From everything I’ve said so far about flow systems and keeping the infrastructure rolling, you may get the idea that any form of constraint is an intrinsic obstacle to the common good. And yes, this proposition has been periodically aired both politically and economically and has its diehard libertarian advocates.

The second take-away from this more “thermodynamic” approach to the common good (again an easier stretch if you’ve already worked with Eye of the Heart) is that since we are fundamentally dealing with subtle energetic substances here (not abstract moral qualities), increasing that overall quantum of wellness can happen at either end of the stick …

The third aspect to note about the common good as it manifests in the Integral structure of consciousness is that it is, well, good. It is not just virtuous, righteous, dutiful, or morally correct, but palpably satisfying, like a home-cooked meal or a warm hearth on a cold winter night.

The second major shift as we approach the question of the common good through the Integral structure of consciousness is, I believe, that we will increasingly understand it as an emergent property of a self-specifying system—or in other words, not as an externally imposed template of “right conduct,” but as innate “inner knowingness” that emerges within a living system that has achieved the capacity for autopoiesis, or internal self-regulation.

So let’s begin by situating our inquiry on a Gebserian roadmap. Clearly that places our inquiry into the Common good (like just about everything else presently weighing on our hearts and minds) on the evolutionary cusp between two structures of consciousness.

One of the more surprising revelations to grow out of our winter’s pilot “Civics for Wisdom Students” project has been the growing realization that while our Constitution pays lips service to “the Common Good,” it actually makes very little constitutional provision for it.