. And even if there happened to be one, we would not see it because its value would be in the matrix of systemic-systemic actions that is invoked, and not in the apparent act of lineal causality that unravels it.

Among the persons that ask us about this fundamental crossroad we can find Rodrigo da Rocha Loures, who is President of the Industrial Confederation of Paraná in Brazil, and co-inspirator and collaborator in this project. He screams, in a more or less conscious way in our listening, the following: ”Ladies and gentlemen, businesswomen and businessmen, nothing that we currently want to preserve will be of use for much longer; we must change our way of seeing. We must take responsibility knowing that everything that we do have systemic effects in our living and living together in the human communities that sustain what we do and whom we serve with what we do. We will be more valuable for the well-being of humanity, for our grandchildren and grand grandchildren if we don’t get trapped by the subtle temptations of arrogance and omnipotence, and accept that all human beings are equally intelligent and deserve as much as ourselves to live in well-being and co-participation of creating a dignified, respectable and desirable living together. It depends on us. Is it not the case that our intelligence and creativity are sufficient for this co-inspirational task?”

Peter Senge, founder of the Society for Organizational Learning, co-inspirator and collaborator of this project, also shares this concern: ”People are conscious of a certain level of pain but we continue in the habit of finding explanations in terms of an external cause. Hence, in our continuous asking the question ‘what do we want to conserve?’, we therefore also remind ourselves in a subtle way that it is us who do the conservation. Since a long time I have felt that this is a definitive characteristic of all the systemic perspectives: the endogenous focus on the system as the cause, in place of the external causes. But the word system also obscures that it is we who promulgate this system through our everyday living. The social systems are neither predetermined nor behave according to natural laws. It is rather our habits of thinking and acting that shape our collective patterns and habits and the institutional realities that constitute our biggest systems. And in this it is only through the reflexive observation of these systems that we can begin to find liberation. This is a liberation that is formed by our ways of living that can be created in different forms through our ways of living. And only in that way”.

In that direction, and thinking how reflexive cries like these could arise, we think that we on a global level currently inhabit a culture whose epistemological substratum is based on the being of everything that exists, and in the asking of the being of all things and entities, resulting in a basically dualist and fragmented epistemology, which in all of its

domains separates the observer from the observed, and does not consider the cultural-biological regularities of the processes of distinction that bring forth the worlds that appear to us. This means that we live them as existing independently of our operation in observing since this is always an unconscious operation.

The question of being shows an epistemological background, which generates views from which the dynamics that constitute the systems are not seen, but rather attend lineally to the supposed causes and effects, where objects are seen instead of matrixes. One of the core characteristics of this epistemological background is that it generates explanatory principles and definitions in while substantive, always obscure the dynamics that bring forth the phenomenon that one wants to explain. That is to say, the verbs are obscured through pretending to describe and explain the experiences that we as observers have as we don’t attend to the operation itself through which we bring forth the observed in the operation of distinction that constitutes it.

In this reflexive and action-oriented proposal that we’ve call Ethical Matrix of Human Habitat we explore the multidimensional dynamics that are left obscured when we talk about sustainability. And we see that such dynamics, which are in fact what constitutes the processes that we call sustainability a posteriori, are cultural-biological dynamics.

It is important to clarify that cultural-biology is not a theory, but the operational dynamics that generate the niche or relational matrix where human existence happens. In that way, the notion of the cultural-biological matrix of human existence connotes the cultural-biological interweaving of human living in networks of conversations.

(On the other hand, the networks of conversations that constitute human cultural living have modulated and modulate the course of the biological flow of human living, and in turn, the biological flow of the realisation of living of human beings has modulated and modulates the course of the cultural living of humanness. All this happens as a recursive interweaving that arises with the human lineage in the transgenerational conservation of networks of conversations, as they arises in the ancestral family in the origins of human living itself.

Cultural biology is the relational-operational domain within which this process occurs in the evolutionary history of our lineage. Hence, cultural-biology is what is peculiar about human lineage and it is in it this that humanness occurs. Everything that we, human beings live, we live in and from the cultural biological, whether it is art, science, technology, religion, philosophy, sports, leisure or just living the everyday doings of the conservation of living itself. In this manner, the flow of human living in cultural biology is what constitutes human living in languaging and conversing as a living that generate worlds that arise as expansions of the operational and relational matrixes of everyday fundamental human living.

Human living as a cultural living together in networks of conversations initiates an transformation that gives origin to the different modes of living and living together that constitute the different cultural-biological worlds that we live as different cultural-biological realities or matrixes of living.

It is in this manner that the notion of sustainability, and the reflexions and actions that concern it, have taken importance in the world that we inhabit today. This is the case in all domains including enterprises, governments and communities., And where the present comprehension of what is understood as sustainability concerns more than what is simply understood as environmental. There is talk about the challenge of sustainability where economic, social, cultural, political-institutional, physical-territorial and scientific-technological dimensions are recognized.

A great number of economic and human resources are used to generate petitions that are intended to implement and spread practices that result in the generation of diverse dimensions of sustainability, among which a petition to generate a sustainable world society appears to be the one with greatest spirit and depth.

But how does sustainability arise? What are the multidimensional dynamics that bring forth a global society that an observer distinguishes as sustainable?

From a cultural-biological view we can see that living beings arise in a matrix of existence that contains them and makes them possible. This implies that for the conservation of the living of living beings the congruent relation between the organism and the environment is a constant, and not a variable. If the structural coupling between the organism and the environment is not conserved, the organism dies. In other words, if the conditions of possibility for living beings to generate, realize and conserve their niche in the environment does not happen, if the environment does not result in structurally embracing the living of the living being, living becomes impossible. Now, absolutely all living beings transform the setting of the environment that embraces us, and vice versa, in a relation of mutual triggering of reciprocal structural transformations. In the case of insects and other social animals the other organisms of the same class become part of the environment where they realize their existence. This also happens in the case of we human beings. When we talk about the anthroposphere we precisely refer to this domain of relations where human communities are a fundamental part of the environment and where humans exist and in fact humanize in living together. The word anthroposphere make reference to the relational domain that arises as a particular ecological dynamic with human living, and as such is an integral part of the biosphere. We human beings as living beings exist in the biosphere. In everything we do (companies, organisations, philosophies, politics, etc.) we exist in the anthroposphere. In other words, in a strict sense biosphere and anthroposphere can only be separated in the distinction, but not in the systemic-systemic dynamics of the flow of processes that constitutes them. As we will see, the strict reference to the cultural biological strives to invoke an inseparable unity when speaking about and

human processes.

That we living beings transform the environment where we live and make our existence possible is part of the coherences of the flow of living of the ecological systems, where massive extinctions are also possible. Change is another constant in the flow of the ecological processes of the biosphere. In fact, the flow of living of living beings happens as a continuous drift of structural changes. The living of an organism happens as a continuous flow of structural changes where the organization and its adaptation to its domain of interactions are simultaneously conserved. We call in a synthetic way the spontaneous process of natural structural drift that happens in the transformation of every system natural drift when it refers to the historical transformation of living beings. The fundamental consequence of natural drift is that the living being that lives, through its realisation, in an environment with continuous conservation of its relation of structural coupling with this environment, if this does not happen the living being dies. In the natural drift the adaptive survive in a transformation that is neither comparative nor competitive.

Green box 1

But we must remember that change does not occur in a vacuum, as the systemic law of change and conservation points out. In other words, everything changes around something that is conserved. And in the case of the structural change of living beings, along the evolutionary history and along the ontogeny or history of trans-formation in the course of living of an organism, what changes does so around the conservation of two interwoven dynamics, the conservation of autopoiesis and the conservation of the relation of congruence between the organism and the environment or structural coupling that an observer calls adaptation.

In these circumstances it is easier to distinguish that the relation of structural coupling between organism and environment is a constant transformational dynamic. It is not a fixed process. Therefore, the harmony that arises from this relation of congruence between one and the other is permanently open to its own disappearance, to the extent that the conditions of possibility that gives stability to the mutual congruence is not satisfied, it disintegrates and the living being dies.

To be able to see and understand this is central in order to observe the fundamental dynamics that are hidden behind the word sustainability. For instance, in order to understand that the ecological problem that companies and human communities create in the environmental domain is not in the degradation that they generate in the milieu where they exist through taking out elements and spilling out waste. All living beings do this. The problem arises in the irresponsibility and unawareness with which we move with respect to this relation with the environment. We, human beings, are the animals that generate the most extensive transformation of the biosphere, and each time with greater velocity.

If one extracts the so called natural resources more rapidly than they can be replaced, poverty is generated. If one throws waste in so enormous quantities that the earth cannot absorb it, or waste that is definitely not possible to absorb, it generates destruction of the environment. The fundamental issue is the way that we transform our environment, not the dynamics of transformation, since this is inevitable. Will we do it conserving the conditions for long-term conservation of the relation of congruence between the anthroposphere and biosphere? Or will we do it only in an inadequate way? Or simply in the short-term the cheapest way possible? We see that like all human themes this is an ethical theme.

Hence, in viewing the underlying dynamics of what is distinguished or wants to be distinguished when speaking about sustainability, it should be said that sustainability is not a process that forms part of the ecological dynamics of the biosphere. In the natural world there is no sustainability nor non-sustainability. This is a distinction that we as observers bring forth as we describe a certain domain of processes that we would like to be conserved during a certain period of time. And in order to see the domain where the distinction of sustainability exists, we must know how to observe culture, which is the niche that we generate as human beings as we inhabit our social environment.

What is it that we distinguish when we speak about culture? We human beings arise in the history of the family of bipedal primates that we belong to, when languaging as a manner of living together in coordinations of consensual coordinations of behaviour cease being an occasional phenomenon, as it was conserved from generation to generation in a group of primates, it became a central part of the manner of living that defined our lineage. When this living in languaging arises, with the rise of the ancestral family, in the pleasure of the closeness of living together in the praxis of everyday living, what arises at the same time are conversations in the recursive relational intimacy that inter-weaves the coordinations of coordinations of doings with the emotional flow of the living together that is lived.

That is, as the ancestral family arises with the rise of living in languaging, conversation arises as a mode of living together in conserving from one generation to another the learning of the sons and daughters that constitute the human lineage. When human beings arise in that way they arise in a living together in networks of conversation that in their historical transformation are constituted in the different worlds that they inhabit as different domains of feelings and sensorial-emotional-doings that are realized in a spontaneous mode in the fundamental background of living together in loving. What we connote in everyday living when we speak about cultural aspects is a network of conversations that constitute and define a manner of human living together as a network of coordinations of emotions and actions that is realized as a particular configuration of interweaving of the acting and emotioning of the persons that live that culture. As such, a culture is by its constitution a closed conservative system that generates its members to the extent that they realize it through participating in the

conversations that constitutes and defines it. It follows from this, too, that no particular action, and no particular emotion, defines a culture, because a culture, as a network of conversations, is a spontaneously arising configuration of coordinations of actions and emotions. We can deduce from this that different cultures are different closed networks of conversations that realize many other manners of human living as different configurations of interweaving of languaging and emotioning. It is also deduced that cultural change is a change in the configuration of acting and emotioning of the members of the culture, and as such it happens as a change in the closed network of conversations that originally defined the culture that changes.

The limits of a culture, as a manner of living, are operational and they arise with the establishment of it. At the same time, to belong to a culture is an operational condition, it is not a constitutive condition or intrinsic property of the human beings that realize it, and any human being can belong to different cultures in different moments of its living, in accordance with the conversations that he or she participates in at different moments.

With this in mind, we can see that what is called sustainability consists in a network of closed conversations that recursively bring forth the generation, realization and conservation of the conditions of possibility of the conservation of the well-being of the anthroposphere and biosphere. In other words, sustainability is a culture, whose fundamental orientation is found in the generation of the processes that permit the conservation of a cultural-biological matrix of human existence moving in well-being, and finally in a biological matrix of existence of other living beings that also are conserved moving in well-being.

Green box 2

We would like to emphasize here that the notion of well-being is neither an explanatory notion nor an arbitrary definition, but an abstraction of a fundamental aspect of the living of living beings in general. Since the course of the evolutionary drift that a lineage follows is defined by the preferences and desires of the organisms, the course that the evolutionary transformation arise from moment to moment defined by the conservation of well-being of the individuals that realize it. Or, what guides the course that follows the course of an evolutionary transformation of a lineage is the course of conservation of living of the organisms in dynamic congruence with the environment in which they exist.

In the traditional discourse of evolution that speaks about adaptation to the environment as an achievement that is possible through following the competitive path of adaptive advantages, all the understanding about the phenomenon of well-being of living is left out, and is distinguished as something subjective. From what the understanding of natural drift shows us, we see that we living beings slide in the living and living together in the conservation of the structural coupling in the conservation of

the living. That is, in the conservation of the natural well-being, where the well-being occurs from moment to moment in the conservation of living, which is the natural well-being in that moment and when this does not happen, the organism dies.

Hence, to understand that sustainability is a closed network of conversations permits us to become aware that the fundamental responsibility for it is in our hands, and it is fundamental since the biosphere will not do sustainability, even though the systemic-systemic processes that constitute it without doubt reveals to us, if we know how to observe, the co-drift of our different modes of living and the course that follows.

And sustainability is a closed network of conversation because it is not only a conversation but a dynamic intertwining of multiple conversations and even of closed networks of conversations in the multiple domains in which, as a matter of fact, there is a presence of the ethical concern of sustainability, in the environmental space, as well as the economic, entrepreneurial, governmental, NGO and others.

Now, as we distinguish ethics, again it is important to emphasize that we are not referring to a definition or philosophical or explanatory principle, we are emphasizing a human relational dynamic that we all can verify in everyday living as we abstract the situations in which we speak about ethical behaviour. An observer says that a person has an ethical behaviour when he or she chooses his or her doing in a way that does not do harm to himself or herself, to another or others in his or her social and ecological domain because this person cares about what could happen to others as a consequence of what he or she does or does not do, simply because he or she cares about that other person. In other words, the person does not move in the care for the relation to the others because of a respect for the norms, but because he or she cares for the persons. In this sense it is important to distinguish between ethics and morals. Ethics have a biological fundament. Given our human evolutionary history as social beings we care and are moved spontaneously by what happens to others. In ethics I care for the person(s) out of a concern for the person(s), without rational justifications. In contrast, in morals what we care about are the norms, and consequently culture is the fundament for morals and there are as many different morals as there are cultural criteria. In contrast, there is only one ethic. It is in this way that we can behave in an ethical but immoral manner as when Jesus, for instance, saved the prostitute from dying by being stoned, since the Jewish moral of the period required this punishment from its criteria of validation. Or we could behave in a moral, but not ethical way, which happens every time that a company throws a certain quantity of toxic waste into the environment knowing that it will cause ecological harm although it is allowed by the to do so by the law. Of course it is also possible to be ethical and moral, and immoral and non-ethical. Now this is not to redefine ethics, but to show the dynamics that constitutes it. If we try to construct justifications for our ethical operation we are behaving morally, and ethics does not require justifications precisely because it is a conscience consciousness, a feeling. We know when we act from the desire to embrace other persons, and when we do not.

That a consensual desire to generate sustainability for the human world and the natural world has become important has to do with our increasing consciousness about the harm that we have generated both to the biosphere and the anthroposphere. This harm always returns to us and the different communities that we constitute given the systemic-systemic nature of the cultural-biological processes. In fact, today we find ourselves at a crossroad between two different psychic eras and of the possibility of a new cultural change where the ethical concern for others, the communities and the entire biosphere, is the cardinal point around which everything else could change if we have the adequate desire and conscience.

But before viewing this let’s look at some fundamental aspects of this cultural moment.

Fundaments of the individual-social unity.

We live at a historical moment when we human beings generate pain and suffering in our lives, in the lives of others and in our environment. How does this happen to us? We human beings, as beings that live in communities, are not genetically determined. We need to live with human beings in order to become human beings. We need a social living to become social beings, and we become ill in our body and soul when we don’t have that social living. This social living is realized through the cultural living, which implies that the class of social living that we realize depend on the cultural mode that we live and live together.

But even in this social living, we need our individual living, which is what gives form to our living, and whose conservation guides the course of our transformation in whatever doing that we do to live in the community that we belong to.

The sense of the individual living is acquired from the conception in the living together with the adults with whom we live together with in the process of becoming persons in the social living. The individual sense of living is an individual-social sense. There is no contradiction between the individual and social beyond the theories that for more than 200 years have put discursively and operationally these domains in opposition to the abstract coherences of our daily living from the viewpoint of a dualist and lineal epistemological substratum. In fact, in a strict sense, there is not, a separation between public and private enterprises. The dynamics that sustain them both and that make them possible are unitarily intertwined. Without the public space that the citizens bring forth in their living together there could not arise any private companies, both get in this space everything that they need to subsist and deliver to this space what the society requires for its subsistence and cultural existence.

Furthermore, it is in this sense that we can say that every enterprise ultimately is public, since its doings always have consequences in the public space. Obviously it is not public in the domain of property ownership of the shareholders, but it is indeed in the

dynamics that make possible, generate, realize and conserve its existence in the most extended matrix in which it exists and where its products and services make or do not make sense.

Hence, one is an individual in a social environment, and the social arises in the living together of individuals. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the individual and the social in a harmonious human community that exists without discrimination and abuses, and is open for collaboration in mutual respect.

Now, in the world in general we find ourselves living in the systematic negation of the relational conditions that make possible the development of children and young people that happens as a process in which they are transformed to adult hood with an individual-social sense and who are able to generate and conserve a social living in collaboration in the generation of a living together in honesty, mutual respect and well-being, which are fundaments of a democratic way of living together. This negation we mainly do in an unconscious way, but also in conscious acts, in the household, the street, the schools, the workplace, media, spaces of recreation, etc. We do it through discrediting, denying and invalidating the possibility that the ethical concern and behaviour is in fact at the centre of our spontaneous individual and social acting.

We say, proclaim and argue that the future is insecure, that nothing is secure, that in a few years the knowledge will become obsolete and that we must achieve success at whatever price. And we say it, proclaim it and argue it in the family, the street, the universities, the public life, and the television programs.

But, at the same time, we are surprised that there is youth drug addiction, youth criminality, school violence, family violence, work abuse, youth pregnancies, or dishonesty. How could the children, youth and adults learn another way of living if that is the living and living together that we adult persons appear to validate with our behaviour, with our lack of ethics in our productive, material and intellectual activities, with our unfulfilled promises, with the violation of our agreements, with our lack of reflexion and disposition to reflect, as well as to see and correct our mistakes?

Green Square 3

Let’s look at our beginning. As babies we have all been born in the total, structural, implicit trust that there will be an adult world that will take us in, embrace and love us. We come to the world in the same implicit trust that the butterfly has as it leaves the chrysalis, in the trust that there will be a world there of nectars and flowers. In other words, our biological form arises in total coherence and in intimate relationship with the biological form of the environment that will embrace us and in relation to which we can conserve our structural coupling if the conditions for this to be possible occur.

We human beings are creators of worlds. The human baby, the boy, the girl, arise in an

operational-relational dynamics that will create the world that it will live, in joy or pain, with or without self-respect, in honesty or lie, in well-being or discomfort, and in love or in resentment, but it will always be with or against other human beings, in a fulfilled or frustrated desire to belong to a social environment that embraces it, respects it and where its personal being makes sense. But, how does this happen?

The young forms of all mammals transform themselves in living together with adults and other young they live with. The human children and young are transformed during their growth in living together with the adults with which they live, incorporating themselves into one social environment or the other to the extent that they feel that they are seen and that their life makes individual-social sense, and according to the inspirations that arise in them in that living.

Then, what is the constitutive dynamics of learning? Learning is always a result of our own drift of transformations in living together. We learn with or without education and we learn with or without teaching. And according to how we live together with others we learn what we learn.

Babies are born in the implicit trust that there will be a mother, father or adult that will receive them with tenderness and that will create with other adults an embracing environment of living together where it can trust the flow of its living as the most natural thing. All the social living beings live like this in the social environment to which they belong. Mutual trust is the fundament of living together as humans. When this trust is broken, it is because a betrayal appears that may take many forms. And when a human being lives in betrayal, pain arises, disillusion, resentment, depression, stress and the desire to leave, to find another human environment where it can recover lost trust in the desire to live and live together in the psychic and corporal peace that emerge from this fundamental trust.

And this fundamental trust is lost when there are explicit or implicit promises that are not fulfilled and betrayals to consensus that are lived as legitimately expected, in whatever moment in life. Just that children, boys and girls, and young do not have adequate resources to recover that trust as the adult persons may have that have some level of autonomy - economic or in decision-making - in the social space. Where, then, do we fail in our actions or in our commitments to what we say that we want in our social living?

We talk about grownup persons in order to differentiate them from an adult person. A person may be grown-up and not necessarily live and live together as an adult person that respects him or herself and that finds himself or herself in that fundamental axis of the centre of himself or herself from which they can say yes or no from themselves. A person is not converted to an adult person because of the fact that she or he is grown up, has work, and has children. The adult person arises if he or she lives and lives together from the fundamental ethical centre of a social living in trust.

It is also fundamental to understand that the violation of the fundamental trust of social living together is the beginning of the juvenile as well adult peripheralisation, in poor as well as rich economic situations. This human peripheralization appears in the persons as rebellion, aggression, depression, crime, no participation, distrust, drug addiction, illness, death, etc, each time we do not create a social space to live and live together in the psychic and material well-being that we promise in an explicit or implicit way.

And if we speak about the underlying dynamics of the global social insustainability we will find the multidimensional dynamics of human peripheralization at its centre, since it is this that disintegrates the conditions of possibility for the realization and conservation of the relations of congruence or structural coupling at the human relational level of the anthroposphere.

What is painful is that it is we, ourselves, who cultivate human peripheralisation when we do not behave as responsible adults, and make social promises that we will not follow. In that way we reduce the possibilities of the children, girls and boys, and young, to grow in the well-being that is brought by a living together with a social sense and trust.

The human peripheralization occurs as whatever mode of living and living together whose consequence is the alienation that is produced by a living together that is far from self-respect and respect for others. Human peripheralization is not only present as a mode of coexisting where there is material poverty; there is also human peripheralization where there are no problems of economic kind. It is sufficient to see how intrafamiliar violence and drug addiction, among others, are dynamics that are present in communities that are wealthy economically. And what does this show us?

That human peripheralization occurs when we live and live together outside of our fundamental biological condition of our loving nature as social beings. Love occurs as the domain of relational behaviours through which oneself or the other arise as a legitimate other in living together with oneself. Since love is an occurrence, something that happens, what an observer distinguishes as a lovable behaviour, are relational dynamics of living together, a coexistence centred in the respect for oneself and for others, in the social space to which one belongs. To love is to see, to see is to love. In other words, we are not talking about feelings, we are not talking about values, to be tender or compassionate, but the operational dynamics of mutual acceptance that gave rise to the social domain from the first social insects.

And, when, where and how have we been so blind that we have generated spaces where it is possible that our children and young become peripheral? So that one could say, for instance, that the persons are not born criminal, they are made so, according to the mode of living together hat that they have come to live.

Where is our possibility then to leave this painful crossroad? A crossroad that we continue to generate, realize and conserve in our mode of relating in our culture that we live. We think that our great possibility is to transform ourselves into loving, serious and responsible adult persons. The children and young want adult persons to trust and respect.

In that way of reflexive transformation there is only one way out, and that is a fact of our biological constitution: The Biology of Love. And the proceeding of social action in human communities is to generate the Ethical-Reflexive-Action in all our doings, having biology of love as a reference for reflexion and action in every moment from the conception to the adult autonomy.

We have said that the baby is born loving, in other words, that all we who share this culture have been born loving, but we have been betrayed with negligence, punishment, abandonment, and corporal and psychic violation. And it is from this betrayal that the boy, girl, young, the adult, are distanced, and become peripheral. In resentment they look for another social environment that will embrace them. It may be through criminality, drugs or theories that justify discrimination and aggression. In the end, it is this path that that brings them irremediably to illness of the mind, the body and the soul that is expressed through fanaticism, authoritarianism, mental and physical disorders like bulimia, anorexia, self-mutilation, and alcoholism, among others.

In the potential of their unavoidable growing, young human beings search for a meaning for their individual living that will give them a legitimate social belonging. If they do not find it they become peripheral in the anger, in the social aggression, in the rebellion that moves toward the resentment. The young with desperation want adult persons who embrace them, that respect them; adult persons that show them a way to a desirable loving world; adult persons that are willing to reflect, to notice their errors and to correct them. The young want to feel that they have presence; they want to feel that they are legitimate part of a living in a social environment in which their life has an individual-social sense.

What happens when the young feel that this social environment does not arise, or they feel that when it appears to be there, it betrays, rejects or invalidates them? In the attempt to obtain or recover the presence that they want, and insecure about their proper value in this situation, they can enter on the path of the bully that oppresses the weakest, or they can enter the path of cynicism that pretends an autonomy that they know that they do not have. The young live the pain and suffering of not being seen, of not having an individual-social sense, and from the resentment that this generates they search to belong to a different community, remote and transgressive. They may begin to accept invitations that promise to give them presence and an individual-social sense in the audacity of denying the same human sphere to which they long to belong.

The way out of the individual-social negation is systemic-systemic, multi-dimensional,

and the co-inspiration of a common project that results naturally in the family, the school, the local community, the public and private organisations, in the own country and also in a common co-inspirative planetary project. Such a project could be understood as a common purpose of living together that cultivates in an everyday way the spontaneity of mutual respect in a sphere of living together where all the persons are legitimate citizens participating in its creation and conservation.

Some fundamental elements of the co-inspiration of these different common projects of social trust:

A) That they compromise themselves with the everyday dynamics of transformation of the boys, girls, young and grown-up to adult persons, to citizens that respect themselves, with an ethical sense, and autonomous reflection and action, in the includible course of their spontaneous growing;

B) That they compromise themselves with the continual creation and conservation of an everyday space of social trust and living together of adult persons that facilitate and conserve their spontaneously choosing the ethical and responsible behaviour in their different doings whatever they are.

C) That they compromise themselves with opening spaces where the citizens can and want to orient and guide their creativity and their knowledge from their ethical and social conscience, so that their living and doing, whatever they are, contribute to the generation of an anthroposphere that creates well-being for all its members in the conservation of the biosphere that makes them possible.

Spheres: The family as a fundamental centre of the process of transformation of its members should be invited and incorporated in a participation that amplifies the conscience about how central the adult persons are with the boys, girls and young who share their everyday living from birth onwards. It is the responsibility of the fathers, mothers, grandfathers and adult persons in general, to be the first ethical and loving reference in the life of the youngest, for the simple reason of living and living together with them. The family is not only supplier of a place to live, of food, to provide a nest, it is also a supplier of a psychic niche composed by adult persons that respect themselves, as autonomous beings. If this happens, the boys, girls and young arise in their living in a spontaneous manner in a psychic and relational niche where there is no talk about respect, but you live and live together in the respect as a natural mode of living together. The great task of the adults with boys, girls and young who share a large part of the fundamental transition of their vital history, is to supply the generation of all spaces so that they at the same time are transformed to adult persons that respect themselves.

Schools can have areas for sport, artistic, technical, scientific, literary, economic, ecological and social activities that can attract the vital energy, creative imagination and effective action of all young, guided and accompanied by embracing and inspiring teachers, in a living together that only by being lived in loving-educating results amplifying the self-respect and reflexive autonomy and action of the boys, girls and young that live together there. Furthermore, it is fundamental that the schools also consider the families and communities with which they relate as embracing areas.

What is also required is a deep conscious and responsible participation of other social actors that are part of the anthroposphere where boys, girls, young and grown-ups grow, including companies and consortiums, media, politicians, educational institutions, social organisations and international organizations, or more generally, all the adults that in some way or another are transformative referents for the citizens. It is in this sphere where governments, companies, the academic sector, organisations of the civil society and networks of citizens have an opportunity and a fundamental relevance at the moment of opening spaces of conversation, collaboration and dialogue between communities and institutions for the consolidation of the democratic living together.

The expansion of the technological creativity, and our admiration for what could be done by it, brought us to think at our present history that maybe all the human problems can or could be resolved by it. Everything seems so easy. There is no doubt genius, dedication, and willingness to act in order to do everything that can actually be done in engineering, communication, medicine and robotics is still present. In the same way they thought during the 19th and 20th century when the great expansion of rational thought and scientific explanation began. They felt intimately that reason would defeat abuses, injustice and fanaticism in the belief that illuminated governments would bring humanity on the way of justice and well-being. However, as we know by now, this has not happened. Now we have put our hopes in the supposed omnipotence of technology.

We human beings today want something more than the mere charm of knowledge of the general laws of the cosmos, which has permitted us to develop our technological capacities. We want certitude in the management of the world we live. And we want it through the application of the general laws of cosmos, thinking that their application will not only give us power of action, but will also free us from the responsibility of our doing because we are supposing that we are using natural processes. We want everything to happen as we want it to happen in whatever human or non-human domain. And in order to accomplish this double intention we have invented many theories about human behaviour and well-being. With the purpose of obtaining the results that we desire, no matter the price, we have searched for general laws of the cosmos that justify what we do, with the argument that by using these laws our doing is rational and objective, and for that reason of universal and transcendental validation with respect to ourselves. In this way we also want to govern: we want to be rational

managers that act justly out of reason. But the human sphere is not like the non-human sphere: the molecules, cells, the metals, and plastics do not complain, nor do they have desires, but we human beings do. We study the laws of the market, the laws of the human mind, how the nervous system operates and how our emotions operate. We do all this in order to assure us that the behaviours of the consumers, the public, the citizens, are as we want them to be. However, deep at heart we human beings do not want that, we do not want to be manipulated, we do not want others to determine our doing and thinking. What we want is to be responsible for our doing through our understanding. We do not want to be induced, instead we want to choose. We do not want to be subjected to the arbitrariness of others, instead we want to be autonomous and ethical. And with that we want to be responsible and conscious of our acts. No living being feels good when they are subjected to the arbitrariness of others. What is peculiar to us in this regard is that we human beings can reflect and choose our desires. We can choose what we want to live, and even choose what we want to want to live.

In these circumstances: What will be the art of management? Like everything human it depends on what we want to conserve in our living, and the world of living together that we want to contribute to when it is our task to govern. One of the general laws of the cosmos is that we cannot determine what happens in an absolute way neither in the natural or human worlds. We do not have a magic wand at our disposal. The art of management is therefore the art of coordinating wills, desires and preferences to do what you know to do at the appropriate moment and in the adequate place. In other words the art of management is the art of coordinating emotions. How? In the demand and manipulation that negates the other, or from the mutual respect that embraces and enables.

Management moves between two extreme emotions: obedience and collaboration. Obedience arises from the negation of oneself in the fear of threat, and collaboration arises from the respect for oneself in the pleasure to do what you do with others. Obedience demands rigidity which restricts intelligent behaviours because there is no presence of the other. The willingness to see, and correct mistakes, is denied because discovering them threatens living. Doubting an others honesty and punishing them for their mistakes, leads to the invitation of lying. In contrast, in collaboration, the intelligent and creative behaviour is amplified, it is possible to correct mistakes because there is no threat to living and there is respect to see them because there is no doubt in honesty. But above all, the emotional way that we want to follow in management depends on the world that we want to live. Do we want a world with whole persons, or a world with resented persons? Do we want a world open to correct the mistakes or a world closed in appearances?

Only in the democratic living together that is generated from day to day in collaboration you live in with respect for yourself and for the others in a way where the boys and girls learn that living is their desired spontaneous living together. This mode of living together is possible. Only in a management of mutual respect, based on the honesty

and the trust in honesty, is democracy possible as a mode of living, as a sphere of living together in the common project that is generated from day to day, as a sphere of collaboration for the conservation of that living together. No doubt this appears reasonable, but more important still: Do we want it?

Reason and Emotion The psychic space is the unconscious source of all conscious and unconscious action, and as such it defines in every moment the relational character of everything that we do as living and human beings. In the happening of our human living we flow in the successive or intertwined habitus of many psychic spaces that define in every moment the character of our doing in that moment. Each time that we invoke a psychic space we invoke a sphere of relational doings in our living and living together.

We human beings are emotional beings, like all living beings, whose doings and feelings, in all dimensions of their living, are guided moment by moment by their emotional flow. What is peculiar for us is that among the living beings we human beings live in languaging and it is from this languaging or recursive flow of consensual coordinations of doings, that we are rational beings when we act in congruent ways with the operational coherences of our experiences. And it is from our cultural living that we can use reason to justify or deny our emotions, without viewing that it is in fact the emotions, the desires, the preferences or that we want to do or do not want to do something that determines the rational arguments that we use to do or not do something.

It is for this reason that a common planetary project of co-inspiration is not a set of possible doings; it is not a set of rational arguments that justify those doings and deny others. It is rather an emotional space, a configuration of desires, a psychic-relational space that determines in each moment what doings and what rational arguments that we accept or reject as operations that will permit us to realize our desires, as well as having or not having the emotional energy to do it.

From this understanding we see that we do not want to want a project that conserves the inequality that we live. For the observer inequality is the distinction of a psychic-relational systemic and recursive space where consciously or unconsciously the systemic-systemic relational dynamics where one lives the discrimination and competition, where the insustainability of human communities is conserved and wants to be conserved. A conservation of living occurs in the psychic space of inequality in which the children, young and adults grow in a living and living together without individual-social sense in their personal realisation, or they loose it in the relational way that should guide them towards the adult life in a democratic co-living.

The aggression, the abuse, the cheating, the dishonesty, the exploitation, are all aspects of a living and living together in the psychic space of inequality. The way out of the

psychic space of inequality is the biology of love: the spontaneous operation in the domains of those relational behaviours through which one, the other, arise as legitimate other in coexistence with oneself. And this is possible precisely because we human beings, even if we can cultivate aggression, (the denial of the other), are love-dependant beings in our biological fundament, beings that become sick in body and soul in the absence of love.

When we speak about psychic space it should be said that we as observers connote the operational-relational dynamic as a present history of the dynamic architecture of the unity organism-niche, constitutes in each moment the relational-operational matrix that an organism can live. Languaging is a central part of the niche in the relational dynamics of organism-niche among us human beings. What we do and involve in our conversation and our reflexions in our living and living together contributes to configure the psychic spaces that we live in our relational living. And for this reason if we want to leave the psychic space of inequality we should change our languaging and thinking as a fundament for change of our doings. We live respect through respecting and we live honesty through honest behaviour. Respect generates mutual respect, honesty generates mutual trust, and the mutual respect and the mutual trust generate collaboration. Mutual respect, mutual trust and collaboration open the space for co-inspiration in the generative creativity of individual-social-ecological well-being in a living and living together that results naturally in the harmony of the relation of the anthroposphere-biosphere.

Love-Educate

When you know that you know you cannot pretend that you do not know. Knowing that you know in the biology of love is the fundament for an individual living and living together in the ethical-reflexion-action. The ethical-reflexion-action is the happening of a process of reflexive transformation of living together that we normally invoke with the word education.

In the historical moment that we live the change of orientation that we desire in our living together will not occur spontaneously. It requires commitment and the conscience of an intentional act. It requires that we want to do it. It requires a change in reflexion that opens up the space for the desired action in the willingness to do it. All human behaviour arises in an unconscious emotional intimate sphere that constitutes the relational-operational space that specifies in each moment the feeling of what is or is not possible for him or her and what is desirable and what is not desirable in his or her relational living.

Moreover, every human being learns from her or his birth, in the company of the adult persons with which it lives together, the emotional-operational matrix in which she or he realizes their living as a particular participating or peripheral member in the culture of the community that receives or rejects herself or himself. If a baby, boy, girl or young

persons, grows in a loving and tender sphere that respects it as a legitimate member of the social community where it lives, it grows as a social and ethical being capable of collaborating and co-inspiring in a common project without fear of disappearing in doing so. It grows like an adult autonomous person. How could this be done now?

This can be done by seeing to it that babies, boys, girls or young persons, in the course of transformation to their adult hood, find adult persons close to them in the household, the street, in the school and the university, that see them, that listen to them and that does not lie, nor betray them; and who they can respect. That is what all children, boys and girls want: adult persons that are social educators in their co-existence with them, beings whose living and living together they consciously or unconsciously want to repeat.

The recursive systemic view in our understanding of cultural biology, shows us that the education we want is a reflexive transformation of living together, it is a phenomenon that occurs in the present that one lives in a dynamic way, and in a conscious and unconscious way while we are living.

Now, will the appropriate educational tasks be done only by teachers? By fathers and mothers? By communicators?

Now one could ask oneself: What happens with education in that transformation of living together? Is it about the constitution of boys, girls and young persons as adult persons? If we look at the animal world we can see that the adults are not adults at the moment of sexuality, but when they cease to be dependent on others in a basic way in order to survive. They are always related to others but there is a moment when the little animal manages the world in a way that permits it to act with autonomy and that is its moment of adulthood. Our real problem from an educational perspective is that this will happen anyway. It may be that some children do not reach it and in that case they say that they are dependent adults; but the truth is that they are not adult persons, they have no autonomy, they do not decide from themselves, for good or for worse, they are constituted as grownup persons but their reflexive autonomy and action is limited. It is all about is children, young and grown-ups living in an experiential space of transformation of living together – that begins in the womb - where they are transformed in such a way that this space generates all the possibilities for autonomy in interactions, so that it comes about in the moment where they are adult persons.

A space of living together where he or she is transformed into adult persons, as a being that respects him or herself, that respect others, that can collaborate, that is autonomous and responsible.

Education is a reflexive transformation of living together. The children, young and grown-ups are transformed with the adult persons with whom they are living together. In terms of the psychic space they are immersed in the conversation of the living of the

adult persons. This means that they will depend on what happens in the education of the psychic life of the adult person. If we want a democratic living together, we must live together in a way that imply this psychology, and the children, young and grown-ups will be growing doing the things, doing the conversations and living the emotioning of that type of living together.

What happens to us is that when we talk about education we sometimes hear that what we want is to prepare the children from a technical point of view to operate at the space of the market, in order to operate in a sphere of looking for success in competition. This is alienating because it blinds us with respect to the natural drift of love in the human world.

It is an education that denies itself, that does not see the children, young students, or the grown-up persons that realize it or relate to it. It does not see them because it has its attention put on the future, and in what the children should become in the future. But the central notion is that the transition towards an adult life is a transition from a dependent to an autonomous life. To be autonomous means to one acts from oneself. You will say yes and no from yourself and you will take responsibility for the consequences. This is what is essential about education, not the technical aspects, the practises or the theories.

We generate enormous confusion when we think that the themes of living together, that the human problems in general, are resolved with technology or science. Neither science nor technology solves human problems. Human problems are all relational. They belong to the domain of the emotions. The technological problems, the scientific problems, are absolutely simple. They deal with capacities of manipulation, whether it is with regard to studying something or constructing something. But living together is not of that nature. Living together is about emotions, it is about respect, love, and with the possibility of listening, of respecting each other in spite of discrepancies. It has to do with creating a world of living together where it is or is not pleasant to live.

The central task of education and democracy is that this transition to adult life will be a configuration of a world that will be pleasant for the children, young, and where it is possible to collaborate and learn everything because you have no fear of disappearing in the collaboration, and no shame of not knowing.

If the children, young and grown-ups live together with serious and responsible, loving adult persons, and they enjoy and love what they do, no matter what, and they teach it in the respect and attention of the difficulties that the children, young and grown-ups will have at some moment, then those children and young will incorporate in their living in a spontaneous manner the mathematical vision, the biological vision, the mechanical vision, the gastronomical, and the citizen view, among others. And these assignments and works will be, so to speak, the instrument of living together through which these children, young and grown-ups, will transform into adult persons socially integrated

with self-confidence, with capacity to collaborate and learn whatever subject without loosing their social consciousness, and hence their ethics.

In these circumstances: Who is a social educator? Every adult person that chooses to live in the psychic space of a creator of spaces of reflexive living together in which children, young and grown-ups, can grow in the desire to become autonomous adult persons, serious, joyful and responsible, with ethical and social conscience in a human changing cosmos that they generate as a desirable space in which to live and live together, in the mutual respect arising from the respect for themselves as primarily loving beings.

Is this possible? With no doubt. In fact, all grown-up persons will be that way if they are not trapped in educational, philosophical or political theories that deny them in an conscious or unconscious desire to conserve a living together in relations of authority and subjugation, competition, success and addiction to power and profit.

The mother, the father, the teacher, the politicians, indeed, all grown-up persons, who from the moment we have transformed into adult, autonomous and reflexive persons in our living, that live and live together from the centre of ourselves, configure with our living the best space of good soil for the growing of children, young and adult persons.

When we live in that way we transform ourselves into social educators, without effort, only in the desire to live and live together with the children, young and grown-ups in a space where they are not neglected, where all their questions are legitimate, where the mistakes are not punished, and where there is no fear to not be seen because you think differently and you can reflect. And at the same time we generate in and from our individual-social living a mode of living that results in a cultural change.

Cultural change, the change of era and the end of leadership in the era of co-inspiration.

Let us look at the dynamics involved in cultural change. To the extent that a culture as a human manner of living appears to us in our observations as a particular closed network of conversation, we can see that its’ constitutive dynamics are a particular configuration of coordinations of coordinations of actions and emotions (as a particular intertwining of languaging and emotioning). We can then see that a culture arises when a human community begins to conserve from one generation to another, a new network of coordinations of coordinations of doings and emotions as their proper way of living, and disappears or changes when the network of conversation that constitutes it ceases to be conserved. Therefore, to understand cultural change, we should be capable both to characterize the closed network of conversations that, as an everyday practice of coordinations of actions and emotions between the members of the particular community that constitutes the culture that this community lives, and also recognize the conditions of emotional change under which the coordinations of actions of a

community can change in such a way that a new culture arises.

In order to do this it is inevitable to understand the emotional fundament of the cultural doings. To the extent that we grow as members of a culture, we grow in a network of conversations participating with other members in it in a continuous consensual transformation that submerges us in a manner of living that becomes, and becomes to us, spontaneously natural. There, to the extent that we acquire our identity and individual-social consciousness, we follow the emotioning of our mothers and the grown-ups with which we live together as something natural. We learn the emotional flow of our culture that makes all our actions proper actions in it. Our mothers show us, without knowing that they do so, and we learn from them - in the innocence of a non-reflected coexistence - the emotioning of her culture, simply by living with them. The result is that once we have grown as members in a particular culture, everything in it appears adequate and evident and, without paying attention to it, the flow of our emotioning (our desires, preference, rejections, aspirations, intentions, choices…) guides our actions in the changing circumstances of our living, so that all our actions are actions that belong to that culture.

It is from the reflexion that we have made so far that we propose to view the human evolution, and abstracting, from what its cultural biological history shows us, the fundamental sensibilities and emotions that has guided it. However, we will focus fundamentally on the last era because of the nature of this document.

In that way we will talk about psychic eras showing the configuration of emotioning in everyday living that according to our opinion characterised different moments of human history, as different psychic spaces or modes of habitating that took place, and from where all the relational–operational dimensions of living together took place. The relational-operational living together was lived in each moment of each psychic era as a present in continuous change in which the emotional flow arose from moment to moment from the prevailing historic-operational and philosophical-epistemological background. What we say with this affirmation is that in each moment of the historical-operational epigenesis that configures different psychic eras of humanity, the human being has conserved in a central manner different desires, has had different tastes and preferences whose foundation have been determined from one moment to another by the habitat of the present that was lived.

According to our thinking the different psychic eras of humanity correspond with the dynamic history of integral transformation of the human psyche, from its conception, passing through childhood, adolescence, the adult condition and reflexive maturity, which configure in each moment how the nature and sense of the human in the belonging to the biosphere is lived, towards what it is oriented and how it is understood.

In the mythical vision this happening in human life, from its conception to its end in maturity, occurs as a recursive dynamic where the wisdom of maturity leads to the

beginning of a new psychic history in the following generation that can be more desirable because it implies the possibility of a repetition of the cycle, but with a displacement that is amplified by the conscience of a major coherence with the natural world. The happening of the psychic eras of humanity that we talk about here, realize a mythical cycle, and makes possible a reflexive space that at the base is known and recognized from the proper living in the living together. This happening of the psychic eras of humanity start from the Archaic Era in the origin of humanity, to the post-post-modern Era, quoted before, as the era where we recover the conscience and the actions at hand lost in the historical transitions of human belonging to the biosphere, which is the background of existence where everything human is possible and happens. We recover this conscience in systemic-systemic coherences, by making it possible to open and amplify the systemic-systemic view that is constitutive of the human as a living being that can reflect about its own living and the worlds that it generates in that living.

Archaic Psychic Era: Fundamental emotional dynamics: love as a spontaneous happening. This Era speaks about the origin of the human in the origin of the family as a permanent mode of living together in the intimacy of the psychic-corporal pleasure and well-being. In that way languaging and conversation arise as a mode of living together in the relational intimacy of the coordinations of doings and emotions.

Homo sapiens-amans: Spontaneous presence of love.

The rise of the human lineage in the conservation of conversation from one generation to another in the learning of the children.

Homo sapiens-amans amans: The presence of the conservation of love.

In this Era we live the evolutionary history of the lineage of Homo sapiens-amans and its possible ramifications in three lineages: Homo sapiens-amans amans, Homo sapiens-amans agressans and Homo sapiens-amans arrogans. These three lineages had arisen as cultural lineages among which the only remaining lineage that is conserved as a cultural biological lineage is the lineage Homo sapiens-amans amans. If love had not been conserved in our evolutionary drift as a cultural-biological lineage, and Homo sapiens-amans amans had not been conserved, humans would have disappeared. Only through the conservation of the psychic-corporal well-being that is conserved in love, we human beings in the present conserve living.

The two other lineages, if they had evolved as cultural-biological lineages, would have extinguished, even if they still arise with some frequency as temporary cultural lineages.

The lineage Homo sapiens-amans agressans occurs as a living together that conserves the blindness of aggression.

The lineage Homo sapiens-amans arrogance occurs as a living together that conserves the blindness of arrogance.

The matriztic psychic era:

Fundamental emotional dynamics: love as a desired living together.

This is the Era of the transformation of Homo sapiens-amans amans: The fundamental form of living together is in small groups that collaborate in the doings of sharing the everyday living united in sensuality, tenderness and sexuality as a sphere of well-being. This psychic-corporal well-being arises in a spontaneous manner, it does not arise from reflexion but in a mode of living and living together in coherence with the natural world. The everyday attitude is one of collaboration in everyday life, in the search for food, the care of children and the use of tools – in short, in a mode of cultural living that opens the space for co-inspiration, and does not give space for the conservation of domination and submission, and where aggression is an occasional event that does not guide the living together.

In this era we live the generation of cultural worlds and the understanding of the worlds that are lived.

Matriztic cultures arise that are centred in relations of collaboration and co-inspiration and consciousness of the unity of living is amplified.

The extinction of the lineages aggressans and arrogance is produced because of the restriction of conscience of the unity of existence. This happens as a result from the relational blindness that the emotional domains of aggression and arrogance produce. The lineages that arise in the expansion of aggression and omnipotence as an everyday cultural living drift towards their own extinction because they destroy themselves and the biological environment that makes them possible. This may have happened with the forms of living of the self-destructive Homo sapiens-amans agressans and Homo sapiens-amans when they entered the dynamics of hegemonic expansion out of aggression and arrogance as cultural-biological lineages. These modes of living have appeared many times in previous eras during our patriarchal history (Era of appropriation) in the form of fanaticism and empires that generated their own extinction with the human pain and/or environmental harm that they produced in living the blindness that is produced by aggression and arrogance.

The psychic era of appropriation:

Fundamental emotional dynamics: worship of authority.

This is the Era of awakening to the manipulative consciousness of the expansion of the

manual and explicative ability in doing and living that opens the sense of appropriating the worlds that arise in living together. This also implies the loss of trust in the spontaneous coherences of the world that you live and expansion of the desire to control. When appropriation arises, some modes of living together in appropriation and discrimination arise, and with the discrimination arises the cultures centred in relations of domination, submission, hierarchies, and denial of oneself and the other in authority and obedience. This gave rise to the cultural lineages of Homo sapiens-amans agressans and arrogance. When you loose trust in the spontaneous coherences of the world, fear and insecurity arise and so the guiding emotions in this era are distrust, control and power that seek the domination over the things and over God. You believe that you can recover the trust in the coherences of the world that you live through control and power.

Modern psychic era:

Fundamental emotional dynamics: the domination of authority and the deprivation of power.

This is the era of expansion of the knowing of science and technology and knowledge, appropriation and domination of the world that you live because you think and feel that you dominate it.

We live in the trust that we can directly or indirectly know the thing in itself of the world that we live. We live in the trust that the knowledge about the world and the worlds that we live give universal validity to our arguments and cognitive affirmations. We act in the belief that knowledge generates well-being for humanity.

Post-modern psychic era: Fundamental dynamics: The domination of knowledge.

This is the era of domination of science and technology. We can do everything that we imagine if we operate according to the operational coherences of the domains where we imagine it. We are omnipotent, we are Gods in our doing, and the human beings are instruments for the realisation of our desires and designs.

We live in the hegemony of leadership: the appropriation of truth, fanaticism, ideological alienations, in innovation, manipulation and dishonesty.

We live the generation of pain and suffering in the anthroposphere and biosphere. We also move in our living in the search for eternity and entrapment in the psychic solitude of the alienation of omnipotence.

Post-post-modern psychic era: Fundamental emotional dynamics: The rise of the conscious ethical reflexion and action.

This is the Era of pain and suffering of the anthroposphere and biosphere that the alienation of the omnipotence generates. This opens the space for reflexion and the rise of the consciousness of the ideological and technological alienations, and the pain and suffering that they generate.

This is the Era where the ethical responsibility arises in the anthroposphere and biosphere as a consequence of the expansion of the consciousness that it is we ourselves that generate the pain and suffering that we live in the anthroposphere and biosphere.

We begin to live the end of leadership as the way of ethical reflexion-action opens up, and there is a return of honesty and the desire to collaborate and co-inspire.

There is a rise of the conscience and understanding of the cultural-biological matrix of human existence that generates, realizes and conserves the human as the generator of the cosmos that we live as the relational and operational sphere where the present of our living happens.

We live the following psychic dimensions: i) The consciousness and desire to ethical reflexion-action, ii) the consciousness of the belonging to the anthroposphere and biosphere, iii) consciousness of the care and responsibility for the biosphere and anthroposphere.

In this way, then, the modern era is the era of doing and knowing, the era where our human capacities in doing and scientific explanation becomes apparent; the era where we human beings find ourselves with technological capacities that open the doors for actions only imagined before. The post-modern era is the era of understanding; the era where we become aware that we can do everything that we imagine if we operate with the operational coherences in the relational sphere where we imagine it; the era where we become aware of the consequences of what we are doing but we do not commit ourselves to act in accordance with that conscience. However, the consequences are there, we can see, hear, touch and feel them. That we do not commit ourselves to act in accordance with the conscience that we have, because of attachment to our certainties, because we want to conserve in a conscious or unconscious way the omnipotence of believing that we can do everything that occurs to us if we conserve the operational coherences in the domain where it occurs to us, in other words, the attachment to power and omnipotence, brings us along the way of discomfort.

And it is from this psychic space that the post-post-modern era begins. It begins when we become aware that we know that we know that we know and that we understand that we understand that we understand, and at the same time we become aware that

this knowing that we know that we know, and this understanding that we understand that we understand, commits us to action. This is the era where we are conscious that if we do not act according to what we know that we know we are lying to ourselves and we are lying to others, including our children. When you know that you know you cannot pretend that you do not know without lying. The post-post-modern era arises as the era of ethical conscience in our living and living together, since we know that we know, and understand that we understand, which commits us to action. However, it does not commit us to any action, it commits us to a conscious and responsible action that means that the consequences of our actions do not do harm others. In this era when we do not want to continue to fool ourselves. We would like to say too, that the post-post-modern era or the era of ethics in living and living together is the era that generates an operational-relational space where we as living beings and human beings in particular feel more comfortable, more at home because our constitutive ontology is oriented to live and live together as happy and harmonious beings in the conservation of well-being. This is the era where we want to live in a larger coherence with the natural world, the era that puts us at the centre of our being loving beings.

To the extent that we now know that we know the consequences that our doings have in the human and ecological sphere that arise with our doings, and we act according to that knowing that we know, we are in the transition to the post-post-modern era. In the post-post-modern era we are more conscious of what we must do in the conservation of the anthroposphere and the biosphere so that the human living in well-being and in psychic and operational harmony with other living beings out of respect for the legitimacy of their existence is generated and conserved. We pass to the post-post-modern era when we become aware that the socially responsible seriousness, efficiency and creativity in whatever doing are expanded in a community where we live in mutual respect and the autonomy of collaboration. As we pass to the post-post-modern era we become aware that this happens in a human community when its members feel that what they do makes sense because they give sense to it as they live it. They also become aware that this community is an ethical community.

But, how shall we act? Which is the adequate behaviour to generate this living together in the spontaneousness of our feeling? Which is the adequate behaviour to realize in the transition to the post-post-modern era and to conserve the spontaneousness of the everyday social responsibility? What must happen in the soul of the doings of the productive or service activities? What must occur in the soul of the economic-political doing that has opened up the possibility for this change of era with so much pain and suffering in the anthroposphere and biosphere, so that this change in fact could happen?

We know what must happen and we also know, in general, that if we do not have in an immediate manner an adequate procedure at hand to do what we desire to do, we can always conceive and realize an adequate procedure if we want.

That is, we know as we pass to the post-post-modern era that it is not lack of imagination or technological capacity that will hamper us in creating adequate actions to generate the living together in well-being that we want, independently of what circumstance. It is the desire to do it.

Why the end of leadership?

“We live in a time when the majority of the challenges that we confront are beyond the power of hierarchic authority. The ´leaders´ in visible hierarchical positions simply do not have the power to alter the systemic forces with which we conserve the space between rich and poor, destroying the ecosystems and species, the use of more water than can be generated in certain regions, the destruction of the earth (the grains), the generation of waste and toxic waste and the generation of CO2 in excess of what nature can absorb. Only when we begin to note that “those who are in power” only can use their influence to promulgate new systems accompanied by more extended changes in how everyone create a new understanding and a new action, can those who are in hierarchical authority positions do their part. This has always been a base in our work with organisations where we have talked much about “ecological leadership”, which is necessary for a deeper change. And it is equally true for the big systems. The “leader” in each one of us, without considering our position, is blinded by the belief in the own benefit. In the “leader” is the person that permits us not to be responsible. I am thinking that maybe they are right at the Matriztic Institute and that we should declare that this is the era of the “end of leadership” in order to take our courage and audacity so that everyone of us can “cross the threshold” with regard to our own capacities to create.”

In this present that we live we distinguish in the people a desire for well-being, joy and harmony with the natural world, at the same time as we distinguish much pain and suffering in all humanity, riches and miseries that move us to ask how we are doing our living? How do we generate so much pain in the middle of the well-being of few in the moment of most creative potential and capacity of action in our history? We invite you to look, to know how to look at our present. Let us do it without fear and without pretending to conceal what we see. What do we see?

“During the last 100 years we have spawn a network of interdependence around the world that has never existed before; through the daily choices, the food we eat, the cars we drive, the things we buy, the energy that we use. Now we have the power to affect the living of the persons and the species on the other side of the planet. And they can affect us. But at the same time, when this interdependence has grown, our capacity to understand this interdependence has diminished. We don´t know where our food, water and energy come from, and we don’t see the consequences of how they come to us. In fact, many north American children think that the food comes from the super-markets.”

We know that with our living we continuously generate the world that we live, and that

the world that we generate in our living recursively modifies our living and our living together, constituting an anthroposphere that as an ecological matrix of human living together arise as an integral part of the biosphere, in recursive dynamics that do not cease nor will cease, except with our extinction. In these circumstances if we look at the present that we are living we can see the rise of the post-post-modern era in the growing presence in our everyday living together of ecological and ethical reflexions and considerations. Reflexions and considerations that arise from a change of consciousness from the knowing that we know that the well-being in the anthroposphere only can rise and be conserved as an everyday individual act of creativity in our living together.

The economic-political doing is not, nor could exist, separated from this change in consciousness since it arises to a large extent as a result of the changes that its presence brings to the human habitat. In fact, at this moment no human community is possible without the productive activities of enterprises both because these are an intrinsic part of the ecological sphere of the anthroposphere that we live, and that the global transformation of the biosphere itself that has risen as a systemic-systemic result of the conservation of its operation.

In this transformation of the anthroposphere and biosphere, the magnitude of the presence of the economic doing and the magnitude of the consequences of this doing in our human living and living together, makes it necessary to reflect on the character of this doing as an aspect of our everyday living together. The economic doing under the notion of free enterprise and free market is viewed as a doing which, because it arises as a private initiative, could be called private even if it in a strictly sense always has public consequences in the community where it arise, the same community that makes it possible, and sustains it. However, even if every doing as an activity that happens in the flow of living and living together of a human community participate at the same time in these two relational dimensions (private and public), in this moment we want to note the emphasis that is put on the separation of the private and public in the present, as if it concerned opposite and mutually exclusive relations. Hence, it happens that we are now found in a situation in our historical present where it is expected that the creativity of the members of an organisation is more oriented towards gain than well-being of the internal and external communities that makes them possible. Furthermore, this happens without recognizing that in the transformation of the anthroposphere and biosphere that the organisations generate, the central task of such organisations is now essentially public service. This also happens without seeing that the exclusive orientation towards gain constitutes a course that brings the anthroposphere towards ecological and human disaster. We have known this for a long time, but only recently are we accepting that we know that we know.

The satisfaction of the addictions to gain and power during the post-modern era requires that our plans have results, and for that to happen perfection is required in the realisation of what is planned. For the plan to happen persons that participate in its realization do not commit mistakes, that they do not change opinion, that they do not

have initiatives that have not been considered. In sum, it is required that they behave like robots. What may appear marvellous in robots is that, given no mistake in their construction, an accidental relation or error in their use, they behave in a perfect and predictable way according to their design. Living beings in general and human beings in particular, are not like that. We are not robots. We human beings want to think, we want to reflect, we want to change opinion, we want to take initiatives, and we want to participate in what we do. We want to be seen and heard like intelligent and creative beings. In fact, when we find ourselves in a sphere of work where you want to operate in the certainty that you will have the desired results in some particular project, you procure to do whatever thing to assure that those who participate in the realisation of the project act with full precision according to what is considered the adequate procedure to obtain those results. That is, we want to design the behaviour of our “collaborators” and employees with rewards, punishment, and rational arguments in such a way that they behave according to our specifications. That is, we want that they behave like multi-dimensional robots in which we can trust. If we recognize it or not, this is the task of leadership. However, the efficiency of leadership, whichever its denomination, always lasts a short time because the we want to be creative participants, and if we are not we soon get tired, bored, and want to do something else. Leadership requires that followers abandon their own reflexive autonomy and let themselves be guided by another trusting or submitting to his or her directions or desires, if it is because of inspiration or for fear to loose something without the access to complain or ask reflexive questions. However, the inspiration in the doings of a group does not last in the absence of creative participation, and the complaints as well as the reflexive questions cannot be stopped indefinitely without giving rise to frustrations, anger, unwillingness or contempt.

When you conceive a doing that requires a certain procedure that could only be fulfilled through a concerted action of those who realize it, it is the nature of the doing and the concerted action that realises it and defines the order and precision of what you do, not the leader. The cultural history of the post-modern era show us that if you want to obtain the concerted action through the operation of leadership, sooner or later the pressure and reflexive restriction that this implies lead to complaints, resistance and pain. Leadership ceases to be effective, because people want to be responsible for what they do and make the contributions they want. But this history also show us that the rebirth of reflexion and ethical action out of the pain and suffering in the post-modern era bring us to the post-post-modern era, since it brings with it the integral presence of the human being through opening the space for the collaboration from the reflexive autonomy and action in the co-inspiration in common projects. This is what we refer to when we speak about the end of leadership in the birth of collaboration and co-inspiration.

We could say it in another way- we propose to recognise that we live a change of consciousness in the present that leads to the end of leadership and the intentional beginning of co-inspirative management.

Collaboration occurs when you do what you do with others in the pleasure of doing it, and hence you live from the reflexive autonomy and the freedom of action. Collaboration and co-inspiration, to get inspired with others in a doing in a psychic space of respect and trust, gives us security and expand our intelligent and creative action. This co-inspiration occurs when you, from the pleasure of collaboration, conceive and generate a project that arises together because all participates in it live the domains of operational coherences of its realisation as a space of action and reflection that brings them respect, autonomy, responsibility and reflexive liberty. Collaboration and co-inspiration are psychic spaces that constitute the domains of living together in the doing and reflexion where seriousness, responsibility, efficiency and quality in what you do, if it is alone or with others, arise because of the consciousness that you know that you do what you do because you want to do it. You also know that what you do has sense to it you because you have participated in some way in creating it. In short, collaboration and co-inspiration are not possible in leadership (whatever is its denomination or name) because its psychic space always implies the negation of itself in the loss of reflexive autonomy and action. Leadership, regardless of its beginning, occurs in the coordination of obedience and submission. This explains the transitory that its efficiency turns out to be. With the restriction of the reflexive autonomy and action in the psychic space that arises with leadership, the creativity and the desires to participate are restricted because the inspiration is restricted. Therefore, when the space of an ethical living together is opened in whatever organisational doing with the emergence of the post-post-modern era, leadership disappears. And when leadership disappears the psychic space opens where it is possible to create what we call co-inspirative management as the way to guide the coordinations of doings and reflexions in whatever productive field, with conversations of coordination of the desires and the pleasure to do what you know to do in that field, and to be ready to learn what you do not know. Co-inspirative management is based on mutual respect and the conscience that the persons out of respect for themselves responsibly and who seriously want to do what they know to do. And that they also want to learn responsibly and seriously what they do not know to do because in self-respect they want to fulfil their commitments. We all prefer to collaborate instead to obey. We all prefer to have presence in what we do instead of being only robots at work. We all prefer to be autonomous and reflexive in what we do out of the understanding of the nature of our doing and its significance, and in that way be participating persons in a common project, instead of being robotized subordinates. We all prefer that our work is distinguished as an impeccable doing.

Leadership ends because the denial of reflexive autonomy of the persons denies the fundaments of responsible behaviour, and soon it fails in its attempt to obtain quality and efficiency in whatever productive sphere. In that way its end occurs out of the spirit of the “followers” as a consequence of their psychic and operational urgency to recover the ethical reflexion and action as aspects of the living together in working life. With the end of leadership and the beginning of co-inspirative management, seriousness in the doing is recovered in the consciousness that you know that you know that you know,

and in the easiness that a living together in mutual respect permits to say “I don´t know” without fear of punishment, because you know that what you do not know you can learn and you want to learn it. In the co-inspirative management you know that mistakes are not lies, and you also know that admitting them opens the reflexive spaces that lead to a change of the circumstances that generated the mistakes. In a changing world there will be mistakes, and there will be knowledge that will become obsolete, but the intelligent behaviour, and the continuous openness to reflexion that corrects the mistakes and expands the creative conduct that the mutual respect brings, will never become obsolete. When we live together without fear or failure in a world that we live as a continuous presence, in a psychic space at the same time opens to reflexion and collaborative conversations, we live our changing sensoriality in the seriousness and security, without worry or anguish. That is, we live in the emotional space of psychic and corporal harmony that we call well-being. Since the emotions as relational domains are the fundaments of all our doing this is not trivial.

The three pillars of spontaneous social responsible behaviour.

We know that we living beings flow in our living in a continuous structural and relational drift in a course that is constituted from one moment to another on the basis of the conservation of the sensoriality of well-being in the flow of our doing and our relational sense, in doing in each moment what we want to do. This is why the course that our living follows is not guided by our reason but by our emotions, our preferences, our addictions, and our desires. These are, furthermore, what provides the foundation for our choice of the reasons or motives with which we justify what we do in whatever domain of our living, when we think that we have to justify it. And if we want to understand the joys, the pains, the harmonies and the conflicts in our present, we should view the course of the emotional flow that has guided the transformation of our living along our history, so that we are living what we are living in the present that we now live. That is, to want to obtain what we want from the addiction to greed, to power, or both, is what has guided our search to know and the orientation of what we do with that knowing in the post-modern era. Or, said in a more direct way, that the entrepreneurial and productive doings in the post-modern era have been centred in the attachment to greed and power as guides in the use of the knowledge that makes them possible, is what has generated the immense pain, suffering and inequalities that we live today in the anthroposphere and biosphere. Furthermore, it is precisely because it is our emotions that guide the course of our living, that it is now the consciousness of the pain and suffering that we have generated in the attachment to gain and power in the post-modern era that leads us to the post-post-modern era, and brings us to the recovering of the ethical consciousness in the everyday living that initiates the end of leadership.

That is, it is the change of epistemological substrate that occurs in our relational living that makes us conscious, so that we know that we know that the pain and suffering in the post-modern era, has been generated by ourselves in our attachment to gain and power that leads to the rise of the post-post-modern era. It is this change in

consciousness that makes possible for us human beings to understand that we are love dependent beings in our biology, and that we are so because of our origin as Homo sapiens-amans amans more than three million years ago.

As we said above, “the post-post-modern era is the era where we are conscious that if we do not act according to what we know that we know we are lying to ourselves and and we are lying to others, including our children and the children of our children”. We know about the pain and the suffering that we have generated in the addiction to the omnipotence of the post-modern era and we do not want to pretend any longer that we do not know. When you know that you know you cannot pretend that you do not know, and you know that when you pretend that you don’t know, you are lying.

To know that we know that we do not want to continue to be immersed in the psychic space of the omnipotence of the post-modern era, constitutes the conscious state in which “I am aware that I no longer, and we no longer, belong to the events of this era”. This becoming aware is what generates the change of consciousness that gives origin to the rise of the post-post-modern era, and makes possible our educating ourselves in our everyday living in the ethical operation that is based on what we call the three pillars of spontaneous ethical behaviour or the three pillars of socially responsible behaviour. These three pillars are to know, to understand and to have at hand an adequate action at the circumstances that you live, and constitute the basis for the rise of our ethical spontaneous action in the different relational crossroads in which we must choose what to do in the spheres of our social life. To know refers to become aware of the nature of the social and ecological crossroad that you live and the actions from which you must choose; to understand refers to become aware of the different social and ecological consequences (systemic vision) that the different actions between which we must choose would have in the atmosphere and the biosphere; and to have an adequate action at hand refers to dispose the adequate means (to have them at hand) to realise the chosen actions. When you don’t know there is blindness and there is no consciousness that you need to act, when you don’t understand the matter of what you know there is no possibility to conceive an adequate action in the social and ecological crossroad that you live, and when there is no adequate action at hand, you don’t have at your disposal an appropriate doing, and there is paralysis, depression, abandonment, anger or indignation. If you know what is the social and ecological relational crossroad that you live in the atmosphere and you know what are the possible actions, if you understand the possible consequences for the anthroposphere and the biosphere of choosing one or the other of these actions, and you have the adequate (ethical) actions at hand, it is not possible to avoid choosing socially responsible behaviour without acting in bad faith.

The rise of the post-post-modern era, the understanding of the operation of the three pillars of socially responsible action makes these three pillars a reflexive opportunity to put the ethical inspiration as a fundament for whatever organisational doings, first in an intentional manner and thereafter in a spontaneous manner in the mutual respect of

humans living together in well-being. In other words, the new seeing and feeling that arise with the unitary epistemological substrate that recovers the ethical vision in the everyday living and brings with it the rise of co-inspirative management, together with the end of leadership in the passing to the post-post-modern era, implies to put the ethical reflexion action as a basic reflexive and operational element in all doings in the productive sphere. This means that the economic advantages in the organisational doings will not be the primary, as if these were something good in themselves, but now well-being will be central in all the dimensions of the social human living that contain it and makes it possible.

We have said that in the beginning of the post-post-modern era we human beings find ourselves the makers of a productive and service doings that have been and still are generators of an atmosphere that destroys the conditions that makes possible the existence and the conservation of the biosphere as a habitat where we human beings can live in systemic-systemic coherence with other living beings on the earth in ecological and ethical well-being. We have also said that when we expand our vision we see the context where our living occurs and at the same time our participation in the generation of this occurrence, an occurrence that we do not like.

Furthermore, in that view we see the recursive dynamics of what we do or do not do, and when we see that we are the generators of the worlds that we live in our doing (and not doing) we also see the consequences that this has in all the dimensions for the habitat of other living beings with which we share and who co-create the biosphere that makes us possible. Now, as we expand our seeing we see that we are responsible for the rise of all the good and all the bad of our living as we are generators on the basis of what we do in all the dimensions of all the worlds that we live. No matter the circumstances in which we live our living, we human beings are creators, and therefore responsible for what we do in our domestic living as well as the multiple worlds that we live on the basis of our doing in philosophy, art, religion, science, or technology as different modes of human habitation. However, in this same view we also become aware that our productive and service doings do not need to be destructive of the conditions that make possible our habitat as an ethically and socially responsible habitat if we do not want it to be that way. This is so because we possess all the capacities and the knowledge to do everything that we do to generate an anthroposphere in equality and well-being in mutual respect, abandoning our exclusive attachment to greed and power.

In fact, as we also said in the beginning, “we live a moment in our historical transformation in which we find ourselves capable of doing everything that we imagine if we operate with the operational coherences of the relational and operational domains where we imagine it.” It is maybe because of this that we now also, as we become aware of our total responsibility in the continuous transformation of the habitat that we generate, ask ourselves: What to do? And we ask ourselves what to do because the pain and suffering that we generate in our exclusive attachment to greed and power is so big

that it also touches us recursively in the lives of our children, our friends and in our own dignity. This occurs to such extent that we become aware that we do not want to lie or lie to ourselves more because now we cannot continue to pretend that we do not know that we know that we know. And it is at this moment, in the moment when we become aware that we no more want to lie to ourselves, that we begin to pass to the post-post-modern era as we ask ourselves: What do we do to find a way out of the trap that we ourselves have created? How do we find a way out of the mode of living together where we are inclined to accept anything, as long as we conserve our exclusive attachment to greed and power?

We know that we know that we can do whatever we want to do if we want to do it; and we know that we know that if we want to do it we can enter the search for, or the intentional design of, the adequate doing that our knowing and our understanding and comprehension indicate to us. That is, if we want, we can conceive an ethical reflexion and action in our entrepreneurial doing that permits us to escape the self-destructive trap that we have generated ourselves in the post-modern era on the basis of the attachment to omnipotence. If we want it, we can create together a living together, where the respect for ourselves, the respect for diversity, aesthetics and the pleasure of friendship in the co-inspiration of the creation of a living together in well-being is conserved without the search for perfection.

This is the great opportunity in the organisational doing in the post-post-modern era. Money as the energy, knowledge as the capacity for action are divine gifts and not demons if we don’t enter into the temptations of the attachment to omnipotence. If we find ourselves in the attachment to omnipotence, all our creativity, all our innovation, will flow around the conservation of power at whatever price, and our organisation will transform itself as blind to everything that does not contribute to this ambition. The ethics, considerations about ecological harm, health and the aesthetics of living will become dispensable and the fraud, drugs, contamination, as well as the lies will be accepted even if we say the contrary. Now, all that does not contribute directly to our attachment to omnipotence will be expensive or difficult, and we will say that the necessary knowledge or technology does not exist, even if we know that we have the capacity to do whatever we want to do. If we find ourselves attached to power, everything that appears to lead to the submission of others will be weakness, as well as all our creativity, all our innovation, will flow around the conservation of power at whatever cost, and our life will transform itself blind to everything that will not contribute to the expansion of our power; ethics, the considerations of the ecological harm or health, the fraud, drugs, retaliation, manipulation and lies will be acceptable opportunities to satisfy our search for omnipotence even if we say the contrary. Now, everything that does not bring us to omnipotence and power will be undesirable, difficult and threatening, and we will create theories that justify us in our desires for omnipotence and power and that will blind us to the harm that we generate with these attachments.

When we leave the attachment to the omnipotence of the post-modern era and when the post-post-modern era begins, we become aware that it is we ourselves that generate the pain and the suffering that we live in the anthroposphere and biosphere, and, as in an awakening, we find ourselves abandoning the attachments to greed and power in the rise of our ethical consciousness in our everyday living together. How does this happen?

The rise of our ethical consciousness is possible because biologically we are beings that are moved by the pain and suffering of others because we see ourselves in others, unless we, unaware, deny the validity of this seeing by being moved by some rational arguments that pretend to justify some attachment. The modern, post-modern and post-post-modern era that we talk about are, as different historical moments of the human living together, different psychic spaces, different modes of relational feeling and acting, and different epistemological substrates from where we live our lives.

In the flow of our historical transformation we enter and leave the different psychic spaces that we live in a change of consciousness that arises from an emotional change that, as a change in the understanding and comprehension of living, overwhelm us and open or close our reflexive view in the sphere of ethical behaviour. Even when the changes in consciousness that we live happens in a spontaneous and unintentional manner, it is possible to facilitate those that amplify our ethical consciousness with a reflexive process that permits us to become aware that it is we ourselves that are the forgers of the pain and suffering that we generate in ourselves and others in the attachment to the omnipotence of the post-modern era, and that we therefore can find a way out of the psychic trap that brings us to our own destruction.

What can we do if we are habitually trained to demand and obey, fall in the unwillingness or the complaint of not participating, and lie out of the fear of being punished?

We have been talking about the omnipotence and power as central emotional dimensions in the post-modern era, and we have done it principally with the reference to the economic-political doings, because these doings have been converted to an enormous transforming and conserving dynamic that has become central in the realisation of the anthroposphere, and through this also the biosphere. However, this does not mean that omnipotence and power are attachments that are constitutive of the economic-political doings. They are not. These are attachments that are proper to the patriarchal/matriarchal culture that has extended in all continents since its origin some 15,000 years ago in central Asia. Our children learn them with us adults that practise them in all the aspects of our living together as members of our patriarchal/ matriarcal culture, in particular in the productive and service areas. This is so because in our patriarchal/matriarchal culture we think that the only thing that can assure order, focus and efficiency in a doing that implies the participation of many persons is leadership, authority and obedience. But now we know that this does not happen.

Leadership does not generate order, focus, quality and efficiency that it promises, and if it does appear that way for a certain period, this is not because of the leadership but as a result of the additional opportunities that are opened in spite of it so that friendship relations can arise and with them the genuine desire to collaborate. Now, it also happens that there is a rise of secondary authorities that under the conscious or unconscious protection of a major authority obtain what appears to be more efficiency from the manipulation of fear. Nobody likes to obey, and nobody likes to be denied. Who likes to act in an irresponsible way before an agreement that has been adopted in honesty in a domain of mutual respect? The denial that obedience implies generates resentment and unwillingness and contempt for the leader.

The history of the living beings in general, and human beings in particular, has happened and is happening as a transformation that follows primarily an unconscious course that from moment to moment is constituted by the sensoriality that conserves the living of the organism as a state that in each moment is consistent with the psychic and physiological living that is lived in each moment.

When we speak about well-being we connoted this sense of relational congruence and sensorial harmony that an organism lives in a conscious or unconscious manner in the flow of its living in whatever circumstance of conservation of its living. When the organism feels that this sensorial harmony is lost, its sensorial and motoric dynamics change to a dynamic that conserve and recover this sensorial harmony. That is, we live in well-being like a tightrope walker lives the sensoriality of equilibrium, moving itself in a conscious or unconscious manner to recover when she feels that she looses it. In the same way that the tightrope walker conserves the sensoriality of equilibrium changing its corporality and its relation to the changing environment as it walks on the loose rope, the living being conserves its sensoriality of well-being changing its corporality and its relation to the changing environment while it realises its living, whatever living it is. An organism conserves its well-being in its living as an invariant relation of operational congruence with its niche or circumstance, while the form in which this relation is realized changes continuously in the course of its living. This happens in the same way as a tightrope walker conserves his equilibrium as an invariant relation of operational congruence with his circumstance while his corporal form changes continuously while walking without falling on the loose rope.

Every living being lives the realisation of its living as a happening of structural and relational changes following a course defined in each moment by the conservation of the well-being in the realisation of its living. The conservation of well-being defines, in each moment, the relational and operational orientation that follows from the living of a living being. The different classes of living beings live in different ways the basic conservation of well-being according to its mode of living. So, in our case, the flow in our living as human beings includes our operation in networks of conversations of action and reflexion, in which we can observe our feelings, and recursively modulate from one moment to the other the orientation that our living follows in the conservation of our

well-being, according to how we feel in our sensoriality in each moment. That is, it is from the continuous modulation of our sensations that occurs from moment to moment as a central aspect of the course of our living in conversations of reflexion and action, that the relational form that constitutes our well-being changes in each moment according to what we feel, think or desire in relation to the worlds that we generate with our living. This means that we always flow in our living in the sensorial conservation of what we live, and feel, as our well-being even when we live our present with pain and as something undesirable.

In each moment we always do what we feel is the doing that conserves our well-being in that moment. In fact, the change in the configuration of the senses that constitutes the well-being of an organism changes with the flow of living of all living beings with or without languaging as a result of their continuous structural changes in the course of its epigenesis. What is peculiar about us humans is that in us our epigenesis occurs as a network of conversations that constitute the anthroposphere as the relational-operational space where our living and living together is conserved in the conservation of our structural coupling with the biosphere.

Now, it is our biological fundaments in the flow of our living in the conservation of well-being that offers the way out of the trap of the attachment to the patriarchal/ matriarchal culture from the very centre of productive and service doings. This occurs when the reflexive view that opens the understanding of the pain that we generate with the attachment to the omnipotence of our patriarchal/matriarchal productive and service doings move our feelings and the relational configuration of the conservation of the well-being of our living together, leading us to act according to the new consciousness and unitary epistemological position that this understanding implies. This is what we refer to when we indicate the end of leadership and instead, propose co-inspirative management as the way to put the ethical reflexion and action as the fundament for everything we do in the anthrophosphere.

Co-inspirative management is the art and science of listening, seeing and the invitation to act according to the knowing and understanding that we are generators of the worlds that we live, conscious that our knowledge is only an instrument to do what we want to do. We humans like to collaborate, we like to participate, we like to do what we do well, we like to fulfil our promises, and we like to have presence in what we do. We all know through experience of our own living, alone or with others, that to be seen, to be listened to, to participate in a living together based on mutual trust, that is, in love, expands our creative behaviour, expands our intelligent behaviour, expands our seeing, our listening, and expands the desire to be impeccable in the quality of what we do, in whatever domain. We do not only know it, but we want to live in that way because it makes us healthy in all the dimensions of our living.

The history of the living beings has occurred as a transformation of continuous change around the conservation of living. Why couldn’t we human beings generate a cultural

history of continuous change around the conservation of well-being, mutual respect and reflexive co-inspiration that leads to conserve that living together and correct the mistakes that distance us from it in all the networks of conversations that we generate?

We continuously live generating a changing anthroposphere that arises with our everyday doings in networks of conversations. Everything that we do as human beings we do in domestic, technological, scientific, philosophic, artistic, gathering and cultivating networks of conversations, ...and we do it as the castors, the ants,...or whatever living being in an evolutionary course that generates the diversities around the conservation of living. The only peculiar about our doing is that we do it as a human in networks of conversations being conscious or with the possibility of being conscious about what we are doing.

Then, why don´t we do what we do in a recursive co-inspiration around the conservation of well-being in a living together in mutual respect where we have presence and participate in the everyday realisation of this common project? Why don’t we decide to operate with our organisations putting at the centre our ethical reflexion and action consciousness about the three pillars of socially responsible behaviour? Difficult? Expensive? Do we fear to loose privileges, riches or advantages that satisfy our thirst for omnipotence?

Yes, but we know that we know that we generate harm and suffering in our anthroposphere: and we know that we know that we live a historical present in which we can do whatever we want to do if we want to do it, we even know that we can be ethical entrepreneurs capable of acting with social consciousness and trust.

What theory or rational justification stops us and makes us not want to put the ethical reflexion and action at the centre in all our doing as a natural aspect of our living together?

How do we want to be remembered by our children and grandchildren? How do we want to be remembered by our co-citizens?

We at the Matriztic Institute think that if we accept this reflexive invitation that we share together with so many others that want to open spaces for co-inspiration and collaboration, we would be collaborating in the conservation of a human living that allow us to live and live together in the well-being that arises in whatever doing when that doing is lived in total harmony with the world that we bring forth in our living.

Furthermore, we would be open to the transformation of all our spaces of living together unless this transformation generates modes of living that conserves the pain and suffering through the denial of the legitimacy of ourselves, others or the other.

Green square 5

We as Matriztic Institute invite in this task together with Dennis Sandow and Gabriel Acosta-Mikulasek in the United States of North America Matriztic Institute, together with Rodrigo da Rocha Loures, Margarita Bosch, Guilherme Branco, among other persons at the FIEP andUNINDUS in Brazil, together with Peter Senge and Joe Shue at the MIT and SOL, Juanita Brown and World Café, and Deborah Higgins at the Feltzer Foundation, Miguel Malikisi in the Phillipines, together with Christopher Kindblad and his colleagues at the University of Halmstad, together with Luis Grageda of Agenda 21 in Guatemala, together with Oscar Azmitia and the University of La Salle in Costa Rica, together with Rodrigo Jordán and Ana María Bravo de Vertical in Chile, together with Alejandro Morales, José Manuel Saavedra, Cristián Moraga and their colleagues and work teams at the Mutual de Seguridad in Chile, together with Edmundo Ruíz and his team at the Consejo de Defensa del Niño in Chile, together with Gloria Cano of EPM and Ana María Estrada of Colegiatura in Colombia, together with Claudio Yusta in Brazil, together with Luis Flores from Consumidores International in Latin America, together with Joan Quintana in Spain, together with Omar Ossés in Argentina, together with Sayra Pinto in the United States. Yes, we invite all the adult persons that want to collaborate with us in this amplification of the view that arises through the understanding of the origin, conservation and transformation of the human that we connote when we speak about the cultural-biological. This is an invitation to see that all human well-being has a cultural origin. It is an invitation that we only can accept from our living and living together in the world that we bring forth, if we take responsibility for the world that we live and live together with others and if we live this awareness as an ethical living that arises naturally through living in the understanding that cultural biology shows us.

This is an invitation to a post-post-modern era of co-inspiration and collaboration that results in the social education as a way to participate in the eradication of poverty and the harmonic conservation of well-being in the relational anthroposphere-biosphere through the reflexive transformation of human communities through the respect for oneself, others, and the other.

This is an invitation that recognizes that there are signs of new forms and strategies on various places on the planet that bring the most diverse communities to the eradication of poverty and that, in accordance with the improvement of the life conditions of the persons, contributes to the cultural-biological dynamics that is evoked by the desire for sustainability that inspire our cultural present.

This is an invitation that may see that such forms and strategies have been designed and implemented through different conceptual and operational criteria, that protect the regenerative and adaptive capacities of the ecosystems without damaging their richness and diversity. This includes favouring its reparation and re-equilibrium through rational management under efficient energetic standards and pure productive processes, etc. In this context educative communities have played a fundamental role, as niches of

acquisition and exercise of the skills, personal and social capabilities, knowledge and modes of pacific, reflexive and harmonic living together, oriented towards the well-being between human beings and ecosystems with which they form an inseparable unity.

This new tendency of the so called social interventions, makes evident the configuration of a vicious circle in diverse levels (individual, familiar, community), where the harmonic practises of well-being contribute to a cultural transformation that results in the abolition of poverty. The forms and strategies to abolish poverty are considered in a systemic-systemic way so that development goes hand in hand with the restoration and conservation of an equilibrium that empowers the communities as well as the ecosystems of which they are part. Therefore, this is about experiences of dual purposes that alter and/or reject short-term strategies of immediate benefit in favor of an option for the cultural dynamics that are oriented towards well-being in the present with conservative extensions at middle and long-term.

This deals with the so called “critical routes of development” in contexts of elevated social and economic rigor, that do not only search to satisfy the “necessities” of present generations but synergistically also attempt to conserve relational-operational dynamics that conserve or amplify the satisfaction of the possible requirements of future generations. Our invitation, as we have already said, is that the cultural dynamics that result in the eradication of poverty constitutes a reference for a systemic-systemic harmonic living and that, in this sense, does not imply the an “impovering” of tomorrow. For this it is desirable to note, as we have said, that nothing occurs in the happening of the living or the processes that constitute the realisation of living beings, or in the happenings of the cosmos that the observer brings forth in his or her operations of distinctions when he or she explains his or her living, just because the result of this happening is necessary or desirable for that occurrence. Hence, when we speak about necessities, what we are evoking is the relational-operational dynamics that configure the niches where we realize the multidimensionality of our existence in the living and living together in communities at a certain moment. And we do it from valuing one or the other dimensions of inhabiting these niches in a different manner according to our desires and preferences.

During several decades many different studies have put in focus the narrow relations that exist between poverty and the natural environment. Some have identified the negative practises that certain poor communities have sustained with their natural environment, provoking deterioration and progressive erosion. This is the case with the diminishing of the major mammals due to secretive hunting, the overgrazing of Mediterranean and semi desert zones, the cutting of the forest for firewood, the substitution of native forest for species that are exogenously commercial, hunting of whales by specific ethnic groups and introduction of a foreign fauna and/or flora. Though these studies continue to have a certain validity in local ecological spaces, as

microbasins, litoral strips, zones of unirrigated land, among others, since the decade of the 1990s there is a development of studies of a great scientific value, like the so called “ecological footprint” that permits to compare the ecological load of life modes and lifestyles of the first world and the developing world through an index that expresses human consumption in territorial units. According to the latest results (2003), the environmental load of the persons of the developed countries is much higher than the so-called developing countries. That is, the maintenance of the former leaves a much larger footprint on earth and its ecosystems than the latter.

Other studies have analysed how the environmental deterioration has affected, with major intensity, the communities that live in poverty. The investigations made by PNUD and PNUMA present evidences about the unequal and unfair distribution of the negative environmental externalities of development and economic growth for the environment, which tend to impact the people that exhibit less participation in the incomes of society.

The latest studies about climate change have reinforced this perspective, since we now know that effects like the rising of the sea level, the shortage of water, the loss of harvest among other things, will be more intensively felt – and with less possibilities to mitigate – in societies in the third world. This will be substantially higher in the northern countries in the north hemisphere.

These studies of the relation between poverty and natural environment have been conceived from various perspectives and theoretical frameworks. One common aspect of the majority of them is that when poverty appears reported on, it is often characterised as a phenomenon that is the cause and/or effect of a harmed ecosystem, which has permitted us to establish a nexus between both phenomenon with a solid empirical basis. What these nexus reveal to us is precisely that we should amplify our view to a systemic-systemic vision of the relational-operational dynamics or matrixes that in fact result in connected phenomenon from the particular cultural- biological matrix.

The cultural-biological matrix where the human is realised and conserved, can only be seen in the reflexion that shows the coherences of the consensual worlds of the biological living of Homo sapiens-amans amans as a living in languaging and conversation that makes possible, from languaging and conversation, understanding the cultural-biological living of the observer and his or her observing as the fundament for the consensual nature of our existence as Homo sapiens-amans amans in our present cultural history.

However, to confront the problems associated with a harmonic development of the anthroposphere-biosphere oriented to the well-being of the communities in situations of poverty implies creating broader conceptual horizons that permit re-situating the human being within a complex of autonomous relations and natural codrift with other

biotic communities and specific geophysical niches.

Now, to achieve sustainable development of persons and families in a situation of poverty along this line it is necessary to generate practises that favour productive encouragement under a scheme of environmental efficiency and cleaning. But it also means we should rethink human life and its development from a reflexive and valued conception of “ENVOLTORIO VIVO” of the earth, together with the physical space that it contributes to form and modify.

This is the invitation that we offer to do with this collective of persons through realising that human beings are inseparable from the biosphere, and that also their contaminating acts are of a natural origin from this point of view. This is the form in which we have molded our “habitat”. “Every living being, while it lives, exists in a relational space that makes it possible and that is transformed by it. The word habitat connotes this relation. However, many natural phenomena are non-equilibrating and put at risk a harmony oriented towards the well-being of the biosphere as we know it. We can observe that the human being has come to control, manipulate and alter the biosphere derived from what we can distinguish as a real anthroposphere.

The negative externalities of such behaviours are not only felt with greater impact in countries or sectors with low incomes, they also predict significant effects for future generations. In the words of Peter Senge “the climate change is a gift for humanity. It gives us something that we have never had before – a potential consensual ´time counter” – that tells us how long time we have until the transformation should really begin in a scale that alter how we live collectively.” This time counter also urge us to similarly respond to poverty as the Pope Juan Pablo II recognised in his visit to Chile when he says that “the poor cannot wait”.

Here it should be said that the central understanding about the topic of poverty appears to us to be to in the comprehension of the dynamics that constitute a stable dynamic system and how it differs from a system that is not stable.

1. A dynamic system, in continuous transformation around the conservation of a particular configuration of relations, operates as a stable system around the configuration of relations that are conserved only to the extent that the internal and external factors that push it towards continuous disintegration are compensated by internal and external factors that bring it to its continuous restoration.

2. If we do not understand this we cannot understand the topic of poverty. Poverty arises in a family or human community when the family or community extract more from the environment then it contains and sustains - the elements of subsistence that it provides - with higher velocity than its capacity to regenerate them. Poverty in whatever human community is the negative disruption of the stationary flow of those elements of

subsistence that natural environment provides. 3. If the natural environment or sphere of existence of a human community operates as an unlimited source of elements of subsistence capable to satisfy in each moment everything that it requires for its living, poverty does not arise. Poverty arises in a community when the community requires more from the environment for its living than it can deliver.

4. From what has been said in the points above it is possible to note that there are many factors of different origins that may break the stationary flow of elements of subsistence of a community and bring it to poverty. It is also possible to note that every honest attempt to break with the relational dynamics that generate poverty in human living requires a concerted systemic-systemic human action in the sphere of the anthroposphere and biosphere.

As long as we do not take responsibility for this, and the total ethical commitment that it means, everything that we do will be insufficient. In the end, because we know what it is about, it also will be in some sense a way of lying.

Hence, the lasting eradication of poverty is found in long-term forms, including transgenerational strategies that only can be sustained from the intention and the desire to conserve a living and living together as homo sapiens-amans ethicus. This means that the focus to understand sustainability as a network of conversations that invites us to consider the systemic-systemic dynamics that generate a harmony oriented to the well-being between the human communities and the biosphere assumes a special importance in the discussion about the best strategies to favour the human and social development of the persons that live in a situation of poverty. Contributing to a systemic-systemic dimension of processes, are the actions directed toward the cultural dynamics and manifestations of poverty, in such a way that the satisfaction of human necessities is protected, including the development of its elementary capacities and the exercise of the fundamental social rights that are, at least, in their content, minimal or principal.

This proposal is a fruit of a broader understanding than that is distinguished by poverty, since it does not only restrict itself to biological survival. The so-called human necessities are richer and broader and the ways in which these are satisfied varies according to the sociocultural contexts. Now, from this perspective there is not only one way to satisfy the nutritional necessities, protection and shelter or belonging and identity. This distinction between necessities and satisfiers has appeared to be a key until now in conceiving strategies to overcome a habitat in poverty that favour a well-being that arises from the harmony anthroposphere and biosphere. However, as we said we invite you to consider instead of these dynamics, the unitary dynamics of the various niches where our multidimensional existence is realized.

As you may deduce from what has been said so far, the harmonic well-being among human communities and the biosphere happen because the relations within and between the participating ecosystems do not exceed the capacities of restoration and conservation of living in well-being. Hence, the key is that the human ecosystem (anthrophosphere) moves toward practises of social, economic and cultural transformation that protect a future existence that results naturally from an ethical living in the present. Seen in this way, something that also arises is a rejection to the implicit perspective in overcoming of poverty that attempts to get the persons that live in poverty to develop practises of production and consumption similar to the human communities that also do so.

In this scenario we can also consider that the forms and strategies to overcome poverty should be designed with a criterion of harmonious well-being between the human communities and the biosphere that progressively modify the non-equilibrium relation that is sustained between them. In other words, what matters is that the systemic-systemic dynamics that generate poverty are dissolved and thereby achieve modes of living and patterns of production and consumption around the desire to conserve the anthroposphere-biosphere harmony.

These types of experiences are developed all around the world. There is a strong push towards initiatives and projects of development that locally put in practise different forms and strategies of overcoming poverty in relation to the sustainability of the biosphere. They do it from their own particular visions, consciously or unconsciously recognizing the systemic-systemic character of the processes that generate them.

These experiences have primarily been prepared in the rural world – although not exclusively - where the access and sustainable use of resources has served to motivate a new understanding of the relation between the human beings and the biosphere. They not only wish to strengthen the possibilities for the satisfaction of the necessities of survival but also wish to develop human capacities that are basic for a human mode of living, like the cultivation of curiosity, the learning to bond and living together with other living beings, among others. One strategy in this line is called “fair trade”, that wishes to reduce the chain of middlemen between the producer and the consumer, favouring the payment of an adequate price for goods and services provided by communities that are poor, that also develop practises that are friendly to the natural environment. Recognising, as we said before, that the course that the history of the living beings follow in general, and the history of human beings in particular, arises from moment to moment defined by the desires and preferences that from moment to moment determine what the living being or human being do and conserve or do and reject in its relational living, and not because of what we commonly call resources or opportunities as if these resources or

opportunities existed in themselves, since something is a resource or an opportunity only if you want or desire it. These types of programmes have been very efficient in detecting, recognizing and inviting us to value certain resources of communities in situations of poverty, like for instance the non-use of pesticides (originally limited because of its cost) that are valued as an ACTIVO, a “plus” in this type of non-conventional commercial dynamics. In this way forms and strategies of public-private collaboration have been developed that assure quotas of institutional consumption for products and services of persons and households that are unfolding forms and strategies for the overcoming poverty through standards of environmental sustainability. This is the case with the provision of food-stuff to companies or public programs of nutritional complement.

Along this line we also find local energetic solutions with low environmental cost that have made possible the productive unfolding of isolated communities or with limited connection. There are also initiatives of rural ecotourism among ethnic groups that have contributed to value the natural capital, protect it and also restore it.

When we speak about energy it is important to consider that when we distinguish energy as observers we distinguish operational structural dispositions that make possible processes whose operational-relational sense does not depend on them, but on the structural changes that occur in the changing flow of the dynamic architecture involved. We usually say that energy makes possible a flow of happenings, but we say that the changes of structural relations make possible and guide the happening of the structural changes with operational regularities that we refer to as energetic processes.

In urban areas the experiences are scarcer and more difficult since the environmental and psychosocial deterioration tends to be more intensive and diffuse in the community. At the same time, the explicit and direct relations between the cultural dynamics that result in the overcoming of poverty and the harmonious well-being between the human communities and the biosphere tend to be less visible. In these contexts the concerns are concentrated on the quality of the habitat, more than on the productive level. There are many experiences of this type, like the micro companies of urban recycling or the self-subsistence of organic food in contexts of nutritional insecurity.

However, an important step to achieve an explicit association between the forms and strategies of overcoming poverty and the cultural dynamics of harmony of anthroposphere-biosphere (sustainability) is, as we have said, reflexive education. This education is understood as a process of reflexive transformation in the standards of living together between persons, in particular with the children, young and grown-ups in their preparation for a life as adult autonomous, democratic, and conscious persons, conscious about themselves and their environment.

In this it is also fundamental to learn to live together. That we, as human beings,

generate an intimate relational sense of “care”, “closeness” and “tenderness” with the biosphere and the nearby ecosystems. The reflexive education that we have invited creates the capacity for us to learn and understand that the harmonic well-being between human communities and the biosphere is fundamental for the economic development that is desired. “We need more fundamental changes. The economic systems are human creations. Every institution and economic program, from the banks and corporations, to the unemployment insurance and social security, are human inventions. The economic rules that we take as guarantee are human inventions. We need to decide what economic rules that we want to conserve and what to leave behind, and invent new economic rules that are congruent with our fundamental human necessities. If we unite to demand these new rules, each of us can form an important part to move towards a caring economics and a caring world”.

When do we speak about development? Is development something in itself or is it an opinion? How is it that in the cultures that we live we are seduced to speak about development? We talk about development to refer to the direction of a course of changes that we distinguish as positive and desirable in some domain of our living.

The economic development that we invite you to wants to generate a culture that results in the sustainability of the whole biosphere, which suggests that we are capable as citizens that live a situation of poverty or not poverty to reflect and choose a dynamic architecture of the niches that we inhabit oriented to the conservation of well-being, its structure and organisation, scale, etc. Given that the so called fundamental human necessities of a person that belong to a society distinguished as a consumer society would be the same as in a society distinguished as an ascetic society - as seen from the viewpoint of our patriarchal/ matriarchal culture - what would change is the type of means used to realize them (satisfiers). We therefore think that the forms of production, distribution and consumption of these constitute the key factors for the recognition of the desire for a different vision for living on the planet. In other words the creation of niches of existence oriented to well-being will only be possible from viewing the biological-cultural matrix of human existence and the biological matrix of existence of living beings in an intertwining of anthroposphere-biosphere that results harmony according to the desires of our human community.

As we said above the cosmos is not interested in what happens to itself, nature is not interested in what happens to itself. The biosphere is not interested in what happens to it. The terrestrial biosphere is not interested if one, various or all forms of life disappear. If this happens they simply disappear. We human beings may care, or may not care, but only if it is what we desire.

With no doubt it may not matter to us, and we can choose that we don’t like it. Some years ago a biologist with a deep and thorough understanding of the biosphere said: “I don´t mind if an atomic holocaust is capable of destroying the major part of the living beings that inhabit the earth, the bacterias will always survive”. We think that it does

matter to us. We are not bacteria. We are human beings.

Living beings that do not live as self-conscious beings in languaging, as we do as human beings, do not care about the possible consequences of what they do, because they have no means to reflect. We human beings as languaging beings are abnormal beings in the terrestrial biosphere: we have the capacity to reflect.

To become interested in the natural environment, in ecology, and in the biosphere from the point of view of economic development, is a way to reflect about what we human beings do, to reflect about our concern or lack of concern about what could or could not be the consequences of what we do for the conservation or destruction of everything that makes our living possible.

To us, the terrestrial biosphere is converted to an anthroposphere as the domain of our existence as human beings. We human beings do not simply live. We create theories, religions, philosophies, ideologies, and systems of thinking to justify our living and to justify what we do or what we do not do. Or what we disregard when we choose to not be responsible for the consequences of knowing what we are doing. Furthermore, the systems of thought that we create in our cultural existence affect all the dimensions of our living, the environment in which we do what we do as well as the internal dynamics of our physiology. We need theories to live and die or not to die.

More still, we declare that we as rational living beings use reason to validate our systems of thinking without noticing - as we have said, or at least ignoring the fact - that all rational systems have an emotional fundament because they are necessarily based, directly or indirectly, on premises that are accepted a priori on the basis of preferences.

As animals, we human beings are emotional animals, but what is particular for us is that we use reason to justify or deny our emotions, our preferences and our desires. This is not a failure. This is our active characteristic because if our emotions change, if our desires change, if our preferences change, our rational arguments will also change. And if we change our objectives and desires we can change what we do having rational arguments for it.

This is why we may notice, that if we want to accept this reflexive invitation, that emotions are the central theme in everything that we do, that they are the fundament of for all our doing. This also shows us that our central interest in the theme of the natural environment and ecology should be centred in our honesty about our desires when we declare what we want to do. When we present a rational argument as if it was valid in itself, we obscure or hide the emotions that constitute its a priori basis, and the listener will not necessarily know what we want to do.

Do we want to take care of the natural environment? Do we want to take care of the well-being of the human beings, or other living beings? It does matter to us only if we

desire it. In this sense to speak about the bio-cultural economy evokes a new domain of tenderness, care, interest and desire concerning the understanding and action in the domain of the conservation and change of the biosphere, while it is converted to an anthroposhpere through our doing. At the same time it evokes in us a sense of home and familiarity, the desire to contribute to amplify the consciousness, considering that if we don’t want to take care of our house in the anthroposhere, there will be no biosphere because we do not care. What can you do? Showing with all possible means that it is so, as if it really happened through all the activities that touch our emotioning, showing that all in the anthroposhpere has to do with us as individuals and with us collectively. None of us are outside or innocent.

In all, this relation or vicious circle between the cultural dynamics of the anthroposphere-biosphere harmony (sustainability) that results in the overcoming of poverty and the education that we want, the democratic citizenship, the economic development, the generation of scientific and technological knowledge and the spiritual dimensions of our existence, is still in its full process of initiation.

However, whatever its transformation, this shows how willing we are to accept the invitation to change our way of looking, our way of asking. This means to understand that the biological-cultural nature of our existence is not an invitation to fragment or separate, it is an invitation to attend to the flow of our living and living together in the generation of the different worlds that we live as the living beings that we are. This also means to understand, for instance, that the spiritual dimensions of our existence arise naturally from our condition as such.

We living beings are biological entities in the realization of our living, in the happening of autopoiesis. This is the source of everything and the source of nothing. As organisms we are relational entities in which our relational living occurs in the continual transcendence of our biology. In the same way our living as human beings in conversation is a continual transcendence in the biological-cultural interweaving of the living. In that continual transcendence we human beings find ourselves living and doing what we want to do when we ask ourselves about our living and doing. We find ourselves as observers in the observing when we ask ourselves about our observing. And from that, we explain the world and we reflect: How is it that we live our spirituality as a separate or distinct domain to our everyday understanding of the biological-cultural living? We think that this happens because all reflexion, all explicative attempts, everything that a person does in whatever domain of her or his living, they do from an initial conscious or unconscious standpoint that defines the sphere of the acceptable in her or his reflexion or explanation. We can begin in the reflexion and the action from the acceptance of the transcendental as a final argument for the vision and understanding of everything that we live and think in our living what we live and think in our living, or we can start out from the acceptance of the everyday living as a place and initial circumstance for every reflexion and explanation. We can also do it in the search for the final understanding of the reality as something external to us, and that

encompasses us. Or we can do it in the search for the understanding of all the dimensions of our living. This is deep-seated emotional contradiction that we live in our culture and that distance us from the understanding of the unitary nature of our existence through fragmenting the world that we live and know. And we become aware that we bring these a priori in all and every one of the distinctions that we do, from the spiritual to the scientific.

For instance, in science we do not see that it is a human activity realized in human living by persons that act as scientists. And the task that is proposed by persons that act as scientists is, in last instance, to explain what they want to explain using the criteria of validation of scientific explanation. In this way we do not see that the scientist is a person that explain the coherences of their experiences with the coherences of their experiences or, said in a slightly different way, the scientist is a person that explains the coherence of his doing and thinking with the coherences of his doing and thinking. Therefore, what scientists do is not to explain a reality that is independent of his or her operation, but generate worlds that arise with the operational coherences of his or her living. When the person does this he or she generates suppositions and theories that again remain obscured in the relational happening of his or her distinctions in everyday life. How? The suppositions are notions that are chosen in an arbitrary way and are proposed as if they do not have or have experiential foundation as points of departure for the development of an argument. The theories are systems of arguments that are based on notions that are accepted with an experiential foundation or that you think have an experiential foundation. In a strict sense we could say that every notion that is accepted on the basis of preferences or likes without previous reflection, and that gives an argumentative foundation, appear as an “a priori”. Whatever person, and whatever he or she does, may find himself or herself to accept a priori, the suppositions and the implicit theories in the culture that he or she belongs to. From where does the person accept it? From their conscious or unconscious preferences and desires that form the foundation for the course that they are living, their feelings, their doings and their way to argue follows. Every scientific explanation operate or attempt to operate with the experiential coherences of the observer that arises in its operation in the space where the happenings occur that one wants to explain. The major difficulty that a scientist confronts in his or her explaining is found in the risk of confusing the experiential domains in his or her explicative proposition. This again is left obscure through the blind drift of our a priories, where each time a totality arises in the spontaneous or intentional composition of a system, there arises also an operational domain from the operational domain of the components of the system. And each particular operational domain will have its particular operational coherences that are not possible to extrapolate to other domains. This happens because the operational coherences of each domain are expressed with the operational coherences that arise in that domain through the operation of the observer in them. It is the observer, given his or her operation in languaging in the flow of living together with other observers, and given the operation of his or her nervous system as a correlator of the happenings in separate domains, that can establish explicative correlations between separate domains.

We at the Matriztic Institute claim that all cognitive domains are domains of explaining the living of the observer. However, we can see that living has no aim, that the living lives, and that it does not require explanations, even when the explanations - if there are any - modulate the course of living that you live.

In everyday living, then, the aim is not to explain all experience; there are experiences that you want to explain, and there are others that you only want to live. Consciousness, for instance, is the act of observing and become aware of the observing. Consciousness is an operation in living. The spiritual experience occurs in the expansion of the consciousness of belonging in the matrix of existence in which you are conscious as a human being. The spiritual experience as an expansion of the consciousness of the present that you live, you above all want to live, not explain.

The presence and the potential of the spiritual in the spiritual experience are in its living, and not in its explanation. And from where do we want to explain the spiritual experiences? In order to justify our desire to conserve the experience of living it? To convince others about the importance of conserving spiritual experiences in living? To justify the belonging to a particular religion? To know if we are fooling ourselves with our beliefs? Could there be unanswerable questions? Could it be that if we manage to achieve well-being in our living and in this well-being we manage to let go our fears to disappear when we die, and our attachment to the search for supernatural powers that supposedly will bring us the well-being that we desire so much, we will continue to ask unanswerable questions? From where do these attachments rise that require unanswerable questions? Is if from the consciousness of the everyday experience of eternity of a passing living where you live each moment as if it was eternal, that the desire and search for the permanent arise in us in an attempt to retain the value or meaning of this present that, even if you live it as permanently you know that it is transient? Is it from the living of the eternity that we live in each instant of our living, that we give to what we imagine as permanent in our living a transcendental value that we wish to retain as a fundamental aspect of our identity?

And we do not see that we enter in a blind living, standing before the beauty of our transience that permits us to live the non-permanent identity that gives us well-being in the conservation of the detachment that liberates us from control, envy, vanity, greed and aggression, or what is the same: that makes it possible for us to live the way of LOVE.

The human occurs in the ephemeral, in the transience between a beginning and an end, and it is in this transience that a living could happen in the present in the conscious conservation of the well-being that you live when you live neither with attachment nor with rejection of the consciousness of the ephemeral that makes us human, and human in the biology of love. It is in the transience of the human living that you can live in the way of LOVE. Every declared value or meaning as a desired source of transcendent well-

being constitutes an alienating living that sooner or later will be lived in the pain and suffering because of an attachment that moves us away from the well-being of the non-attachment that is conserved in the way of love. But if what you want is the way of well-being, which - when it is lived in the reflexion – show, without describing it, that what you live could only be lived in what the spiritual traditions call the way, we could ask: What is the living in well-being that makes living a living in the spiritual way without speaking about the spiritual way? What is the relational sparkle that if it is conserved in the changing flow of human living results spontaneously in the expansion of the understanding, without words, that leads to live what an observe would call to live in the spiritual way? Our answer is the way of the biology of love.

It is in this sense that we can understand what different persons and communities suggest as the spiritual challenge that the climatic crises offer us. “When we grow we will live an experience of epiphany as we discover that this crisis has nothing to do with politics. It is a moral and spiritual challenge”. It is also a moral moment, a crossroad. In last instance it is not about scientific discussions or political dialogues. It is about what we are as human beings. It is about our own limitations, in order to grow into this new scenario. In order to view with our own hearts and our heads, the answer that we are called to give. It is a moral challenge, ethical and spiritual.” You may think that science has no given role in all this cultural transformation, but this is not the case. Indeed, science has an integrated role from a systemic-systemic vision with each one of the dimensions of human living that we have here abstracted. From science we may expect the explication of phenomenon or systems that are structurally determined. These are such that if we suggest a proposition of a generative mechanism, and let it operate, the result is the phenomenon we want to explain. Such explanations are always reformulations of the experience with elements of other experiences. The discrepancies that could appear in scientific explanations are always with respect to the criteria of distinction that we use to validate them.

We think that the history of scientific thought is the history of curiosity. It is the history of the search for understanding in order to generate actions, and that - as a result of that - has changed according to the concerns of the persons, for instance, the concerns of the scientists and the persons in general, according to the fantasies, the things that move us, among others.

We see that it has passed beyond the emphasis of the physics to biology and technology, on the one hand because these visions contribute with something, and on the other hand because of the fascination that occurs at a certain moment each time one enters into a certain domain. For instance, in biology, in genetics, in genetic engineering, this actual interest has to do with technology and with the development of the technological manipulation. The most serious in all this is the reductionist emphasis, which does not permit a vision of the systemic-systemic character of the phenomenon that permits one to believe that one can control them through local actions. The central point will be: Are we capable or not to pass to a systemic-systemic thinking

that permits us to understand that each time that we have a local action we have repercussions in many parts? This is not a matter of global effects, but in many parts, it appears as a network of situations. Will we be able to note, that this vision that we can control everything, that we can manipulate genes, that we can manipulate agriculture, that we can manipulate this and that giving rise to human well-being without a systemic-systemic understanding, is not possible? We can believe that it is, but we will be generating maximal destruction. Central here is the step towards a systemic-systemic thinking and responsibility. This means to become aware that the manipulation of systems requires an understanding which is much deeper of all the relations involved in the place where one acts. We believe this is a blindness that has developed, which has become a central element in our history of the sciences. This is a blindness that has happened as a result of the manipulative efficiency that physics, biology and chemistry has brought to human doing: an apparent capacity to control in production, in manipulation, with blindness about the systemic consequences that it brings.

The attempt to view whatever phenomenon from the systemic-systemic perspective is not reductionist since it expands the understanding. If one treats the notion of system as an explanatory notion, it will not work. This is an understanding, the understanding that the local action has always consequences in a whole network of processes and that one needs to understand this in order to act locally because if not you produce precisely the ecological distortions, among other things. Another important theme in this reflexive direction concerns objectivity (or reality). This is a fundamental theme from which we manipulate each other mutually. This is a theme about a demand on the other that the other must do what one wants him or her to do. Of course, the theme about subjectivity has to do with the objectivity. If one speaks about objectivity one is also speaking about subjectivity in the sense that one accuses the other of being subjective when one says that one is objective and the theme here is not objectivity as a central theme, but in order to show that this is a manipulative argument. In order to leave objectivity as an argument. We do not think it is a biological reductionism to suggest that what cultural biology does is to understand how the spiritual and the scientific are domains of existence in our operation as living beings and human beings. It is not because everything concerns the living being. If you understand the living being, if you understand how it works, you also understand how other domains arise, but each of these domains is valid in themselves, because they belong to domains of relations. Strictly speaking everything human is an artifact. An artifact refers to something that arises as an action of the human being and as a configuration of the world with what is done. When we distinguish something we move in relation with that which arises in the distinction. This always happens. The world is always an artifact. What happens is that we use the word artifact to distinguish it from the natural, but what happens is that the human being is natural, so the artifact of the world that the human being brings forward is also natural. All animals configure a world that arise from their operations and this world has to do with them, if that animal or plant disappears, the world disappears. The conceptual-reflexive turn (epistemological-ontological) of the cultural biology is to become aware in a complete manner what constitutes the living being and living, and

from there become aware, and understand, a series of other phenomenon or mysteries that also disappear. Autopoiesis makes reference to what constitutes the living being as a living being. Therefore it makes reference to everything that may arise as a result of living out of the realisation and conservation of autopoiesis. We say that it is from this that all other dimensions arise, it is from this that the legitimacy of the biological view appears as a fundament for the space where the social occurs and in order to be able to view the social in such a way that the biological remains obscured as when we speak about complexity. In this sense autopoiesis puts the notion of causality in its legitimate position as a concept, as something that an observer uses to refer to the successions of the processes that arise from the structural coherences. This is the way in which these successions are artifacts of the observer in the operation of the observer as a living being, that is, they have to do with the operation of the living being. Now, the principles are explanatory propositions that obscure. They obscure the dynamics and they obscure the processes to the extent that you treat them as circumstantial arguments. For instance: causality. To say that this is the cause of this other in the particular circumstantial coherence is not very problematic when one treats them as principles, and begins to use them as general explanatory notions where the problem appears.

We don’t want the notion of autopoiesis to be treated as a principle. This notion is not a principle, but an explanation. Autopoiesis is a notion that makes reference to proper particular dynamic coherences, molecules that constitute the living beings as a living being in its happening as such.

We at Instituto Matriztica orient ourselves to the searching for the understanding of all the dimensions of our living. When we do this we find the dynamic-operational intertwining of the realisation of the human living and living together that we call cultural biology.

When we do this we do so not only to be coherent with the separation of separated domains or with the unity of our existence, but also, in this cultural crossroad, to see and understand, in a systemic-systemic way, other views concerning our existence in science.

Green box 6

We can see that it is not arbitrary from which view we invite one to reflect. We only need reflexive liberty in order to construct the human. To be willing to see it all and be willing to understand that the human arises from the cultural-biological dynamics according to a course that arises from our desires and preferences. When we speak about cultural biology we do not speak about a thing in itself that we suppose exists independently of our act of distinguishing it, but we talk about a notion or configuration of explanatory notions about our origin and our operation as living beings that we find ourselves doing when we ask ourselves about our living and our cognitive operation. When we ask ourselves how we are and what we do when we operate as observers we

are already operating as observers. We are already doing that which we ask ourselves to do. We find ourselves living as human beings in observing. In particular, we find ourselves already conscious about what we do when we as ourselves ask how we operate as observers in observing. In accordance with everything said above the act of observing could not consist in the adaptation to an external reality, and the adequate behaviour could not arise in doing a representation of the environment through obtaining something from it.

Without doing a complete and detailed exposition of what occurs in the cultural biological happening of the observing of the observer, we can say how as observes in the distinction of a living being in its domain of existence as organism, something that applies to ourselves in our operation as observers.

When we observe the molecular processes of the internal dynamics of an organism we see that these occur as a continual closed flow of internal correlations blind to the relational environment in which it exists as totality. Furthermore, when we see this we become aware that we are not different, and that as living beings human beings as systems generating a closed dynamics of internal sensorial and effectorial , so that what we see when we distinguish the operation of an observer in its operation is not and could not be an act of direct or indirect capturing of a an independent reality of him or her. This also applies to us.

However, we find in our cultural living that it happens that it happens from time to time that we confuse domains of existence when we, as observers, try to establish logical deductive relations between processes whose happening occurs in separate domains. We find that this confusion happens when we become aware that we treat historical correlations as if they were generative relations. We then become reductionist in our thinking.

This confusion of domains may have deceiving consequences in the explaining because it leads us to a reductionist thinking and arguing that obscures the processes involved in the happening of what we want to explain, (for instance, the case of sustainability as we can see). We believe that this is especially the case when you think that the act of explaining a phenomenon consists in expressing a phenomenon in more fundamental and basic terms. The moment the observer does not confuse domains and becomes aware that the phenomenon or experience that he or she wants to explain, and the process that gives origin to it, occurs in separate domains, it becomes clear that the act of explaining consists in proposing a generative mechanism or process that results in the experience that you want to explain if you let it operate. So it does not consist in expressing what you want to explain in more fundamental terms. Now, this is generally not recognised neither by scientists nor by philosophers, although it is easy to see that it is this what we scientists do when we propose a scientific explanation, and this is what the philosophers

do when they propose an explanatory theory.

In terms of experimental praxis this distinction does not appear necessary because the scientists know what to do, but in the conceptual domain it is because if one does not account for it sooner or later you will confuse domains in the act of explaining. If we confuse domains when we explain we will soon find, as scientists or as philosophers, that we will be using explanatory principles in a reductionist proposal that obscure what they are supposed to explain. This happens with frequency in the area of quantum physics with themes such as the observer and observing, mind and consciousness. The observer and the observing, the living, mind and consciousness, are not phenomenon or happenings of physics but the happening of living of the living beings about which only an observer could speak about in its operation in cultural biology in his or her own living.

We think that the most fundamental consequence of the confusion of domains that explanatory reductionism leads could maybe be found in what, as we said, is the obscuring of phenomenon that the reductionist thinking implies. What remains obscure you could not see, and what you do not see does not exist. We believe that this is what happens, for instance, in the realm of biology in the obscuring of the epigenesis, which is produced with the reductionism implied in the emphasis on genetic determinism.

We suggest that every attempt to explain, for instance, the operation of an organism in the relational space where it exists as such, may confuse at least two domains: the domain of the operation of the organism as totality and the operation of its components as such. The same occurs when you attempt to explain the operation of the molecules with the operation of its components.

The operation of the molecules according to their distinct forms as structural components of the changing architecture of the organism obscure the dynamics of the different quantum elements that constitute them, but it does not determine them. This means that every attempt to explain conscious human behaviour in these circumstances, or the operation of human beings as self-conscious beings referring to the happenings in the sphere of quantum processes confuse domains and is deceiving. Nevertheless, this does not exclude the possibility, or the fact, that the processes of the quantum domain may affect the flow of the conscious operation of human beings, but if it invites us to attempt to explain how it happens, proposing a generative mechanism, without doing a phenomenal reduction. This is the case if you want to explain the conscious human operation in everyday living.

The main difficulty in understanding what constitutes the happenings of our everyday living that we call consciousness and self-consciousness is to refer to them as if they were objective entities that we may possess or loose at a certain moment of our relational living. We ask for being of consciousness or self-consciousness in this way, instead of asking ourselves: What does an observer see what we do when we say that we act in a conscious or self-conscious way?

If we pay attention to what we distinguish as observers in the circumstances when we say that a person acts in a conscious way in what he or she does, we will see that we say that the operation of that person implies that she or he acts in that flow of her or his living distinguishing her or his distinguishing what she or he distinguish, and will answer yes when we ask the person if she or he knows what he or she is doing. If we pay attention to what we distinguish when we say as observers that a person acts, in the moment the person does what she or he does, conscious about herself or himself, we will in the same way see that that its behaviour reveals that she or he acts in the flow of her or his living distinguishing her or his participation in the doing what he or she does, and that the person that lies before us would say answer yes when we say that she or he lies.

The consciousness and self-consciousness are modes of living together. When you live and live together in conversations where you operate conscious and self-conscious of about the living that you live, this implies a particular sensorial flow that is distinct from the sensorial flow that you live in other conversations, and brings forth a relational matrix in the living together that an observer may distinguish as a conscious and self-conscious flow of the living that you live. With no doubt different networks of conversation imply different relational matrixes as different matrixes of flows of coordinations of doings and emotions that constitute different worlds. The different networks of conversation imply the operational coherences of the different classes of doings that we live in our living together and that we distinguish as the different operational domains or worlds that we live, and about which we speak in our everyday living as the domains of physics, biology, philosophy, …politics, etc.

That is, the different worlds that we generate in our doing and imagining in our everyday living together exist in recursive networks of conversations that imply matrixes of operational coherences of coordinations of doings of our living together that constitute those worlds. If we continue to think that languaging occurs in the symbolic reference to entities that exist independently of the observer, we cannot see that languaging occurs in the flow of coordinations of doings in the realisation of living, and that all the worlds that we live and that we can or could live in, be it in the domain of quantum science, molecular biology or in the culinary arts, are based on our living as living beings in an operation that occurs in an operational and relational domain that is different from the operational and relational domains in which molecular and quantum phenomenon happen.

The domain of the quantum processes and the domain of the relational processes of human living are separate. Both domains arise and exist in the operation of the observer in describing and explaining the regularities of the operation in its living, in the circumstances that the observer is a living human that operates in languaging, who is conscious about what she does in her operation in languaging, and not a transcendental entity in the operation of her living. When the observer operates in the space of the

operational coherences that she generates in her living with the attention put on the domain she calls the molecular and supramolecular processes, she operates in what the physics call “classical physics”. When the observer operates in the space of the operational coherences that she generates in her living with the attention put on the happenings of the domain of the submolecular processes, as in the attempt to explain those happenings, arise what the physics call the domain of “quantum physics”. In other words, we talk about the classic physics when we operate as observers in the operational-relational space that arise with our distinction of molecules and supramolecules and we speak about the space of quantum physics when we operate in the operational-relational space that arise with our operation as observers as we decompose the molecules in the processes that generate and constitute them. So we have these two separate domains of explaining human living with the operational coherences of human living: the domain of explanation of our operation in the classic space of explaining, and the domain of explaining of our operation in the quantum space of explaining.

We human beings live as valid everything that we live at the moment of living it. Since we do not distinguish between what we call illusion and perception in our experiences, we live or treat as equal everything that we live. It is only when we in some moment differentiate between two situations that we have lived as equal in relation to some other aspect of the circumstances where they happened, using some explanatory argument or theory of what happened, that we decide that they were different, and our treating them as equal was an error or illusion. This happens in this way because the nervous system operates distinguishing configurations of relations of activities between the neuronal elements that constitute them without differentiating their origin as it generates the sensor- effectoric correlations of the organism. That we live or treat as equal situations that are similar in the configuration of what is essential to them, and that we consider are different as seen from another perspective, is the fundament for analog thinking, magic, explanation, the confusion of phenomenal domains and mystic experience.

The previous reflexion is particularly relevant when we use the notion of consciousness as if we refer to an operational entity that exists as a cosmic actor that we use as an explanatory argument without being aware that we confuse phenomenal domains and obscure the processes that we want to explain. The observer and the consciousness are not entities of whatever denomination of the physical space. They are modes of operation of the human living beings in the realization of their living, and not transcendental entities that exist independently of the observer. The acts of observing and the conscious operation of what you do (I see that I see what I say that I see) occur in the flow of living together of the human living beings as an operation in its living and involve the human corporality in interactions in the relational space of the human living. Therefore, the act of observing occurs as a recursion in the flow of the consensual coordinations of coordinations of doings (behaviours) of the observer in the operational domain (of its internal coherences) where he or she moves.

Nothing is in itself. Something is according to the operations of distinction with which the observer brings forward it through distinguishing it, and it exists in the space that is defined by the operational dimensions and relations by which it arises through being distinguished. The living being is and exists as a living being in the operational and relational space that arise in its operation as a living being as it is brought forward as such in the operations of distinctions of the observer. The same happens with the electron that arises as a particle and wave without being neither particle nor wave, as it is distinguished in the operation of distinction of the observer that brings forward it as such. This is why the observer, when she says that the electron behaves in such or such way in the operational space that arises in her operation of distinction (experiment), should use these operational coherences in order to describe the happenings of the operational and conceptual entities in that same space. This is also why the observer should not be surprised when she sees that the space of classic physics and the space of quantum physics are separate operational and conceptual, as all spaces are that arise separate in the operation of the observer.

The observer is not a physical entity but an operational dynamic that arises as an entity in the distinction of the observer in the same way as every other entity, and it does not pre-exist the act of distinguishing the distinction of the distinction in the languaging that brings it forth in the conversation in the flow of living together in consensual coordinations of consensual coordinations of doings that constitute the observing. The act of observing is not an arbitrary act. The observing occurs in the realization of the living of the observer and she brings forth only what the coherences of her operation in her living can configure as an aspect of the coherences of the realization of her living. The observer participates in her observing in the configuration of what she distinguishes, but it is not part of what is distinguished because the act of distinction occurs implying that the observer and the distinguished exist in separate domains. What is peculiar to the act of observing in these circumstances is that the observer is conscious of her act of observing, and not whatever operational cleavage constitutes a distinction in the observing of an observer.

Observing occurs necessarily as a conscious act of the human living being, and as such it is a cultural biological act, and not a product of the operation of some agent that is transcendental in relation to human operation. Therefore the operation of the observer cannot bring forth anything that does not belong to the operational coherences of the realization of its living in the cultural biological matrix of its existence. The instruments do not modify this. They only expand the operational space of the observer as a living being, expanding its corporality, and as such its possible spaces of recursion of sensor-effector correlations through the realization of its living. The instruments, the experimental operations and the mathematical constructs with which the observer brings to her reflexion the operational coherences of the quantum spaces, do not transcend the realization of human living but only expand its operational dimensionality, creating another recursive domain of coordinations of doings in her living together.

Every act of observation occurs in the ignorance of the observer as an act that reduces his or her uncertainty in some particular field of structural coherences already insufficiently known by him or her, and about which he or she can only speak in terms of probabilities, trusting the fundamental structural determinism of the cosmos that arises with its existing. The structural coherences of whatever domain are possible to observe by the observer only through the operations in his or her living that makes them apparent or interfere with them. Hence, what is peculiar about the quantum space is, on the one hand, that it arises in the operation of distinction of the observer as an operational space separate from the classic space, and that it therefore is constituted by processes and regularities that are different from those that arise in the distinction by the latter; and on the other hand, that it arises (in the distinction of the observer) as a space in which he or she can only speak about the operational-relational regularities of the entities and processes that constitute them in terms of the probabilities of existence and not spatial location. That is, the entities and processes that arise in the thinking and explaining of the quantum space by the observer only exist as probabilities of association with the classical elements of her living.

In the understanding of our existence our corporality is our primary condition. We find ourselves in our corporality when we, in an act of reflexion, ask ourselves about ourselves. When we answer these questions from the operation of living our corporality we become aware that we cannot pretend to speak about something that we call the real in itself as the substratum that sustains our existence. We need this substratum because of epistemological motives, but we cannot speak about it because we can not say anything about it in itself. What we can say is that from this substratum, that we need because of epistemological motives and about which we cannot speak, arises the existence in our explaining our living as the unthinkable source of the operational coherences of everything that we bring forth through existing with the operations of distinctions of our living in conversation.

Now, although consciousness and self-consciousness in our living as beings that exist in conversation arise in our living as human beings in the observing, they are at the same time the origin of our existing and our consciousness of our existing.

The point of arrival is the point of departure.

The point of departure in this reflexive project is the observer, in the experience of observing, as the being that we distinguish as we observe ourselves in the observing in and from the cultural biological matrix of our human existence. The observer is not an ontological supposition a priori. The observer appears in the distinction of the observer as she makes the question about the observer and the observing. The observer is what we want to explain and the observing is the instrument with which we want to explain it.

We living beings exist in the present, the biosphere exists in the present, and the cosmos exists in the present. This is a changing present in a happening at time zero. That is, we living beings exist in the occurrence of the processes, and in particular, we observers exist in the present of the distinction of processes in which we distinguish ourselves. Past and future are modes of speaking about our living now. Therefore, when we are primarily concerning with the past and the future in our doing we alienate ourselves from our present, and that alienation brings suffering. This is the very centre of our difficulty in the attempts to understand our being, and with that, the centre of our difficulty in understanding the being of the cosmos that we live. In the happening of our biology we live in no time, in a time zero, but in the happening of our human living in time, a time that as proposition or explicative construct we use to explain our distinction of our existing in the experience of an irreversible flow of processes.

What we explain is our experience, and we explain our experience with the coherences of our experience, and as we explain our experiences our experience changes. This is what is peculiar about our human existence that as beings that exist in languaging and conversation, and it is at the same time our condition of understanding of our existence, the source of our freedom.

We Occidental human beings are members of a cultural tradition with Greco-Judeo-Christian roots to which modern science belongs. We like to explain and formulate questions that demand explanatory answers. Furthermore, if we are in the mood to ask a question that requires an explanation, we are satisfied only when we find an explanatory answer to our question.

This leads to the following question: What happens in an explanation? What should happen so that we can say that a phenomenon or situation has been explained? If we pay attention to what we do in our everyday living each time that we respond to a question with a discourse that is accepted by a listener as an explanation, we can note two things: a) that what we do is to propose a reformulation of a particular situation of our praxis of living with other elements of our praxis of living; and b) that our reformulation of our praxis of living is accepted by the listener as a reformulation of her praxis of living.

In other words, we find that life reveals to us daily that it is the observer that accepts or rejects an affirmation as a reformulation of a particular situation of her praxis of living with elements of other situations of her praxis of living, which determines if this affirmation is or is not an explanation. The observer that does this accepts or rejects a reformulation of her praxis of living as an explication depending on if it satisfies or not an implicit or explicit criteria of acceptation, which he or she apply through his or her way of listening. If the criteria of acceptation are satisfied, the reformulation of the praxis of living is accepted and constitutes an explanation. The emotion or the mood of the observer changes from doubt to satisfaction, and he or she ceases to ask the question.

In fact, once the biological condition of the observer is accepted, the supposition that an observer can make whatever declaration about entities that exist independently of what she or he does, that is, in a domain of an objective reality, becomes absurd or empty because there is no operation of the observation that can satisfy it. In the explanatory path of objectivity-within-parenthesis, existence is constituted with what the observer does, and the observer brings forth the objects that she or he distinguish with her or his operations of distinction as distinctions of distinctions in languaging. The objects that the observer brings forth in its operation of distinction arise provided with the properties that the operational coherences realize in the domain of the praxis of living in which they are constituted.

In the explanatory path of objectivity-within-paranthesis, the observer constitutes existence with its operations of distinction. In the explanatory path of objectivity-within-paranthesis the observer knows, because of these reasons, that he or she cannot use an object that is supposed to exist as an independent entity as an argument to use as a base for her explanation. Indeed, we call this explanatory path the path of objectivity-within-paranthesis precisely because of this, and because it instead supposes to recognize that it is the criteria of acceptation that the observer apply in her listening that determines the reformulations of the praxis of living that constitutes explanations for her.

We deduce from all this: a) that the observer in the explanatory path of objectivity-within-paranthesis find herself as a generator of all reality through her operations of distinctions of the praxis of living; b) that she may bring forth as many different but equally legitimate domains of reality as the different types of operations of distinctions that she realizes in her praxis of living; c) that she may use one or the other of these different domains of realities as a domain of explanation according to the criteria of acceptation for an adequate reformulation of the praxis of living that she uses in her listening; and d) that she is operationally responsible for all the domains of reality and explanations that she live in her explanations of living.

We also deduce that in this explanatory path the explanations are constitutively non-reductionist and non-transcendental because in them there is not search for a unique ultimate explanation of everything. Hence, when an observer accepts this explanatory path, he or she takes responsibility that two observers that generate two explanations that exclude each other mutually, before two situations that for a third observer is the same, they are not giving different explanations of the same situation, but the three are operating in different but equally legitimate domains of reality, and they are explaining different aspects of their respective praxis of living. The observer that follows this explanatory path is aware that he or she lives in a multiversum – that is, in many different, but equally legitimate, but not equally desirable explanatory realities. This means that an explanatory disagreement is an invitation to responsible reflexion of co-existence, and is not an irresponsible denial of the other.

Since every domain of explanation is defined by the criteria of validation, which the observers uses to accept a reformulation given by the praxis of living as an explanation of it, there are as many explanatory domains as criteria of acceptation for the explanations that an observer may use in her listening. At the same time, and as a result of this, each domain of explanation constitutes a domain of actions (and of affirmations as actions in a domain of descriptions) that an observer considers in her reflexions as legitimate actions in a particular domain of praxis of living because these are supported by the explanations that he or she accepts in that domain.

Finally, whether an observer operates in a domain of explanation or other, depends on his or her preferences (emotion of acceptance) for the basic premises that constitutes the domain in which he or she operates. Hence, games, science, religions, political doctrines, philosophical systems, ideologies in general, are different domains of operational coherences in the praxis of living of the observer that he or she lives as different domains of explanation or as different domains of actions (and, therefore, cognition), according to the different operational preferences.

We scientists in general, for instance, like to explain the praxis of living, and the passion for explaining is the fundamental emotion that sustains what we do as such. Furthermore, what is peculiar about modern scientists in general, and specially modern natural scientists in their mode of doing science, is the peculiar way of listening to what they consider to be acceptable reformulations of the praxis of living, and their serious attempt to always be consistent with them in their affirmations concerning of what occurs in their domains of experience.

The result is that modern science is a peculiar domain of explanations and derived affirmations concerning the praxis of living that is defined and constituted by the observer, in the application of the particular criteria of validation of the explanations that defines them. We call this criterion of validation of explanations, the criteria of validation of scientific explanations. Indeed, all the persons that accept, and consistently use the criteria of validation of scientific explanations for the generation of their explanations, as well as for the validation of their affirmations in a particular domain, are scientist in this domain.

We will present this criterion of validation, and thereafter we will reflect about what we consider significant in its consequences for the aim of this project.

The modern natural scientists accept a given proposition as a scientific explanation of a particular situation of our praxis of living as observers (or phenomenon to be explained), only if it describes a mechanism that produces this situation or phenomenon as a consequence of its operations as one of four operational conditions that the observer may satisfy jointly in her praxis of living.

These four conditions are:

a) The specification of the phenomena to be explained as a characteristic of the praxis of living of the observer through the description of what he or she should do to live it.

b) The proposition in the praxis of living of the observer of a mechanism which, as a consequence of its operation, produces in him or her, the experience of the phenomena to be explained.

c) The deduction from the mechanism proposed in (b) of all the operational coherences that it supposes in the praxis of living of the observer, of other phenomena, as well as the operations that the observer should do in her praxis of living to live it.

d) The observer lives those additional phenomenon deduced in (c), to the extent that he or she perform in his or her living those operations that, according to what has also been deduced in (c), would be generated in him or her when he or she realize them.

When these four conditions are satisfied in the praxis of living of the observer, and only then, the proposed mechanism as a generative mechanism that as a consequence of its operations produce the specified phenomena, is converted to a scientific explanation of that phenomenon for the observer. Furthermore, the proposed generative mechanism will be considered to be a scientific explanation of the specified phenomena for the observer only as long as all the deduced phenomenon are lived by him or her, according to the indications that are also deduced. Therefore, only those observers are scientists that use the criteria of validation of scientific explanations for the validation of their explanations, and they do this carefully trying to avoid a confusion of the operational domains. In fact, we can see in this way that what constitutes science, as a domain of explanations and affirmations arising in the praxis of living of the scientists through the application of the criteria of validation of explanations presented previously and not through the application of the criteria of falsification that was proposed by Popper.

Since science arises as an explanatory domain through the application of the criteria of validation of scientific explanations, science, as a domain of explanations and affirmations, is valid only in the community of observers (from here on called standard observers) that accept and use this particular criterion for their explanations. In other words, science is constitutively a domain of reformulations of the praxis of living with elements of the praxis of living with elements of the praxis of living in a community of standard observers, and as such it is a consensual domain of coordinations of actions between the members of such a community. This means that the scientists can be replaced, one by the other, in the process of generating a scientific explanations. It is this interchangeability that is constitutive of scientists that is the beginning of the affirmation that scientific explanations should be corroborated by independent observers. In fact, when two scientists cannot agree in their affirmations and explanations, this means that they belong to different consensual communities.

Since the criteria of validation of scientific explanations does not require the supposition of an objective world existing independently of what the observer does, the scientific explanations do not characterize, denote or reveal a world that is independent of what the observer does. Therefore, as a domain of explanations and affirmations in a domain of consensual coordinations of actions in a community of standard observers, science occurs as a system of combinations of explanations and affirmations of the praxis of living of the standard observers that expand their praxis of living according to their operations with those combinations of explanations and affirmations in his or her praxis of living as members of a community of standard observers.

Since it is not measuring, quantification nor prediction that constitutes sciences as a domain of explanation and affirmation, but the application of the criteria of validation of scientific explications by a standard observer in their praxis of living, a standard observer can do science in whatever domain of praxis of living in which he or she applies this criteria.

Since the criteria of validation of scientific explanations makes valid a mechanism that generate the phenomenon to be explained as a consequence of its operation, the explanatory mechanism and the phenomenon that is to be explained necessarily belong to different phenomenic domains that do not intersect. Therefore, constitutively a scientific explanation does not consist in a phenomenic reduction.

The operations that constitute the criteria of validation of scientific explanations are the same that we use in the operational validation of the praxis of living of our everyday living as human beings. We deduce from this that, in a strict operational sense, what distinguish an observer in everyday life as a scientific observer, is the emotional orientation of the scientist to explain, his or her consistency to use only the criteria of validation of scientific explanations for the system of explanations that he or she generate in the particular domain of explanatory interests, and his or her commitment to avoid to confuse phenomenic domains in the generation of scientific explanations.

Although the praxis of science suppose the use of the criteria of validation of scientific explanations, the majority of scientists are not conscious about the epistemological and ontological implications of what they do, because for them science is a domain of praxis and not a domain of reflexions. Something similar happens with many philosophers that do not understand what happens in science, because for them science is a domain of reflexions, and not a domain of praxis.

This means that both usually follow a general tendency in our Occidental culture, and:

a) accept scientific explanations as reductionist propositions, under the implicit belief that they consist in expressing the phenomenon to be explained in more fundamental

terms and,

b) they do not see the generative character of scientific explanations, because they are under the implicit or explicit belief that the validation of scientific explanations depend on their direct or indirect reference to an objective reality that exists independently of what the observer does.

Finally, because of this usual blindness about what constitutes a scientific explanation in modern sciences both scientists and philosophers frequently believe in our culture, that to be objective in the praxis of science and philosophy means that the affirmations and explanations that are done, are validated with reference to an independent reality. However, in the praxis of the scientist to be objective only means to abandon his or her desire of a particular result of the investigation, in order not to obscure his or her impeccability as generator of scientific explanations in operational terms that has been presented before.

The implicit or explicit supposition that scientific affirmations refer to an objective and independent reality, usually leads to the belief (and the emotion of certainty that supports it) that it is by principle possible to find, for whatever dilemma of human life, an objective (transcendental) argument that resolves it, and whose reference to the real makes it constitutively undeniable and rationally valid.

However, there exists at the same time in our Occidental culture a doubt with regard to the possibility that science could be totally capable to explain certain characteristics of the praxis of living, like the psychic and spiritual phenomenon, precisely because of the mechanist nature of the scientific explanations and their reductionist character.

In fact, the mechanist character of scientific explanations specify that to explain psychic and spiritual phenomenon as biological phenomenon, the observer should propose a generative mechanism that is applied to him or her as living system that gives origin to such a phenomenon as a consequence of its operation. A mechanism that could generate psychic and spiritual phenomenon as a consequence of its operation would not deny their peculiar experiential character, because they would constitute the phenomenal domain that is not mixed with the phenomenal domain in which they occur as a generative mechanism.

Einstein said on one occasion that scientific theories are free creations of the human mind. What we say about the criteria of validation of the scientific explanations show that this, in fact, must be so. Both, the phenomenon to be explained and the proposed generative mechanism, are suggested by the observer in the flow of his or her praxis of living, and as they happen to him or her, they live them as experiences that arise in him or her from nowhere. In her daily living the observer brings them forth a priori, even if he or she may construct rational justifications for them.

Einstein also said that the marvellous thing about scientific theories is that they can be used to explain the world even in circumstances of being free human creations. That this should be so is evident also by the criteria of validation of scientific explanations. In fact, the scientific explanations do not explain an independent world, they explain the experience of the observer, and this is the world that he or she lives. The important theme is what world we want to live.

Green box 7

Considering this it is possible to propose some basic criteria of validation to consider in the design of an ethical matrix of cultural transformation that is oriented to well-being recognising our present existence in the habitat of the patriarchal/matriarchal culture: Poverty is not an economic, material, social or political state or condition, it is a dynamic flow in which you extract from the habitat - where a person, family or community lives - means of subsistence with more velocity than those with which they are replaced. Since every habitat is multidimensional, with material, spiritual, aesthetic, intellectual, and dignified dimensions, the relational dynamics of flows that constitute poverty are also multidimensional and will not be dissolved unless the different local actions that are taken will also be it as parts of the systemic-systemic connection of the relational multi-dimensionality in which the flow of poverty occurs.

The harm and environmental contamination also occur as dynamic flows in which the environment of existence of a habitat is extracted or modified faster than those with which they are replaced spontaneously.

The consciousness of these processes also occurs as a dynamics of flow when you forget the systemic-systemic understanding of the human habitat and the fundamental feeling of the ethical commitment as you believe that what you search is an achievement and not a stationary dynamic that is conserved only in the continuous flow of actions and intentional understanding out of the desire to conserve this ethical commitment.

Hence, there does not exist one solution to the problem of overcoming poverty and the restoration of environmental equilibrium. The multifactoriality and multidimensionality of the manifestations of poverty and the deterioration of the ecosystems that constitute the biosphere, requires us to put in practise strategies or dynamics of diverse and complementary stationary flows. In the same way, poverty constitutes heterogeneous worlds, where it is possible to find different social archetypes, traditions, visions of the world, value structures, among others. Hence, to overcome poverty in the education for sustainability requires plasticity and congruence of the programs that are implemented.

In the world of poverty you frequently live constant dissatisfaction and irrealisation of some necessities and the persistence of risks and sinisters that hamper the social promotion and environmental sustainability. But also, it is a scenario where resources, strategies of satisfaction of necessities, implicit practises of protection, respect and

validation of the ecosystem also exist, if we want it. All this should be adequately recognised and safeguarded, given that it constitutes the “floor” of whatever ethical action that has as an aim the “sustainable” dissolution of poverty.

No actor, public or private will by itself solve the problem of poverty and the disequilibrium of the biosphere in a sustainable way in time. The multidimensionality and integrity of the solutions, force the involved actors to develop a flow of coordinated and complementary actions that permit to confront synergistically, from case to case, the diverse connections between poverty and sustainability.

As a dynamic of systemic-systemic flow, the dissolution of poverty is a trans-generational process that involves a focus of anthroposphere-biosphere harmony that is conserved in a lineage of homo sapiens amans ethicus. The intervention in the poverty-biosphere relation wants to happen in a constant and systematic flow. In general, poverty and the ecological disequilibrium are fruits of an accumulation of exaggerated practises, disadvantages and inequalities that only use to be solved in long periods of time, revealing the intimate relation with the modes of living that underlies the desires, preferences and emotions of those that realize them.

The harmonic dissolution in the anthroposhere-biosphere relation of the dynamics of flow that result in poverty also imply the active and progressive participation of the adult persons in their relation with their families, human communities and living beings that are affected by this situation in the decisions that entail it. In the same way that there is no viability in a co-inspirative and collaborative management in human communities without the active participation of all the involved parts (stakeholders), in the same way there is no viability in the sustainable relation with the biosphere without the active participation of all responsible parts.

It is also important to be aware that a poverty intervention may result in negative externalities that are important to visualize, admit and counteract, including those that protect themselves on the basis of notions and criteria of sustainability. This is so because as we said, the social interventions habitually tend to be centred in the products and expected achievements, without attending to the dynamics of flow that sustain them. In this direction, it is fundamental that the educational processes in situation of poverty address and develops reflexive practises concerning human habitats and about their consequences for the generation, realisation and conservation of the dynamics of stationary flow of the adequate actions at hand for the harmonious conservation of the anthroposphere-biosphere in well-being.

At the Matriztic Institute we claim that it is important, in order to view the dynamics of flow that constitute the different phenomena and domains that occupy this proposal, to move in the comprehension of the continuously changing dynamic architecture of our living in a no time or time zero, in order to examine, view and understand the actual

operations of the systems in general, without introducing or using notions or semantic arguments to explain what happens in them and with them in their existence in the flow of a present in continuous change.

MATRIX OF ADEQUATE ACTIONS AT HAND. “Transforming communities through acts of self-respect”

1. Understanding the dynamics of flow of systemic-systemic deep change examples.

We reflect that with the difficulties that we experience there are many miracles that happen today in the world: “We are living in the midst of immense cultural flows that intersect. This is obscured by the networks of actual conversations of our culture and the means of communication, and it appears that we are more absorbed in the catastrophical, while the other passes with no notice.” In this spirit Peter Senge has proposed to unite with a small group of persons in different places where great changes are occurring in the direction of facilitating the generation and conservation of a lineage of Homo Sapiens-Amans Ethicus.

In United States for instance there appears the dramatic reduction of homicides in Cincinnati for instance. Victor Garcia, the pediatric doctor that has catalyzed the transformation of this community would be one of the participants.

Molly Baldwin de Roca also, the organizer of leadership among young in the area of Boston (formed by many ex-gang members) that have been creating transformational communities through the “circles of conservation of peace” during 20 years.

The MIT could also participate given its studies of cases of pioneering innovations in the creation of chains of healthy values (interlacing of distributors and sellers of products). In this case the transforming communities are not local, but they could be extended through great distances in the chains of supply that connect producers, wholesalers, sellers and clients in the structures, and that to a large extent form our global economy. Here we also find examples of persons that meet as human beings that collectively may institute the economic networks in a different manner when there is a commitment to a complete transparency (with regard to where money goes), there is also sane productive communities (like agricultural communities) and ethical consumption (clients that become aware that they care for the well-being of all in a chain of values) Some of these projects are found in Guatemala, and Rodolfo Paiz Andrade may be one of the participating persons.

In these domains there are great histories that may help us to understand in a deeper way how cultural biology works in practise and show how this understanding could be extended in a natural way to more and more places. Rodrigo Jordán (Vertical) has proposed, from his experience, to incorporate projects of Chile that show the same phenomenon.

Luis David Grajeda de Guatemala may also articulate spaces of co-inspiration and collaboration in Central America that points in this direction.

2. Reflexive mentoring in order to accompany reflexively their cultural biological understanding…

Two groups:

The first is certainly the group of person’s committed to the realisation of the project Ethical Matrix. The second group would be constituted by the advanced practitioners (consultants) that already work in the reflexion in their work, and would like the opportunity to regularly ask for challenging situations that they live in their work. This could be done through the invitation of persons with a lot of experience in the initiatives of change as managers or advisors, and very open to see the working of their own suppositions and habits in their projects of change. These processes should include at least one moment of group presence each year (reflexive circles) with a follow-up online that would favour the register of the conversations. This because the registered conversations may thereafter be analysed by recurring themes and dilemmas and for the underlying struggles or confusions that may illuminate the challenges of this type of practises in other domains.

3. Project of Investigation-action of Well-being Organisations….

This important and fundamental project could be developed with the co-inspiration and collaboration of Peter Senge and Joe Hsueh (MIT) about organisations that generate well-being on the one hand, and the Project of Organisational Collaboration that the Matriztic Institute develops with Mutual de Seguridad in Santiago de Chile on the other hand, and that could work as a reflexive platform of action for this project, because it unites all the conditions for it.

Jorge Schwerter, Jaime Jaime Peirano, Alejandro Morales, José Manuel Saavedra and Cristián Moraga, among others, participate from Mutual de Seguridad.

4. New Common projects of Cultural Transformation…

There are probably many, many opportunities here and we should look for one where the opportunities for collaboration would be especially fruitful.

SOL is beginning to work with the Foundation of Quality of Management in Brazil to integrate systems thinking and sustainability in the National Prize of Quality of Brazil. No one in the world has done this before and it includes many of the biggest and best managed companies in Brazil. Although the Prizes of Quality may be very mechanized and superficial; they are an opportunity to connect the organisations that are prepared

to work seriously. Rodrigo da Rocha Loures (FIEP) and also Nick Zenuick from SOL participate in this group.

Project of the Philippines: Miguel Maliksi offers the possibility for us to advance in the generation of spaces of co-inspiration and collaboration through a person with an important management responsibility of governing an important pharmaceutics company of Asian Pacific with location in the Philippines. This could have as an initial stage a generation of a process like Reflexive Circles for three days for 20-30 persons that are responsible for management. This activity could be done in the Philippines or in United States. The idea is to advance in the possibility to eventually arrive to Philippines with a solid base of reflexion-action, taking responsibility for the desires for regeneration of well-being that Miguel desires for the people of his country.

Project University of Halmstad: This project is managed by Christopher Kindblad in Sweden and is quite developed. A complete description of it is found as an Attachment to this document.

Project Empresas Públicas EPM of Colombia: Through the coordination with Gloria Cano to explore the opening of a project of organisational collaboration beginning with the manager team of EPM. EPM is an important company with services in different key areas: waters, energy, transports, communications, and others.

5. Future encounters in order to create large reflexive communities…

These encounters are always important. In the SOL network normally 500-1000 persons are involved. The opinion of Peter Senge is that “this type of encounter is where the mode of world café created by Juanita Brown, has resulted very useful, for the crossing of diverse cultural borders and to create an extraordinary sense of conversation and connection in a big encounter”. We could think of where and how. One idea of Rodrigo da Rochas Loures (FIEP, Brazil) is to make a Global Forum encounter in Chile within an invitation from cultural biology. Another idea of Rodrigo Jordán and Ana María Bravo (Vertical) is to do a Seminar of three-four days for directives and/or executives of RRHH of organisations in Chile.

6. Projects of Urgent Sustainability…

Peter Senge in his book “The Necessary Revolution” invites us to view the climate change as a gift for humanity. He says that we now have a potential consensual clock that says how long time we have before the transformation should in fact begin in a scale that alter our mode of living. Peter informs us that Rajendra Pachauri who heads the IPCC (the Intern-Governmental Commission of Climate Change) says that we have until 2012. James Hansen, the most known member of IPCC, also informs us that we have even less time in face of the possibility that the climate change will be more and more difficult to avoid. Rodrigo Jordan says to us that the doubt now is because the

glaciers of Greenland are melting more rapidly than expected.

The idea is to generate a reflexive encounter/process that take this area with force, capable of organising in United States, Brazil or Chile, and in which is articulated systemic-systemic actions in these directions. We count with the assistance of the experience of Rodrigo Jordán and Ana María Bravo en Vertical from Chile and the contacts and experiences of persons like Peter Senge, Riane Eisler, and others.

7. Spirituality and human communities…

Dennis Sandow, Peter Senge and Ximena Dávila have the intention to coordinate a possible travel to China at the beginning of 2009. This would be a fine opportunity that Peter could introduce the Master Nan Huai Chin, who has been his mentor during the last 10 years or more.

We desire to explore the spiritual dimension of the processes that occupy us in this proposal given our nature as living beings and human beings. There are several persons that claim the arrival of a new spiritual era that arises from the integration of the spiritual and Occidental science with the emphasis in a new science of the living and a new science of knowing. Here there arises an opportunity which - if we want to – to explore the deep understanding of the human in oriental traditions, native ancestral traditions and our Occidental traditions. This could only be made from a systemic-systemic thinking (unitary epistemology) that invites us to understand drifts beyond reductionism, materialism and non-reflexive notions of science.

Bradford Keeney, the distinguished thinker in the sphere of therapy and cybernetics, has also accepted to participate in this project. Brad has travelled in diverse countries in the world to meet with adult persons that do healing in their respective spiritual traditions and can co-inspire and collaborate in the visualisation of a reflexive way and reflexive action in this area. His most recent work is among communities of the Kalahari Bushmen.

8. Educational Project…

This key area in our perspective we have handed over our project of Matriztic School (see annex to this document) to Margarita Bosch in Brazil and Sayra Pinto in United States. Both are exploring the possibilities of realisation of their respective communities or networks of educative action. Certainly in this area the collaboration of all persons that are invited or can be invited given their experiences in this area will be a fundamental contribution in order to see how to advance in this project. This also includes the invitation of Oscar Arias Recto of the University de la Salle in Costa Rica, who desires to help the management of new forms of generating knowledge from the local communities (for instance the Maya University).

Tamara Woodbury of the Girls Scout wants to open a process of transformation of the patriarchal style of management of the organisation of Girl Scouts, which could also be considered in this area.

Anne Murray Allen wants to see the possibility to open a Process of Certification in Cultural Biology through Willamette University.

Tania Muñoz and “Initiative of Andin Childhood” also participate in this sphere through the beautiful and deep project in investigation-action with indigenous children in the north and south of Chile. In this project art, is the vehicle of play and reflexive education of the community in the same way that it was for their ancestral communities.

Ana María Estrada and fellowship of Colombia desire to participate in this area in the generation of a reflexive education in the context of a project called “We can live together”.

9. Project of Economic Co-Inspiration and Collaboration

This deals with viewing and understanding the economic phenomenon from a different vision, without ceasing to attend to the systemic-systemic dynamics of flows that generate them. And this, of course, recognising that they are processes that arise in the praxis of us living beings inhabiting the world that we live.

It is possible to speak about bio-economics, of circular economics and care economics as have been said before, and in each case what is emphasized is a view that recognizes the desire of a harmonious anthroposphere-biosphere for all parts.

Riane Eisler has been invited to this project from her recent work, which for us has a tremendously inspiring character, which is harmonic with the proposal that we have been conversing. The form that this project will have will be a task in the work meeting in Santiago.

10. North America Matriztic Institute (NAMI)

Fundamental to each and all of us in these spaces of reflexion-action is Dennis Sandow and Gabriel Acosta-Mikulasek, who have generated the possibility to set up the Matriztic Institute in United States, expanding the possibilities to concretize some of these proposals or to generate different others in order to realize from them the regeneration of co-inspiration and collaboration from the cultural biology in the cultural transition towards a post post modern era.

REFLEXIVE WORK PROGRAMME:

24-26 July of 2009 the Journey of Work in Santiago de Chile will be realized during three days in order to advance in the reflexions and fundamental consensus of this project as well as in different lines of action or concrete projects that will be realized. In the same way will be decided the personal and organisational responsibility that the different stages and areas of action that will be the task of the same.

Finally, the desires by adult persons like Rajiv Meta, Robert Hanig, Luis Flores, among others, who have shown the intention to support this project from their present doings and in different ways, and to participate and integrate in some of the suggested areas.

Annexo: