Y2K -- WHAT'S THE VISION?

A conversation between Barbara Shipka and Margaret Wheatley For some time we have been hearing about Y2K and that "bug". But what does it really mean and how should we face it? This is an extract from one conversation between two concerned people, Barbara Shipka and Meg Wheatley, which highlights one of the many dimensions of this fascinating challenge in which we are all caught. Dear Meg, I've been thinking a lot lately about how I just haven't been able to "get with the program" around Y2K planning, disaster preparedness, or even community building. And, since my lack of enthusiasm has puzzled me somewhat -- not to mention brought up the thought that I "should" perhaps feel guilty, I've been busy observing, pondering, reflecting. What's come to me is a sense that there's a need for an articulated positive, creative, coherent shared vision. A vision that is not in reaction to Y2K but, rather, that leverages Y2K. A vision that makes Y2K into a petri dish for experimenting, incubating, learning, and growing into the greatness that we are so deeply longing to emerge in ourselves anyway; a vision that serves us "locally" in terms of being Y2K specific, yes, but also serves us "globally" in that we learn principles we can apply to the many other global systems issues we face. While there are shared visions for Y2K out there already they are almost exclusively based on what we want to prevent and/or protect ourselves from rather than on what we want to create. Y2K planning, preparation, and community building appear to be almost all "in reaction to" with very little if any "in creation of." Thus, in and of itself, the preparatory part does not engage my passion. At times it engages my fear and perhaps my sense of duty but not my passion. At this point I find myself wanting to somewhat apologetically say that I don't know what that vision is. But then, part of the reason for that is that we must create it together. I know my personal vision fairly clearly but I long for a shared vision. It again brings to mind the quote, "We are called to the place where our deep joy meets the world's deep hunger." As we explore that meeting place of joy and hunger individually, we come to know our creative personal visions. But first, what are the current "visions" that are out there and that are serving (or not serving) as core assumptions for alignment at this time? There is an emerging shared vision of disaster that is very strong -- and very coherent. It is being spread very powerfully over the internet and more and more every day through the media. If we understand and interpret this time as a natural reorganizing and renewal process, then it can be put into the context of transformation. In that case, as in Aikido or T'ai Chi, we can look for ways to assist it, help it move on by. But when we see it as a threat to our survival, a dangerous level of shared fear and panic emerges. And along with the fear comes fear-based thinking and decision making, as well as powerful resistance to change. Perhaps it's trite to say, but in my experience the adage "What we resist persists" has proven to be true time and again. There is also a powerful negative vision of what we "need to" do as a result of the vision of disaster that is leading some people to "head for the hills," stockpile guns, pull money out of the stock market, etc. The danger here comes from the "fact" that our institutions are built primarily on a foundation of trust. Remove the trust and the institutions crumble. There is even an anti-vision. While this vision shows recognition of the need to continue to maintain trust at some level, it's a "don't do" vision. The basic message is "don't-do-x-or-things-will-collapse-for-sure." It describes what not to do but gives us precious little in terms of what to do -- other than try our hardest to keep things pretty much as they are in the face of evidence that suggests we need to do something else -- but what? Which leads to yet another vision which is implicit and insidious: that we must -- and even more, that we have a right to -- hang on the to the status-quo. Eugene Linden has written a book you may have seen entitled "The Future in Plain Sight: Nine Clues to the Coming Instability." Y2K is not mentioned even once in the entire book! One part that especially struck me was where he pointed out how our generation in the West has never known instability and how we view stability as our birthright. And, yet, how uncommon it is in the history of humanity for any group to have a lifetime of physical, social, economic, political stability! I suspect that, at some level, even our political leaders, whether consciously or unconsciously, know they are not going to be able to control this one. Impeachment won't work; missiles won't work; special investigations won't work; elections won't work; persuasion or lobbying won't work; confessions or resignations won't work. I must confess there are days when I think I might be making it all up about Y2K. But the fact remains that even if we are able to somehow pull an Apollo 13 relative to Y2K, the next global systems issue is on the horizon. Another "vision" -- and perhaps most important to our conversation together -- is the empty or non-existent one. In terms of Y2K, it has two main aspects: 1) community building and 2) contingency planning/scenario planning/disaster preparedness. In my view, community building is a method, a means toward something. When I work with corporate groups who want to build cohesive teams, I always remind them that having a team is not a goal in itself but rather a means toward achieving some other goal. Were there not another goal, why would they need to be a team? Isn't the same true here? I suspect that when people speak of community building with passion, they actually have some assumed vision in mind and that that vision can perhaps be achieved through building community. But, again, it is essential that we articulate that higher order assumed vision. Why? So we can identify with it, sing the music of it, find our unique ways to "go for it" in the context of its commonness. Two scenarios have been present for me over the past few weeks. The first is the Titanic and the second is Apollo 13 (and the US space program). I've seen Y2K linked to the Titanic a few times now on the internet. Not a pretty picture. In one case the analogy used is that fixing the Y2K problems is rather like trying to change every nut and bolt on the Titanic as it's sinking. But, on the other hand, it has also been suggested that on the Titanic were all of the materials necessary to make floats for everyone aboard. And yet, what we saw -- at least in the Hollywood version -- was a range of reactions from apathy to panic, futile heroics to self-protection. Not unlike what we're seeing re Y2K. Where's the visionary, creative leadership that might think of the non-conventional idea like building floats for everyone and that, by beginning that task with abandon, might create a tone and atmosphere of hope that is catchy? I think of the Rumi quote, "Start a huge, foolish project. It absolutely does not matter what anybody thinks of you." In contrast, Apollo 13 was also an "impossible" situation. There was no way those astronauts were supposed to be able to get home safely. But they did. What made the difference? First, a large group of people supported them on the ground. And, as Jim Lovell experienced, to the point of exhaustion those folks refused to give up and even helped the astronauts figure out how to put a square peg in a round hole (or vice versa) with the air filters. The people on the ground didn't know until all was said and done whether their efforts would bring them the positive outcome they wanted or not. But they didn't let up either. They could have. It was a choice they made. It was a different choice from that made on the Titanic. How come? I think it's critical to take note of how Apollo 13 was not seen as an isolated event. It lived within a larger context -- the framework of the entire space program. There was a community with a larger goal. And they had an explicit, understandable, but all the while impossible vision that had directed myriad efforts of hundreds of thousands of people over a number of years: To put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. "To put a man on the moon by the end of the decade" is an incredible vision! It's specific, it's measurable, it's impossible, it's compelling, it's one sentence. Think how things might have been different if the "vision" had been "To have the best space program in the world." What's that? How would you know when you got there? Who cares? But A MAN ON THE MOON? IN TEN YEARS? Wow! Could we look at Y2K as being like Apollo 13? If so, could the larger context within which it sits be the myriad, interconnected and interdependent global systems for which we need a simple, positive, creative, impossible vision that compels us to labor totally, lovingly, and lightheartedly from now until whenever -- all the while not necessarily knowing whether our efforts will bear positive fruit on the physical level? I'm certain that engaging deeply will bear fruit for us all on the spiritual level. Love to hear your thoughts on this. Very best, Barbara Dear Barbara, Thank you for your fascinating thoughts. I think part of the problem is that we think it's up to us to create that compelling vision. I asked a question in November: How is our desire for Y2K to be the door that opens people to the things we care about (awakening, evolutionary consciousness, systems thinking, whatever) blinding us from seeing what Y2K might be? I believe that even those of us who already have hoped that Y2K is a doorway to a more desired future are not on the right path. Coming off of a few weeks of Y2K impotence/depression/what's it all for space, I am trying to stay humble to the fact that I haven't the faintest idea what Y2K is, how it will manifest, or what higher purpose it might be serving. I feel my chief work now is to stay in that humility and open myself up to see if I can at least glimpse all this at least for a moment, from the workings of Spirit/Divine Mind/God. I truly don't believe it's our lack of vision that is sapping us. It's that we're not meant to be the source of that vision. Something else far beyond traditional human ways of comprehension is occurring, and I won't even get a taste of what that is as long as I still believe I'm supposed to provide the vision. So I think what's required of us now is to let go of the making Y2K the lever we think the world needs, or is waiting for. I believe we need to become very quiet and access Source. This isn't what we think it is. Yours, Meg Dear Meg Thanks you so much for your thoughts with which I deeply resonate. I'm touched by your insight because it offers me a real opportunity to both challenge and stretch my worldview. Here are a few initial thoughts that it brings up for me. First, it brings forth the question of the relationship between humans and the Divine as well as the "both/and" between will and destiny. I believe we are by definition in a relationship with God (paradoxically, whether we believe it or not) and that we are intended to come to KNOW just how much we are in relationship. I fully agree with the mystery -- that Y2K isn't what we THINK it is, that we cannot think our way out of it, and that we must become very quiet and access Source. And, for me, that brings forth another both/and: that becoming very quiet and accessing Source is not in conflict with but rather in complement to profound, purposeful, visionary action. We are God's hands. In my view, true vision is not a human creation. It is, in fact, a response to Divine inspiration. We are God's instruments. True vision only comes from God. If I think that I, Barbara, am the source of vision, that is ego. Plain and simple. Rather, I need to "listen into" what God is wanting, what my role is in the world. As I do that, I am not to worry about the "why" or "how" of it all. Just to stay with the Voice of inspiration -- and lead from my heart first. Much Love, Barbara