Theory U: Open Will (updated)

The last two posts looked at the open mind and open heart as presented in Otto Scharmer's Theory U. These two movements, together with the third that I'm going to address today, the open will, make up the key elements to getting to "the bottom of the U", to the interior space from which it becomes possible to "lead from the future as it emerges." According to Theory U this interior space holds the key to addressing large-scale social change. There's no getting around it – Theory U is a one-trick pony. Apparently it's a very special pony. Why are these phrases "bottom of the U", "lead from the future as it emerges", and others like "highest future possibility" and "inner knowing" all in scare quotes? Because I'm not really sure what they mean. And worse than that, I'm not sure that they mean anything at all. But that's my destructive-critical side. My constructive-analytical side says that either (1) they're talking about something very real that I can't yet get my head around or (2) they're talking about something I can get my head around with "poor" language. I can only really do anything with #2, so here goes.

Theory U posits that the structure of the world is more than just material, it is also made up of spirit. These two layers of reality coexist and interact with one another, but they are not the identical and they do behave in the same ways. Material behaves according to the rules of physics, both classical and quantum, and is non-teleological, that is to say things do largely occur according to efficient causation - one thing causes another. Spirit, in contrast, does not behave according to the rules of physics and, most relevant to Theory U, is teleological, that is things occur according to final causation – the goal pulls spirit forward.

What Theory U seems to be positing is that the final causation of spirit can be obstructed (at least to some degree) if those individuals and groups that embody both material and spirit are not able to perceive the spiritual (Source) layer of reality. That is to say, its efficacy is dependent upon being recognized. This must be the case, otherwise there would be no need for these special practices. Access to Source, "the bottom of the U" then, means being able to perceive that spiritual reality. This entails a process of letting go of the attachments of the ego - ideas, identity, the past, fear, and so on. Finally, once this access to the spiritual layer of reality is there we are able to recognize the telos, the final cause of spirit – that is, see "the future that is trying to emerge" or our "highest possible future." Having done those two things we can reemerge into normal ego-consciousness and "lead from the future."

If that doesn't make any sense, then I can't help you any further. And I'm afraid neither can Otto Scharmer or Theory U. That, as I see it, is the problem. This issue is at the very core of what Theory U is about, and yet the parts of the text that deal with it – specifically Chapter 6: Philosophical Grounding and Chapter 20: Catching Social Reality in Flight – don't help much. What I've tried to present here is my best guess at what it could mean and I very much look forward to any suggestions and comments as to how we can better understand this fundamental issue.

UPDATE:

I spent last evening talking about this topic with a friend of mine who is a professor of philosophy and – surprise! – it actually made things clearer. We still both came away with the impression that the philosophical grounding of Theory U is underdeveloped and somewhat vague, but maybe it doesn't matter. What I presented above is one possible metaphysical explanation of what Theory U proposes, and one that various passages seem to support. But there are other passages that support a much more mundane reading of "open will". According to this more mundane version open will doesn't access any agential future that's trying to do anything, but it is just the process of taking the open mind and heart one step further to suspend one's beliefs about what is possible or impossible, to "let go" of future plans that one has as an individual or a group – in other words, to try to recognize all that one thinks about the future and put it temporarily to one side. By doing so people and groups are thereby open to a much wider range of possible futures, and the likelihood of discovering a systemic change becomes that much greater. In brief then, open mind is to analyze and then suspend our thoughts about the past and present, open heart is to recognize and suspend all our emotional states in the past and present, and open will is to recognize and suspend our thoughts about future possibilities. This version of open will is much easier to get my head around. The only problem is that it doesn't square with the blatantly teleological references like Goethe, Steiner, or Buber. Maybe we just have to live with that. And maybe, in practice, it doesn't make any difference anyway.