It's the future, Jim, but not as we know it...

There's more to tomorrow than robots, flying cars, and a faster internet.
22C+ is all about Deep Futures, futures that matter. Welcome to futures fantastic, unexpected, profound, but most of all deeply meaningful...

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Why we are not ready for radical transparency

In a recent post I argued that as a collective, we are not ready for Julian Assange’s concept of “radical transparency.” As far as I can make out from what I have read of Assange, radical transparency involves the release of as much confidential government/corporate information as possible. With the current WikiLeaks documents, certain names and details have been removed to protect vulnerable individuals. Nonetheless, some names and individuals have been named, and Assange has been criticised for putting those people at risk.

Yet my concern about radical transparency is not so much to do with risking the release of personal information. My concern emerges from my own experience working with the spiritual realms of human knowledge. As an intuitive, I am able to access information within the psyches of individual people, and groups of people. Further, I have worked intimately with others who are well versed in Integrated Intelligence. So, what I am about to write is based on what I have learned from this intimate experience with the human psyches of others, both in spiritual circles, and with the general community.

Here is the bottom line. The typical person of today is simply not at a high enough level of spiritual/psychological maturity. Part of this involves the fact that the personal responsibility levels of most people in modern society is insufficient for them to be able to act with integrity when granted access to a greater degree of knowledge, including personal information of others, and other groups.

Just as one example, recently on the China Daily forum (China’s government sponsored English language newspaper’s discussion forum), one Chinese poster has been uploading documents which detail some of the abuses by American troops and military personally in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each post includes a generic denunciation of “The Anglos” – i.e. white people of English ancestry. One post concludes with the words, “Is there any single act low enough that these human scum will not sink to it?” These comments are clearly written about white people in general, not merely those engaging in the said acts in war zones.

Imagine then, what would happen if suddenly all details were released regarding abuses of power and authority around the world! Just think of all the world’s hot spots which could quickly degenerate into violence, as people of undeveloped spiritual maturity reacted to the data, at the whim of their egos.

In theory I am completely supportive of radical transparency. I reality, it would create chaos.

The key issue then, is knowing where to draw the line. Who should decide what piece of information should be released, and which should be left covered up? Julian Assange? The WikiLeaks team? Some official body appointed by Assange? The UN? I can’t even begin to consider the difficulties involved.

In my recent posts I also introduced the concept of conscious transparency. This is the capacity to perceive the deeper workings of the human psyche via Integrated Intelligence. Yet this too is a capacity which must be restricted to a few deeply committed spiritual practitioners at this time in human spiritual evolution – and for the same reasons.

As mentioned, I have come to this conclusion by working in groups with highly perceptive individuals. When the boundaries between psyches begins to collapse, we begin to see more of other people, because we can see beyond the masks that they wear and present to the world. With genuine conscious transparency, we all become more naked - and in public.

In theory, most of us probably think that we would be comfortable seeing others in their entirety, warts and all, so to speak. But in reality, the typical human psyche of human beings in the present age cannot handle it.

Let’s take just one simple example. Many women consciously believe that they admire men who have the courage to be emotionally vulnerable, to allow feelings of fear, helplessness and sadness to surface. Having worked in healing groups where men have expressed incredibly deep emotions before other men and women, the results have showed me clearly that many women are, in reality, not able to ‘receive’ men in their complete vulnerability (to ‘receive’, means to witness the events without judgment, or psychic ‘interference’). The indoctrination that “men must be strong” is just too great. What happens in reality is that affected women (not all women) will unconsciously try to shut down the man’s emotional expression, and in some cases may psychically attack the man. This will typically involve a projection of shame, and that includes negative psychic ‘messages’ which are projected at the vulnerable man. “Messaging” is an everyday human occurrence, even though almost nobody is aware of it.  In the said case, the message sent from the mind of the women to the mind of the vulnerable man can include the following:

“You are weak.”
“You are not a real man.”
“You are like a girl.”
“I despise men like you.”

This is just one example of how conscious transparency can actually make things worse. The more we see others deeply, the more our own buttons can be pressed. This is why higher levels of spiritual responsibility are required as more spiritual ‘information’ opens before us. (I outline the process of ‘messaging in more detail in Sage of Synchronicity.

Judgment and projection are a significant feature of human consciousness at this time. Projection occurs when we fail to assume responsibility for our “issues”, and beat up on others. Returning to the radical transparency suggested by Julian Assange, it is inevitable that any personal information released about individuals into the general netosphere will result in an awful lot of strife. One might argue that we can simply eliminate the personal stuff, but in practice we are dealing with people, both powerful and ordinary, who themselves have issues. How easy would it be, for example, to separate the policies of George W. Bush from his soul issues as a human being? When we are dealing with people in power, we are dealing with imperfect human beings.

Currently the average level of responsibility of human beings stands at about five per cent. This means that 95 per cent of what we think and feel and do is not accounted for. This is why there is so much projection and why human history is chock full of child-like conflicts which have resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths and untold suffering. The other fact to consider is that some cultures have higher responsibility levels than others. Generally speaking, individuals in developing countries have lower levels of responsibility, and their consciousness levels are lower. I know this is not politically correct to say, but it is, as a generalisation, true.

Turning back to our friend on the China Daily forums and his projections at white people, it is obvious that his low level of spiritual maturity means that whatever information he is given, he will twist it to suit the agenda of his ego; and that agenda is to hate white people and attempt to get as many others to hate them as well. He does not have the intention to look inward and see that his hatred is self-generated. Of all the information in the world that he could be posting on internet forums, he chooses only that which shows white people to be evil. The rest he ignores.

And in a certain sense, this is what all human egos do. We take information about others and the world, and we twist it to suit our agendas. Julian Assange’s radical transparency will not change that fact one little bit.

Information in itself will not free us. Personal transformation will. And that requires an inner journey, and much commitment, discipline, and courage.


  1. I believe that a more positive and optimistic view is in order. There is a need to press for change in thinking about universal education and the appropriate pedagogy to deal with the inevitability of the changes you speak of. Children of today are the future... they have the right to education for development which is fundamental to open democratic societies.

  2. Hi Marion. You'll note I suggested small groups were the way to begin, and taking small steps. Democracy is a nice word to bandy around, but even in western countries there is no perfect freedom of information. There will be limits.

    My perspective is alo informed by living in China ,where people are, on average, less responsible and more prone to projections - read, creating drama! There will need to be stepping stones. Children learn from their parents, and these kinds of changes will take a long time - certainly at least hundreds of years, if we are talking about a society where there is free and open access to most information.

  3. i can just say that the only reason anybody should consider the concept of radical transparency a mandatory addition to society would be that they feel that they are being denied access to crucial information which they feel entitled to. and no, there will not ever be "limitless" access to information, but that is natural, humans will always subconsciously seek whatever advantage they get get over the next guy. democracy most certainly will not get us anywhere near limitless access. the fact that we vote privately in closed booths is a testament to that.

  4. a agree with the anonymous post. i would like to mention that society will only be ready for this change once a sizable group of people declares us to be ready.