Rethinking AI: “Actual Ignorance!” with Charles Savage

If you are willing, might we use some “disruptioneering” to “flip” our foundational perception from SPACEtime to the TIMEspace?  Instead of trying to “fix” a possibly “broken” perceptual model, might this awaken our energy to co-create a wiser future for future generations?

Remember Einstein’s famous model: E = MC2 For our efforts on Monday, might we think in terms of …

Co-Creative ENERGY = MEANING x (Collaboration x Community)

Here is a little background for our challenge:

Rethinking AI: “Actual Ignorance!”

We are all experiencing rapid emergence of Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things, Big Data Analytics, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Neural Networking, Virtual and Augmented Reality, Blockchain, 3D Printing and so much more.  These have brought us to Industry (Farming, Learning, Governing, etc.) 4.0 and beyond (Japan is talking about Society 5.0 already).

Yet, so many of us may still be in the dark ages of the Industrial Era (i.e. Humans 1.0), knowing how machines and the machinery of organizations function, but hardly understanding how the IT based technologies are transforming so much around us.  Moreover, we hardly have an idea of the amazing capabilities with we have within and between ourselves.  Is it not time to strive for Humans 16.0?

Could it be that we have a bad case of AI: Actual Ignorance? 

As we know, Prof. Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School has anchored the notion of “Disruptive Innovation” as a new constellation in our business heavens.  Now the DARPA in the US has a new program focusing on “Disruptioneering!”  See:

Might it be time for a little “disruptioneering” regarding our framework of reflection?  Life occurs within two fundamental frameworks: Space and Time.


Earlier it was assumed that Space and Time were separate and absolute, but thanks to Einstein the two were woven together in the notion of SPACEtime (Special Relativity -1905) with Energy and Mater also brought together (General Relativity – 2015):


As you well know, in SPACEtime, we have three spatial dimensions: back/forward, right/left and up/down with TIME as the fourth dimension.  And so much of our modern thinking has been shaped by the SPACEtime notion.  It is understandable, as if focuses us on the “Objective” world around ourselves as seen by our five senses.  And we’ve also used the “SPACE” notion in understanding “TIME.”  We assume there is a spatial distance between us in the Present and that which occurred in the Past or which may occur in the Future.  In other words, our human perception is weighted down by the “SPACE” metaphor, is it not?


Using our disruptioneering powers, what if we added the notion of TIMEspace with three temporal dimensions: past, present and future with SPACE as the fourth dimension? As in the spirit of the Yin-Yang symbol, we notice that the one is already involved in the other.  If we are open for a bit of experimentation, we begin to see “SPACE” within the context of “TIME.”  [Note, we are not denying SPACEtime, but experimentally changing the context of understanding].

Might it be that perception within the context of TIMEspace is profoundly different from that of SPACEtime?  If so, in what ways?

We all know that our human sight only connect with a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. 


Were we to use this as a metaphor, how is human sight with the time spectrum? Instead of our “Present” being a tiny dot on the Arrow of Time, we may well find a rich and abundant resource to energize and inspire our conversations, visions and efforts:


Thanks to my trips to India, I’ve become fascinated with the wisdom of the Rishis.  Gradually I discovered there is amazing wisdom captured in the simple OM symbol:


Simply put, A is our “Everyday life,” B is our dreaming,C is deeper than dreaming, the Turiya, or 4th Point is our connecting with the deeper rhythm and dynamics of life.  The Maya is the illusion that causes us to focus on A and B.  Notice, SPACEtime is a factor of A and B, whereas TIMEspace is really the richness of the Turiya.

If we return for a minute to our question of “Actual Ignorance,” we might wonder about this dynamic.

What is this quotation really saying to us?

“Ignorant of their ignorance, yet wise

In their own esteem, these deluded men

Proud of their vain learning go round and round

Like the blind led by the blind.”  (Mundaka Upanishad I.2.8)

Here “ignorance” is not just about “not knowing,” but suggests a much deeper level of knowing.  We live with the KNOWN and the UNKNOWN, but might there also be the UNKNOWABLE?  This third category is something that perhaps can be known, but not by our everyday five senses.  Instead, it takes a much deeper sensing of the very dynamics of life itself.  And this is what has been fascinating me.

Perhaps things become clearer if we use two metaphors from color theory, the Additive (primary colors – Red, Green and Blue) and Subtractive Models (secondary colors – Yellow, Cyan and Magenta):


What can we combine in our understanding to bring out clear insights (the white in the middle)?  If we combine other themes (wants, desires, etc.) might we get the darkness of ignorance? Could it be that the various IT developments can both bring “clear insights” AND “confusing ignorance” and uncertainty into our world depending on whether we take a SPACEtime or a TIMEspace perspective?

Could we in our session place words in the Additive and Subtractive circles to discover which combinations might reveal inspiring and wise insights, and which could darken and confuse us in our interacting with one another?

What “average everyday ways of thinking” might we need to “disrupt” in order to again gain clarity and direction for again find the co-creative Energy to bring a more Meaningful future through our Collaboration in Community? Is this not an element in developing a Global Integral Competence?

Might we begin to discover the meaning of Humans 16.0?

Can we help turn Einstein’s E = MC2 into Co-Creative ENERGY = MEANING x (Collaboration x Community) in TIMEspace for a Regenerative Future? learning to live: Lightly, Lively and Wisely!

Thank you for reading this post. I’d value feedback and other perspectives, thoughts on the topic(s), so do not hesitate to drop me a line.

Charles M. Savage



Rhythm and Intercultural Communication: Edward Hall’s and John Dewey’s Search for the Aesthetic Experience

 “The Warriors…passed the ball six times with so much speed that the defenders helplessly scrambled a step or two behind…. ‘A play where the flow is perfect, the rhythm is perfect,’ (Steve) Curry said. That is how he defined beautiful basketball.” (Branch 2016)


A Personal Note on my article “Rhythm and Intercultural Communication:  Edward Hall’s and John Dewey’s Search for the Aesthetic Experience”:

About 14 years ago I was sitting in a restaurant with Milton Bennett.  He asked me if I had heard of the theoretical direction Constructivism.  I hadn’t.  I was a beginner in intercultural communication and everything was new to me.  In my training in anthropology I had heard of positivism and of the Critical School in Frankfurt.   As an anthropologist, it was probably easier for me to read Ed Hall than for non-anthropologists.

I was also aware of Symbolic Interactionism of George Herbert Mead at the U. of Chicago in the early 20th Century.  Later, I learned that Mead was a good friend of John Dewey.  Mead, who is sometimes considered the fourth Pragmatist philosopher, had also influenced Jürgen Habermas in Frankfurt considerably.  This whole idea of the development of the self through the other—the understanding of one’s own culture through the interaction with the other–originated from Mead.

To keep the story short, Milton recommended a biological work by Maturana and Varela called The Tree of Knowledge, in order to understand Constructivism and embodiment.  Embodiment was the term he wanted to introduce to Intercultural Communication as a discipline.

Later in his latest edition of Basic Concepts…, he attempted to introduce Constructivism and Embodiment to our discipline.  In the following years, as I was learning more about IC I noticed some interculturalists were using the term interaction, social interaction.  I am fairly sure this term came into IC through Mead’s influence on social psychology.

So, I read Maturana and Varela and other books by Varela.  Especially with Varela I got really excited.  I read his work (with the co-authors Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch) The Embodied Mind and I could not put it down.  In fact, since then I have read it at least three times.  What fascinated me was the embodiment in his work, and his attempt to connect it up with mindfulness in Buddhism.  I also read that the authors had been interested in the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty.  Whose main work was entitled Phenomenology of Perception, first published in 1945.  (For those of you who may be mystified by this fancy language, phenomenology studies how we as human organisms experience the world.

Experience is the central category.  Experience, I later read, was also a central category in the work of John Dewey and William James, who are known as Pragmatist philosophers and wrote from the late 19th century into the 20th century.)

Three years ago, Kazuma Matoba was visiting me and he asked me if I had read The Embodied Mind.  My eyes lit up with joy.  Kazuma understood the significance of this work also for those of us interested in the meditative experience.  Meditation has a lot to do with how we experience the world and how we heal in this world.

Here is a youtube video of Steve Curry, who is quoted at the beginning of my article


As I have now mentioned Kazuma Matoba, now I would like to say something about how he influenced and helped me.  Kazuma helped me in various areas.  First, he helped me to sustain my interest in Social Constructivism.  Second, he introduced me to the Dialogue Process, in the form of David Bohm, Freemann Dhority and Glenna Gerard, as a form of communication training.

The Dialogue Process (DP) seemed to be further along than Intercultural Communication at that time in terms of developing tools for training.  I worked with Kazuma in the following years from about 2002 to 2013.

We had both learned a lot from Dhority and Gerard, but I also learned a lot from Kazuma.  He was much better than I was in the practicalities of training and workshops.  His practice is a good example of the inclusion of embodiment and rhythm, which are major vocabulary in my article “Rhythm and Intercultural Communication…”.   I just didn’t think the theory was keeping up with the creativity of Kazuma, Dhority and Gerard.

Evelyn Glennie, the percussionist, who I describe in the section about the seno-motoric in my article

While Kazuma was struggling in the last 10 years with contracts, a house fire, family, correcting papers, etc., I entered retirement three years ago.  I finally had the time to focus my total energy on communication theory.  Unfortunately, my retirement meant I had to deal with the last stage of my life as a body and mind.  So, felt I had to work fast.   I had and have the advantage of being an English native speaker, which means I can read English faster than most of you.

English for Kazuma is his third language, my respect.  He wrote his habilitation thesis in English and I was the editor.  We spent hours and hours together working on his ideas of the Third Culture.  In this process I feel I got real insight into how Kazuma thinks.  This article I write as a thank-you to Kazuma, Freeman Dhority and Glenna Gerard, for their examples of beautiful training, which I now try to support with theory.  Sergej I thank for keeping me up-to-date on systems and jazz improvisation. Our Slovenian and Polish friends I thank for keeping the training exploration going over the years.  And I thank George Simon for writing a review of the book in which this article appeared.

Stephen Holmes

You can read and/or download the full article as the PDF Steve article Rhythm and IC 2017 2