Hi Steven, Maybe slide 47 answered these questions for you. That page presents the option of "integral intelligence" in which we recognize that all the previous types of intelligence are valid and important and that wisdom lies in integrating all of them, despite the apparent paradoxes. So yes, often there _is_ one right answer. And scarcity does exist. But the divergent perspective that allows us to see those aspects of reality doesn't reveal the full story. We also need to see through the lenses of convergent intelligence and relationship intelligence. How does that sit with you?

Hi again, With pages 44 - 47, (about the different types of intelligence or consciousness), I'm observing that there are multiple faces of wisdom. So in page 44, I'm noting that one valid and important way of perceiving reality is as a unified whole. There are (and have been) cultures based on this view, and this view is available to every one of us as a way of life or in specific moments. Still, you're right that there is a leap of faith involved here. I didn't go into this research with that perspective. But the more I investigated the patterns and propensities of living systems, the harder it became to deny the presence of a unified realm of existence. I wonder if the Maori in New Zealand or other indigenous cultures would say that it's a leap of faith to believe that we're all fundamentally separate from each other. To them, the story of inherent unity is the self-evident one.

Hi Steven, It's Michelle here. Love your comments and want to explore them further. I was also suspicious of the pattern I was noticing at every level of life and wondered if I was projecting something that wasn't really there. But then I wondered if it could be a fractal pattern. Wouldn't it make sense that the same basic pattern of life would be at work at every level of the nested holarchy that is the multiverse (as you say)? Or am I mistaking the leap of faith that you're talking about here?

Thanks so much, Robert! Glad you liked the slideshow. From the things I see on your blog, I had a feeling you would. Weve clearly been thinking along the same lines. Im happy to have discovered you, thanks to a friend forwarding me a link.

Thanks for this thoughtful post. I might offer one observation in response to John's question: "Don't we have to have both?" Rather than complexity or chaos or network thinking, I prefer to talk about living systems thinking. All living systems do have mechanistic (Newtonian) properties: your heart is a pump, for example, and your wrist is a marvel of mechanical engineering. But these are just not the most interesting or powerful things about you. You are also a resilient, adaptive and creative living system (enter complexity thinking). So my answer would be: yes, we do need both types of thinking. You might be interested in a slideshow called Humanity 4.0 that explores how that integration might work. http://www.slideshare.net/mholliday/humanity-40-draft-presentation.