Theory U: Presencing
Actually, I’m not really a fan of 2001: A Space Odyessy.
If “sensing” seemed mystical, well my friend, “you ain’t seen nothing yet!”
Presencing involves connecting out current selves with our (dormant) authentic selves, and allows us to connect with “the beings who surround us.” Setting aside the John Keel overtones (“Our entire planet is occupied by things we see only by accident. They seem able to boggle our minds and even control our feeble little brains”), there are again some points of contact with Catholic theology: specifically with Richard Rohr and James Martin, SJ.
For me, the key concept involved is the “co-presencing” of the 1) the presence of the past, 2) the presence of the emerging future, and 3) the presence of the authentic self. As in “Sensing,” Scharmer develops this concept through a series of examples, and in this reading, anyway, I understood the process as a progression from past to future to self… although this may simply be cognitive framework for understanding the phenomenon of simultaneity. The “membrane,” or “threshold,” for example, sometimes seems to be between the past and future, and sometimes between the future and the self. Perhaps the actual experience (which, once again, I may have had), is one of coalescence rather than progression?
While the last table was ugly, it did serve to align the examples, and so I stuck with it:
| PAST | FUTURE | SELF |
| Eextended check-in | Connectedness | Subtle but authentic presence |
| Unconditional witnessing | Impersonal love | Seeing the essential self |
| Letting go and surrendering (= creating an opening and going through it) |
Shift to the multiple-point perspective (= source of the river) |
Birth of our essential/authentic selves (= connect with the beings that surround us) |
Self we have become Acting from the current whole (sensing) |
presencing connects → | Self waiting to be born Acting from the future that wants to emerge (presencing) |
In Falling Upwards, Fr. Rohr seems to be describing a related phenomenon in his discussion of moving from the first half to the second half of life. In the first half of life, he asserts, we value “order, control, safety, pleasure, and certitude” (7)—or as Beth of the “Circle of Seven” group put it: "I feel as if everybody’s got their own little bubble around them—their identity.” I was particularly struck by the comparison of letting go to a birth, which involves risk-taking and pain. Rohr describes a similarly painful experience:
Sooner or later, if you are on any classic “spiritual schedule,” some event, person, death, idea, or relationship will enter your life that you simply cannot deal with, using your present skill set, your acquired knowledge, or your strong will power. … At that point you will stumble over a necessary stumbling stone, as Isaiah calls it; or to state it in our language here, you will and you must “lose” at something. (65)
To be sure, Scharmer and Rohr aren’t talking about the same thing; however, I’m stuck that crossing over to that higher plane doesn’t come free on any level. Furthermore, the descriptions of both presencing and the second half of life are described as visceral experiences.
| Presencing | Second Half of Life |
| "Thickness in the atmosphere" but sense of "light and warmth" | "There is a gravitas in the second half of life, ut it is now held up by a much deeper lightness" (117) |
| Things slow down | "Daily life now requires prayer and discernment more than knee-jerk responses..." (118) "Life is much more spacious now." (119) |
| Ringing in the ears, yet sense of silence | "Second simplicity has its own kind of brightness and clarity, but much of is expressed in nonverbal terms." (120) |
Finally, this passage from Rohr almost sounds as if it could come from the Circle of Seven, as they discussed “unconditional witness” and “impersonal love”:
If we know anything at this stage, we know that we are all in this together and that we are all equally naked underneath our clothes. Which probably does not feel like a whole lot of knowing, but even this little bit of honesty gives us a strange and restful consolation. … One’s growing sense of infinity and spaciousness is no longer found just “out there” but most especially “in here.” The inner and the outer have become one. (120-122)
Anyone who knows me could hardly expect that I could read anything about “essential, authentic selves” without connecting it to Fr. Martin, SJ’s Becoming Who You Are. This little book informs a great deal of my thinking about Catholic identity:
…God desires for us to be the persons we were created to be: to be simply and purely ourselves, and in this state to love God and to let ourselves be loved by God. (22)
As in presencing, the self that we have become is frequently “false” to a greater or lesser degree. It has generally been built around perceived or imagined expectations from outside oneself, and often involves suppressing one’s individuality. The first steps, therefore, to uncovering the “true” self are letting go and surrendering:
Much of this journey involved my letting go of the need to be somebody else. (29)
In the quest for the true self, one therefore begins to appreciate and accept one’s personality and one’s life as an essential way God calls us to be ourselves. (=surrender, 23)
In all, Scharmer’s “authentic self” and connection with the “subtle, but authentic presence” (which I’m reading as God the Holy Spirit) is where, in my mystical way, I’ve wanted to go all my life. I’m in Where do I buy the tickets? Well… (assuming you’re ready for it to hurt…) the thing is… the way to let go is to avoid “manipulation and manipulative practices.” Don’t do anything.
Nuts.
Mercifully, Scharmer gives us a road map:
Pick a practice (an equivalent of the “extended check in”)—this I can do. In fact, I already have a contemplative prayer practice ready to implement… if I would just do it.
Create a circle of presence (it’s communal)—OK… I can do this too. In fact, I have some friends that are almost there, although we live in different states. I’d be especially curious to see if I could build a community of practice with my colleagues and (especially!) in my classes. This will take some brainstroming.
Collective cultivation practices (as a way of fostering “connectedness”)—Scharmer recommends intentional silence and generative dialogue… I think I might experiment with creating non-judgmental listening ~a la Martin’s “Faith Sharing”… I’ll work on it.
Do what you love—Love what you do (ugh.) In spite of the smarmy 1970s vibe, Scharmer unpacks this to mean that your meaningful work must feed your sense of purpose (Motivation 101), and that it must make a positive difference (create a feedback loop)
Notice that Nos. 1 and 3 are, well, kind of the same thing? I expect we have to take the beam out of our own eyes, first, essentially, but this also reinforces that the “sequence" idea may be just a framework for understanding a coalescence, a simultaneity. Also the last one seems to come from nowhere, but I think that here, Scharmer was connecting to his earlier Big Questions, “Who is my Self?—What is my Work?”
And so, we have reached the nadir: the bottom of the U. I think I’ll go back over my notes and make a summary of the trip downward in the next week (just to be sure nothing got lost along the way), and then follow the upward swing to Crystallizing.