I’m also immediately suspect of anyone who aligns the fully-intelligent human race to some other form of life like “hominids”.

He specifically aligns patterns to the brain. He totally misses the point that patterns are aligned to all of our memory — which is throughout our bodies.

I continued to watch it all the way through to give you the benefit of doubt. I was not rewarded for doing so. Phrases like “falling for too much baloney” is a dangerous statement: What dictates the boundaries for ‘baloney’?

Some of the greatest thinkers were perceived by others to be mad. Truths are relative and rely on specific contexts — science only works for truths that can be generalized (e.g. they have few or rather stable variables).

And I stopped watching at the video, which violated the participant’s trust. It was neither funny nor informative. The whole presentation smacked of cheap parlor tricks.

I am now an strong skeptical, and previously I had an strong Catholic cultural background. All I can say by now is this: the only unearthly or unnatural experience that we know daily-full time is conscience. Since no one can conceive other conscience than the self’s one, this statement is true to me.

Science speaks and explains the nuts and bolts of conscience inside the brain-body system. But its mere enumeration and description is as far from the real thing as a plain stone is far from having intelligence. I’ll put it in other words: If you put the scores, a violin and an skilled violinist inside a mixer, and switch it on, the result IS NOT THE MUSIC AT ALL. The music is simply the music, so is conscience to life, to us.

There will be a time (not far I guess) in which synthetic consciences will be created. This will provoke profound commotions in philosophy and religions, only comparable to that other cosmic milestone of having contact with E.T. civilization. Even in that case, mankind will be as far from conceiving other conscience than the self as we actually are now.

The consciences are instances of the self running on mater. Conscience is a process in which the reality is perceived-created-projected on and by itself. Then, intuitions are links or anchors of conscience to the underlaying reality of things. In a way, they seem -for me- to be as echoes of our unconscious projected in objects and/or situations. Maybe the intuitions and synchronicities give bad information about reality, but no doubt that they do give us very meaningful information about what’s going on in our brain/soul.

Also, as Paula has already acknowledged, that “Wikipedia line” comes from a work of scholarship that positions Jung’s work in the context of German protestant Christianity and philosophical thinking about the transcendent and the immanent. I wouldn’t call that weak.

As Michael pointed out, he would never have expected to see such a term be used in a business context, and yet he sees the value of same.

Perhaps the issue is not in my use of the term, but in your understanding of how/why it is being used. You’ve stepped into a conversation that takes a lot for granted on the part of the reader (common understandings that are not continuously restated for new arrivals). Perhaps there is considerable context missing for you.

Are you just dropping by to ruffle feathers or would you truly like to understand where the synthesis lies?

While the idea had a profound effect on me, I never dreamed that Jung’s concept of synchronicity would ever be discussed within a business context, but here we are applying it to Enterprise 2.0. And why not? Isn’t E2.0 about disruptive technologies which allow people to interact and share knowledge, which would rarely have occurred before within the rigid heirarchies prevailing within E1.0 businesses?

Paula, this blog topic is a memorable one for many reasons, as when you say, “We must give place for thought to be made manifest. Work products are often prescribed in ways that do not allow for the sharing of thought.” E2.0 is not about the technology, it’s about the people.

Darn, I have to run because I have to interview a colleague for our E2.0 blog. I will be following this subject and more of your topics in future.

Then after 3 paragraphs of saying nothing you state that “synchronicity is a natural byproduct of enterprise 2.0 well done”.

First I want to say that synchronicity is not a random curiosity and that I not only agree with Jung that synchronicity is likely supported by a some deeper ordering principle, but I am also establishing an empirical basis on how synchronicity structures our world. Synchronicity is best understood as an ordering/structuring property of the universe that operates independent of human conceptual and actual follies. Think of gravity. Gravity does not increase or decrease based on what you think or do. You simply design and comport yourself according to its demands.

The same goes for synchronicity, but first you must discover the order hidden in reality to consciously work with it. And then it’s not something you can manipulate. It something you adapt to and set your sails to accordingly.

For those interested in the actual nuts and bolts of synchronicity please review my “work in progress” on the subject of the Art and Science of Synchronicity on my site. http://bit.ly/2fEfNz

Larry: Not being a apt student of Jung’s work, I appreciate all added tidbits and perspectives. Thanks for your thoughts on the relevance of context.

Gordon: Ditto my message to Larry and thanks for reminding us of the brilliance of social media. That reference is phenomenal and I likely would have never crossed it without you placing it directly in my path. If I glean anything of related significance, I’ll post it here and challenge others to share the fruits of their respective gleans as well : )

Challenge me back if you will. The one thing that I’m starting to question is the KM focus on the whole implicit/explicit story. I believe that synchronicity doesn’t really care about either. Because in the end, how do you really make knowledge explicit? The piece clearly questions the real value and relevance of the primary elements that most KM initiatives focus on: work products.

As most recently purported in “The Power of Pull” (although I continue to claim that the correct term is “Draw”), I would align KM to ’stocks’ of knowledge, and E2.0 to a balance between stocks and flows. Page 11 “To succeed now, we have to continually refresh our stocks of knowledge by participating in relevant ‘flows’ of knowledge–interactions that create knowledge or transfer it across individuals. These flows occur in any social, fluid environment that allows firms and individuals to get better faster by working with others.” KM was more focused on the capture of knowledge than the dynamics of its use or even its adaptive lifecycle of change through applied use and discovery.” Even the example given is insightful. Reading manuals is not enough. Workers need the insights of other workers, not necessarily to learn what they’ve learned, but to apply their knowledge to new problems collectively.

Applied knowledge is not static. Work products cannot solve new problems. No one can anticipate every variable possible, nor should they. Knowledge is most effective and efficient when it evolves in context. It can’t be managed; it can only be facilitated.