the book, Evolutional Consciousness of Being and Business)
Ontology as Mental State of "Innascence" or "Ontonascence"
Another way to try to understand this "Ontology" skill-component is as a state of consciousness and mental-state dynamic, predominantly of being in an awareness-state characterized by being in nascence, having a nascence-awareness, or, to coin two new terms, being "innascence" or "ontonascence". "Nascence", by definition, is where something is in a condition of "coming into being, being born; beginning to exist or develop". To help us think about this quality of innascence (to be pronounced like "innocence"), look at is as being similar to four qualities or characteristics that look and sound similar to it: "innocence", "in essence", "in a sense", and "in nascence".
· "Innocence" (religious meanings aside) is a quality of simplicity; absence of guile or cunning; having naiveté, purity, lack of knowledge or understanding; harmlessness, blamelessness, innocuousness, simplicity, learners mind."
· "In essence" refers to the basic, real, and invariable nature of our beingness as humans or our significant feature as a "human being"; the intrinsic or indispensable property that serves to characterize or identify that which we are at our core; that something that is the primacy of us that precedes the occurrence of personality and ego; especially a spiritual or incorporeal quality, particularly our innate propensity for growth, development, and evolving, by whatever terms.
· "In a sense" doesn't refer to a five-senses kind of sensing of our immediate environment, but more to a consciousness sensing, for lack of a better term, of awareness that is "wanting" or "readying" to come forth in us through our awareness in light of any situation, task, goal, objective, intention, and/or purpose at hand. I wouldn't say it's a "sixth sense" as with psychic-ness, but a "sense" nonetheless.
· "In nascence" refers to something being in a condition or state of nascence.
Though this last expression, "in nascence", is closest to the term "innascence", it of itself doesn't have all the qualities of a state of consciousness and mind that I'm wanting to unpack and characterize as the state of "consciousness innascence" or, simply, "innascence". That is, these other three qualities more adequately round out, distinguish, accentuate, and communicate the meaning of innascence as I'm advancing it here.
Notice that all of these meanings connote the lack of the capability and inclination for "judgment", a lack of the "need to be right" or the "need to be better than others", and other similar psychological propensities and posturings we humans are very familiar with as "lower ego", and especially as persona! Innascence is simply a state of presencing oneself to "what is", being in the now, free of bias and "personal agenda" (as feasible at any moment in time). It is a becoming-in-the-moment with intention toward actualizing a grander objective of the moment, instead of what our persona "wants, prefers, or needs" the moment to be. And similarly, but with slightly different emphasis, ontonascence is simply the dynamic in-the-moment state of "being-ness coming into being" as awareness in how we view things. Both terms convey a state whereby we are seeing freshly from our perspective, newly, originally, seminally, as feasible in any moment. We are in a state of "coming into being-awareness", "opening into a state of generating fresh thoughts and fresh thinking". And doing so until we learn to just be in our state of "coming into being-ness".
I'm not sure I
communicated that sufficiently, but hopefully
it provided a sufficient sense of what innascence and ontonascence is and isn't. I make this last distinction because the
meta-message of this book is to not
grasp tightly onto any of these concepts, but to keep a loose grip, as it were,
staying unweighted, as feasible,
learning to open into your innascence.
Once we grasp on and keep a tight hold on concepts we aren't in our
innascence any longer. It requires
letting ourselves find some degree of comfort in the awkwardness of even trying
to understand and digest these new terms and concepts. Think
of the notion of "release-rise-and-ride",
a releasing of any tight grip on our thinking and typical thought
processing, "unweighting" from our everyday thinking modalities, and
of "riding" the flow of wondering, of hovering above or behind
thinking-as-usual, getting meta to it, of being innascence-in-action for
into greater states of awareness and realization. As cumbersome as wading through these
distinctions might seem to be, it's intended as a conceptual map of sorts to help you
find your way into innascence, giving the mind something to "hold on
to". That is, if our minds start to
feel too lost, they re-cling to the familiar.
As we become relatively "actualized" at authoring the state of innascence at will, we eventually begin to discover an experience that is somewhat akin to "riding" in our evolutional "sweet spot" as a state of functioning and being. This is a functioning at our ever-evolving leading edge of vertical and horizontal developing.
As you can see, there are several kinds of distinctions that are useful to understand. And as cumbersome as engaging these distinctions might seem, that's because it's relatively new territory to most of us, so this body of work is intended as conceptual and practical metaphors, maps, and models to help you find your way, initially starting with the domain of Ontology's innascence. Part of the intention of using conceptual renderings is to give the mind something to feel relatively connected to so our mind doesn't start to feel too lost, which would cause it to re-cling to familiar ways.
I'll try to better distinguish this concept of "innascence" from "nascence" by way of distinguishing the notions of "state" and "conditions", for those who are into splitting conceptual hairs. A baby being born, as it's coming through the birth canal, is in a nascent condition of coming into physical view, as a "new physical thing" in the world. Similarly, a person that thinks of a new idea is, at that point in time, in a nascent condition of generating a new idea, bringing it into mental view, the new idea being a "new mental thing" coming into the world, as it were. Once the new idea or thought is thought, the nascence of the condition of having birthed the new idea or thought is over, like the birth of a baby, once it's born, the nascence condition is over. "Condition" is a term of temporariness, as I'm using it here, whereas a "state" can be ongoing, lasting several moments if not months, or we can go in and out of a state at will, as befitting the situation., as is the case with innascence. Both of these birthing examples are conditions of nascence as a condition, of producing a new "thing". But they're not expressions of consciousness or mental innascence.
On a larger scale, an entity such as a company being formed might also be said to be in a condition of nascence, being in its early being-created stage/condition of being born. But I'm not using the term in the sense of newly pulling together resources to "form a thing", a company in this case, as would be the condition of "starting up" a company. On the other hand, I'm not saying that innascence isn't about pulling things and thoughts together. It can occur that way. But innascence, by definition, is a state dynamic that we can go in and out of. It's not simply something we've "done" and then we go past that point. Similarly, a new company can be in this nascent condition for a longer period of time due to its drawn-out birth being the result of several components being "pulled together" over time. To the extent that the company stays in a creative "birthing" condition of growth and development, it could be deemed as being in a protracted condition of nascence, but this is not an intention since young company's like to "move on" in their development, to get established and stabilized.
This is not merely the practice of attempting to generate new thoughts, as with "brainstorming" or offsite "creativity seminars". Innascence can occur as a blank mind for long moments, where we're not preoccupied with or driven by generating a thought, or even of thinking, in a situation. But it will usually occur, at least in business contexts, as a state of seminally presencing oneself innascently/ontonascently, in the moment, as regards "some situation" at hand, to generate some result or outcome. It's, also, not just a groundless or reference-less daydreaming state, as when, for example, lying on a tropical beach where there isn't any situation we're wanting to focus on and attend to, or produce some result about.
As mentioned earlier, persona has a fear of the present, being instead primarily preoccupied with the past and the future. Persona doesn't want to see everything that is, especially in us, which it might see if it were more present in consciousness. Particularly, it's afraid of discovering aspects of itself it doesn't like, and is afraid of. Yes that sounds redundant. The thing is, since persona doesn't like experiencing fear, it develops a resistance to fear, specifically it learns to fear fear itself. As such, this makes it even more difficult to "get present", since it's in the present that what's authentic is coming up in us. As soon as we feel fear creeping in, we retreat, contract, further unwittingly solidifying the persona-as-self dynamic.
Since most of us aren't aware of the possibility for this dynamic capacity in ourselves for innascence, let alone practiced in it, it will usually first require some innerwork, at least alone by ourselves or also with the help of someone else, particularly of getting meta to our perspective, to begin to open up this dynamic of functioning for ourselves.
To further amplify the significance of innascence and ontonascence even though it is a mental dynamic, it functions as somewhat of a portal for the other skills-components in this model to "occur within", and/or "come through", us in a way that "supercharges" these other skills. As such, it's significance is not so much in that innascence is a skill in and of itself, but that it's a meta-value in what it does for the other skill-components in our developmental model, especially for the vertical level of opening it generates allowing us to open into a higher stratum of functioning in all the other skills.
That said, my personal sense is that the Spirit "skill-component" does this kind of thing exponentially more so than innascence alone does, and much more holistically and holonically when combined or infused with it since it's able to access, penetrate, comprehend, and integrally harness much larger and illusive contexts than our "daily mind" can comprehend.
 To clarify--the origin of the meaning of the term "innascence" is not simply the result of a cumulative gathering and synthesizing of the four qualities "innocence", "in essence", "in-a-sensing", and "in nascence". It's the other way around. These four qualities were derived as a result of my own innascence in observing this notion of innascence, producing a reversed-engineering or unpacking of this integral consciousness dynamic I'm referring to as innascence. And the result just happens to conveniently and coincidentally play out as those four similar terms in my minds attempt to grasp the notion of innascence. It was my own presencing-as-innascence that availed these "insights" of relationship of these terms. This is an example of how innascence is not only seminally generative, but also allows us to see the intra- and inter-holonic aspects of the "parts" of life. It has a built-in meta quality to it, able to see itself as it sees the integral and integrative nature of consciousness. I'm thinking there might be someone who could articulate this better, but that's my best attempt at getting my mind around it to communicate it at this point in time.
 I'm distinguishing "conditions" and "states" of nascence, the former not having an intention for nascence, where nascence is just happening, an inevitable developmental quality of the thing.
 Granted, this is very much a semantics issue and I'm taking liberty to use the terms as I choose to make my points. What's important is getting the distinction functionally, not getting agreement on exact meanings, which is always subject to interpretations, anyhow. Stay loose with your grasp. Especially no white-knuckling. Have a sense of doing a float, hovering, "being with" these ideas, holding a sense with intention that their meanings will "show up" at some point, will "just come to you" without trying. Again, this isn't a mental forcing or pushing kind of process, you can't "make it happen". Be with, allow. And don't try to "take charge" (e.g. get annoyed, angry, frustrated, etc.) when "allowing" doesn't produce results soon enough. Perhaps, try asking your sense of a "higher mind" within you what something means when you're stumped, something's not making sense. All in due time.
 This is as regards being in business contexts and relevant practical applications, as it were. It can also be "used" in non-business contexts, and also as/in noncontext-bound applications like meditation. That is, without a particular intended purpose or application for it, just simply "being" in the moment, letting arise what arises.
Perhaps the closest we might get to a state of innascence, but not, is during our best efforts in "brainstorming sessions, where the intent is to generate fresh, original, breakthrough ideas for some specific application, usually in a business context. This, at best, is a poor substitute for ontological-state presencing of ourselves in business, or anywhere. Brainstorming is used in rare occasions, primarily because it isn't effectively generative, whereas ontological-state presencing can produce much more effective results much more often "without trying".
© 2008-13 Larry Kiehl. All rights reserved.