A few weekends ago I had the pleasure of talking with two dear friends Ken Homer and Julie Layne for an afternoon about Integral Leadership. It was a priceless opportunity to share some of my recent work on an integral reconstruction of leadership with two the sharpest people that I know and to widen and deepen the inquiry. This posting was largely shaped during that afternoon thanks to Ken and Julie.
We were discussing my observations on effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptation which I've shared with you in recent postings. Ken pointed out that the way we relate to effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptation differs with our interpretation of time.
There are at least two interpretations of time: linear and cyclic. Linear time is the time of science.
Linear time proceeds from the forever retreating past into the never ending future through an irreversible process.
Cyclic time is the time of nature. Cyclic time is episodic - the future will be "isochronic" with the past - like the seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, seasons, and years.
Historically, most cultures understood time as cyclic (e.g., Mayans, Indians, Greeks, Native peoples everywhere, etc.) It was only with the advent of scientific thinking during the Renaissance that the linear interpretation of time started to dominate.
As you sense the distinction between these two interpretations of time, how is your sense of uncertainty affected?
For me, linear time orientation generates more uncertainty than cyclic time orientation.
The question isn't which interpretation is right. After all, they are both right. The question is what does each interpretation make possible.
In our scientific world today, we too often forget the cyclic interpretation of our ancestors and fix rigidly to the linear interpretation. And this way of dissociating from a central quality of time, adds to our uncertainty.
What does the shift from linear time or cyclic time change in how we approach being effective, efficient, and adaptive?
Take care,
-Steve
Comments