by Jack Martin Leith

An alternative Bergsonian understanding of the function of the brain is that it acts as a type of “receiver,” somewhat similar to a radio or television set. Drawing upon this second metaphor, Bergson postulates that the neurochemical activity of the brain does not produce consciousness, but rather enables the brain to “tune into” appropriate “frequencies” of preexisting levels of consciousness—that is, the states of consciousness that correspond to waking life, dreaming, deep sleep, trance, as well as, at least potentially, the consciousnesses of other beings. Just as the programs received by a television set are not produced by the electrical activity within the television itself, but rather exist independently of the television set, in the same way, this Bergsonian understanding of the brain/consciousness relationship postulates that consciousness is neither contained within nor produced by the brain.

Source: G. William Barnard in his book Living Consciousness: The Metaphysical Vision of Henri Bergson, p. xxxiii, citing philosopher Henri Bergson.

Degenerative and generative defined

Degenerative: Of, relating to, involving, or causing degeneration. (Merriam-Webster)
Aimed at generating anti-value, inhibiting or limiting value generation, or nullifying generated value. (Leith)
Degeneration: A lowering of effective power, vitality, or essential quality to an enfeebled and worsened kind or state. (Merriam-Webster)
Generative: Having the power or function of generating, originating, producing, or reproducing. (Merriam-Webster)
Aimed at generating significant value. Seeking to create that which improves people’s lives and makes the world a better place. (Leith / Erik Erikson)

Leith’s D/G hypothesis

Two fields envelop our planet. One is the degenerative field (D‑field) and the other is the generative field (G‑field).

The fields resemble radio waves the mind can receive as though it were a radio..

The fields have no intention, in the same way that radio waves have no intention. They just do what they do.

The source of each field is unknown and unknowable.

Each field gives rise to a particular state of consciousness with particular kinds of consequences. When we are tuned into the D‑field and in a degenerative state of consciousness, our thoughts and actions have degenerative consequences. When we are tuned into the G‑field and in a generative state, our thoughts and actions have generative consequences.

The ego is not a malevolent, self-serving part of ourselves. It is a state of consciousness that arises when we are tuned into the D‑field.

A few points to note:

  • I went to a Church of England primary school and I’ve explored various spiritual and philosophical traditions, but I’m not aligned with any particular religion. If pushed, I’d describe myself as agnostic.
  • I’m a practical, action-focused person and trust my experience over the theories and opinions of others.
  • D/G is not an ideology or belief system; it’s a working hypothesis (“an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action”) and it serves me well. But I’m not wedded to it. If something better were to emerge, I’d adopt that instead.

Effects of D and G consciousness

The effects listed in the table below are not produced by D-field or G-field. Rather, they are produced by someone who is tuned into one field or the other.

Power is the capability of doing or accomplishing something. (Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary)

Creative power is the innate ability to manifest that which generates value. (Non-creative behaviour is learned: see George Land, 1968.) The creation could be anything from a conversation or a website page to a cathedral or a space rocket.

D-field correlates with synthetic imagination. G-field correlates with creative imagination.

Pseudo-power. Can also manifest as anti-power, aimed at constraining or cancelling-out another’s true powerTrue creative power
Self-serving; motivated by a desire to enrich oneselfOther-serving; altruistic; motivated by a heartfelt desire to enrich the world
Minimises or halts the generation of valueMaximises the generation of value
Ego-system focusedEco-system focused; serving customers, other beneficiary groups and wider society

Eco-system/ego-system distinctions originated by Otto Scharmer (view source)
Induces stagnationFosters constant renewal
Clings to the status quoRejects the status quo
Engenders imitation, repetition, illusion, derivative versions, and mediocrity masquerading as greatnessProduces the original, the genuine, the magnificent
Inhibits the realisation of value generation potentialEnables the realisation of value generation potential
Seeks to generate anti-valueSeeks to eliminate anti-value
Exercises control as domination, oppression, coercion or enslavementExercises control as a service (e.g. Houston Mission Control Center; air traffic control, railway signals, traffic lights)
Read about value and anti-value

Some D & G examples

Erik Erikson: Stagnation vs Generativity, the seventh stage of psychosocial development

Erik Erikson was an eminent psychologist and psychoanalyst best-known for his theory on the psychosocial development of human beings, and the originator of the term generativity.

Erik Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development. © Verywell, 2018

Illustration by Joshua Seong | © Verywell, 2018
The seventh stage is called Generativity vs. Stagnation. (I reversed it in the heading to maintain consistency with the earlier table.)

Stagnation is what happens when someone fails to find a way to contribute. People trapped in a state of stagnation tend to feel alienated from their community or from society as a whole.

Generativity is about contributing to society by caring for others and creating that which makes the world a better place.

Read more about Generativity vs. Stagnation, the seventh stage of psychosocial development on the Verywell website

Erik Erikson knew that self-invention takes a lifetime, by M. M. Owen, Ph.D., on Aeon website

View the Wikipedia entry for Erik Erikson

Otto Scharmer: Ego-system awareness vs. Eco‑system awareness

Dr. C. Otto Scharmer is a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and founding chair of the Presencing Institute. He introduced the concept of “presencing”—learning from the emerging future—in his bestselling books Theory U, and Presence (co-authored with Peter Senge, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers).

When operating with ego-system awareness, we are driven by the concerns and intentions of our small ego self.

When operating with eco-system awareness, we are driven by the concerns and intentions of our emerging or essential self— that is, by a concern that is informed by the well-being of the whole.

The prefix eco- goes back to the Greek oikos and concerns the “whole house.” The word economy can be traced back to this same root. Transforming our current ego-system economy into an emerging eco-system economy means reconnecting economic thinking with its real root, which is the well-being of the whole house rather than money-making or the wellbeing of just a few of its inhabitants. But while the whole house was for the Greeks something very local, today it also concerns the well-being of our global communities and planetary eco-systems.

Source: Leading From the Emerging Future—From Ego-System to Eco-System Economies, by Otto Scharmer and Katrin Kaufer (pdf, 71pp)
Read more about Otto Scharmer and his work

Awakening Faith in an Alternative Future | A Consideration of Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future, by Peter M. Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, and Betty Sue Flowers, in Reflections, The SoL Journal of Knowledge, Learning and Change, Vol. 5, Number 7 (2004)

Napoleon Hill: Synthetic imagination vs. Creative imagination

Imagination is the seed of power. It is where power starts.

Source: Imagination solutions at the edge of time, by Jon Rappoport.
In his classic 1937 book Think and Grow Rich, Napoleon Hill describes the process of combining existing ideas to create a new one, which he refers to as the use of synthetic imagination.

Nowadays, writers such as Maria Popova use the term combinatorial creativity when referring to this process, and insist that originality is a myth. This is tantamount to asserting that original literature is a myth, because it’s nothing more than a combination of words that already exist.

Truly original ideas with the potential to enrich the world come to us by means of creative imagination, and not through synthetic imagination, which produces derivative ideas and mediocrity.

The imaginative faculty functions in two forms. One is known as “synthetic imagination,” and the other as “creative imagination.”

SYNTHETIC IMAGINATION Through this faculty, one may arrange old concepts, ideas, or plans into new combinations. This faculty creates nothing. It merely works with the material of experience, education, and observation with which it is fed. It is the faculty used most by the inventor, with the exception of the who draws upon the creative imagination, when he cannot solve his problem through synthetic imagination.

CREATIVE IMAGINATION Through the faculty of creative imagination, the finite mind of man has direct communication with Infinite Intelligence. It is the faculty through which “hunches” and “inspirations” are received. It is by this faculty that all basic, or new ideas are handed over to man.

Source: Think and Grow Rich, Chapter 6: Imagination | Download Think and Grow Rich (no paywall)
View the Wikipedia entry for: Napoleon Hill | Think and Grow Rich

Read more about the two forms of imagination

Edward Matchett: Preserve the old vs. Create the new

Edward (Ted) Matchett

The “two spirits” described by design revolutionary Edward Matchett (read about him here) in the following passages correlate strongly with Napoleon Hill’s creative imagination and synthetic imagination.

Matchett’s Credo

The great gulf that divides mankind is not political. It is not the gulf between religions, between religion and science, between science and art. It is not the gulf between rich and poor, between the privileged and the underprivileged. Not the gulf between the practical and the theorist, between those who would work and those who would dream. It is not the gulf between management and those that are managed, between the possessive and the philanthropist, between the saints and the sinners. All of these things are important, yet none so important as men often suppose. They are all streams that flow towards the same sea. All would meet and be reconciled except for one division that is greater by far then these — a division that is far more fundamental. It is the split between those persons who would hang on to old forms and those who wish to see new ones.

Two spirits are at work in the world. It is they who are the cause of the great divide. One would drive the world along at an ever-increasing rate, one would have the world stay precisely where it is. One has its foot hard down on the accelerator, the other is trying hard to apply the brake. One has his eyes fixed firmly on the future, the other has his eyes fixed firmly on the past (he does not realise that the ground that he thinks he is standing on disappeared many years ago).

What is it that has to be preserved? Every form that still equates to needs. What is it that has to be built in addition? New forms that equate to needs that either were not present earlier or that have not been satisfied. What does this have to do with the person who is doing the creating? Everything! At every moment, within himself, the same ceaseless battle must go on. He must destroy every form (ideas, beliefs, visions, attitudes, values etc.) that is no longer needed. He must preserve every form that still equates to needs. He must build new forms within (new ideas, new beliefs, new visions, new attitudes, new values etc.) that equate to needs that either were not present earlier or that have not yet been satisfied. To the extent that he does this within he will be able to do it without. Neither more nor less; it is all very precise.

Source: Edward Matchett legacy website (defunct)

The Matrix: Take the blue pill vs. Take the red pill

In the movie The Matrix, Morpheus offers Neo a choice: take the Blue Pill and continue to live in a synthesised, computer-generated world, or take the Red Pill, escape from the Matrix and live in the real—but very hostile—world.

“All I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.” Runtime 2:40.

A Course in Miracles: Ego vs. Holy Spirit

A Course in Miracles was “scribed” by Helen Schucman and published as a book in 1976. It consists of a curriculum aimed at helping its readers achieve spiritual transformation.

We have seen that there are only two parts of your mind. One is ruled by the ego, and is made up of illusions. The other is the home of the Holy Spirit, where truth abides.

Source: A Course in Miracles, Lesson 66
View the Wikipedia entry for A Course in Miracles

Christianity: Satan vs. God

Satan was an anointed cherub. He sat in heaven, a being of the highest rank and exalted position. Created by God as the “seal of perfection”, Satan turned his eyes away from his Creator and began to admire the creation: himself. “You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor” (Ezekiel 28:17). He became proud and exalted himself; a desire to rule was born in him. He wished to put himself in God’s place. He whispered lies until he had a third of the hosts of heaven on his side.

Source: What does the Bible say about Satan? on ActiveChristianity website
Although I commonly refer to the degenerative and generative fields as D-field and G-field, it would be a mistake to think that D means Devil and G means God. According to my hypothesis, D and G are subtle energies without conscious intent or anything resembling human form. When tempted to speculate about the purpose of D or G, I remind myself of Stafford Beer’s dictum: “The purpose of the system is what it does.

Further reading

Creating greatness in the realm beyond systems thinking (pdf; 22pp)
An article I contributed to an e-book for participants in European Sharing on Systems Thinking, Prague, Czech Republic, June 2015

Creative imagination (on this website)

Power … has both a generative and creative side and a degenerative and destructive one. An individual or group that exercises power to achieve its desires and ambitions, but pays no attention to the desires or ambitions of others, will end up steamrolling the others. This degenerative power shows up disturbingly as greed or arrogance and catastrophically as rapaciousness or violence.

Love and Power—When Are they Generative, Instead of Destructive? by Adam Kahane, a director of Reos Partners, a social enterprise that helps businesses, governments, and civil society organisations address complex social challenges