Gathering #13 July 8, 2021 - Directness

This gathering had two themes on the agenda:

1. The gathering was invoked around an exploration of directness

2. But we opened with me sharing about the recent interactions with Jennifer & Robert.

I chose to inhabit this gathering (especially the conversation around directness) in a personal/experiential mode and I do not feel inclined to attempt to intellectually capture what we talked about it. Though I do hope someone else will add some words and resonance because it felt like a rigorous and valuable collective effort.

I feel grateful for the collective availability to talk about this subject which is important to me personally. I appreciated @Toni Blanco showing up and helping to discern and hold the tapas that, for me, instigated this gathering. I am grateful for @Alex Rodriguez for seeing beyond the manifesting symptoms and into underlying dynamics.

I am grateful to be coming away with actionable takeaways:

1. My directness is appreciated and welcomed in the crew.

2. My directness can evoke different experiences for different people in different contexts. Sometimes it results in a noticeable asymmetry. If the person I am interacting with is not able to see and hold the asymmetry, the directness can become a negative experience (for everyone involved).

3. My relatively higher availability (so far) to "doing the work" feeds into this asymmetry <--- in my mind this resonates with a conversation we had once about the shortcomings of a do-ocracy. Though, also in my mind, I feel I have been aware and addressed this with the "sacrificial work" agreement we've put in place. Me "getting there first" DOES NOT give my opinions or deliverables any priority or primacy. It DOES mean that they ARE there. This also sends me back to a theme we explored early in our work: rhythms.

4. I am taking away with permission to continue to be direct and a recommendation to "take a deep breath" after being direct in order to give others a space to digest and respond.

I was happy to share my deep and resonant experiences with Jennifer & Robert. I was glad (and not surprised) for the soft opening expressed in the crew to meet with them and see where this takes us.

We've scheduled a gathering for the July 29th sandbox time. I've invited Jennifer & Robert and they have confirmed they will be there. Reminder to @Toni Blanco that I am waiting for a Zoom link for this gathering.

From the conversation about inviting Jennifer & Robert to small seeds emerged:

1. @Alex Rodriguez expressed a wish to place attention on value creation and ownership (my words, Alex please feel free to correct or elaborate). Alex has agreed to hold this thread of exploration.

2. @Toni Blanco expressed some ideas about how to welcome our guests and so I invited Toni to host this call. Toni has tentatively accepted with an agreement that he can change his mind at any time, up to and including the last minute in which case I or someone else will step in.

Also, it seems that Toni and I were in sync. He mentioned in the discord chat something that also came up in my mind: an invitation for Alex to facilitate a welcoming experience for this upcoming gathering with our guests. I am imagining something in the spirit of our audio-on-webcam-off explorations.

Thanks, @Ronen Hirsch for sharing takeaways. 

I would like just clarifying first that my comment was more "I may need to raise a red flag to ask for support during the gathering" more than "jump off the task anytime". This little misunderstanding is an illustration of why I fear I may need (eventually) that support. 

On the other hand, your trust for me to perform the task makes me feel more confident in my skills. 

I also want to highlight some ideas from the conversation.

Escaping from directness

The idea of "escaping" has been linked in some commented vignettes with directness; hence the fear of directness producing unintended self-isolation. 

Directness can pose a challenge towards its target; a challenge that is framed in the terms and conditions of who is being direct. If the target perceives strong asymmetrical conditions in which challenge occurs (and a power game because of its foreseeable consequences), it is understandable that he or she turns away, avoiding an unfair challenge. It is even a more likable outcome if it is experienced as an (unpleasant) "deja vu" (been there, done that, and even bought the t-shirt). Blaming for escaping, in this case (and probably in general or at least in systems) makes no sense. 

Dealing with asymmetries

Asymmetries are important, but they can both empower or disempower. Different kinds of asymmetries were raised. Asymmetrical discursive skills, material resources (i.e. time), knowledge and expertise...

In my case, the most asymmetry experienced has been in terms of Alexander's work theoretical and practical knowledge. This asymmetry has not been disempowering but the opposite: Ronen's generous disposition to show, guide, etc. on that matter has been great for me. Yet, my contributions have been less valuable in that task that has become central in crafting the first version of the GP. So knowledge, and stepping in the unexplored territory of crafting a GP collaboratively, has been the big obstacle for contributing to getting the job done, more than (lack of) time. Maybe we are not identifying/acknowledging other potential ways to contribute to the present cycle.      

I am very interested in this topic because making the most of skill asymmetries is one of the central topics of the Pantheon Work model. It draws from the X-net concept of "federation of competencies"; of fields and concrete tasks in which the members of a team are good at. 

The existence of common material culture in remote crews

I consider that the realization that we can share common material culture despite we work remotely is an important one. One way of making this realization operational is to be attentive to the cards of the generative process, in order to identify potential material artifacts that could support the GP. 

Thank you @Toni Blanco for the complementary reflections.

Escaping from Directness

That framing evokes such a powerful image of a trap ... and I am curious about that. It awakens two reflections in me:

1. It is not my intention to "setup a trap" ... and I understand that may be a possible outcome. I do appreciate that it creates a challenge, but I wonder why does the asymmetry of the challenge make it unfair? I am assuming that the reason we are in this situation in the first place is a wish to do/be together. If I bring "more" to the party ... why is that a problem? why is that a challenge? why is that not an opportunity?

2. I am thinking about situations where I have experienced "being trapped" ... and I am finding two kinds of responses that it evokes in me. One is surrender, I accept that power asymmetry and try to meet it with an Aikido quality - seeking a way to work with it and avoid an adversarial interaction. The other is a playful curiosity ... like someone brought more toys to play with.

Dealing with Asymmetries

My comments above on "escaping" touched on this too.

Though, what is most alive in me in response to your thoughts here is this:

1. I feel that I have a dominant role in the forming and authoring of the generative sequence.

2. I feel that I could not have done this without the continual presence and support of the crew. I would not have put in the work without the interest and support you all expressed.

Here are some contributions that I can explicitly recognize:

1. I would not have been as conscious of the sacrificial attitude that emerged among us, and without the sacrificial attitude, I don't think I would have been able to persevere.

2. I would not have been as likely to even try the "generative way" had it not been for the interest you all took in it, and the 1st cycle during which we explored this potential.

3. I would not have as much appreciation for the "reading" quality had it not been for @Alex Rodriguez presencing sound and then the experiment of sharing with you all the GP using an audio recording (and the later weaker experiencing when you tried to read on your own a later version).

4. There are many details, some subtle some gross, that emerged in our conversations and interaction that found their way into the GP.

5. Even with all of the above, I needed space and time to meander at my own leisure in order to assemble the GP. That space and time was and continues to be a precious quality that emerged from the basic shared commitment we have all embodied in this crew relationship.

I am very curious and looking forward to discovering through you how this exploration may apply to your work at Pantheon!

Material Culture

I agree and am grateful for you pointing to this and naming it. This is quite an asset. It feels to me like a lifetime spiritual endeavor: on the one hand, I feel we've generated a lot, on the other hand, I feel we've barely begun!

:)

@Alex Rodriguez and I squeezed our two sandbox hours and talked about lots of topics.

We talked about how asymmetries made our crew vibrant; how resonating while being in different situations was powerful. Also about the asymmetry of us being parents and how that changed our perspectives on life, death, and money. How that asymmetry contributed to us talking about equity and all that. How we are allocating our time regarding money (being Alex situation more rigid than mine).

Then we turned into the upsides and downsides of some design decisions of the generative process we are in as a crew. Working with no deadlines, no implementation in mind, and sacrificial spirit simplifies the working conditions and gives us the kind of pace our endeavor requires. On the other hand, it does not contribute to explore and reflect on how to approach and to get new perspectives on how to handle time allocation when you have to negotiate that kind of stuff with your wife. The fact that, anyway, @Josh Fairhead and @Ronen Hirsch have to pay bills as well.

We also talked about the present cycle not being framed as the previous one, since they kind of overlapped. We now are centered on the task of crafting a first version of the generative process at Collective One, putting aside other dimensions of the microsolidarity practice, or at least not enabling the space to talk about them. Another issue is the difficulty to write collaboratively the first draft of the GP, and the convenience of finding ways to contribute to our goal in the present cycle. I compared our key contribution to the crew with the one of Andrew Ridgeley to Wham! (long story).

As I recall it, then we moved to the generative process that brought Culture Starters to emerge, and the difference to the GP we are crafting at Collective One. The importance of conditions and enablers, with an epochal perspective. How our work is part of a larger societal change. Alex introduced me to the work of Báyò Akómoláfé and its connections with eastern and western spiritual traditions. We jumped to the idea of exodus, the remarkable achievements of the Amish exodus, the current exodus of Las Indias Electrónicas, and what the exodus model means to us as remote microsolidarity practitioners in the XXI century.

We expressed our curiosity about the environment and external conditions in which we eventually will implement our GP. The importance that @Ronen Hirsch always gave to us informing how our work at the crew permeates to the rest of activities, and the "haunting" issue of deciding what, when, and to who signaling what we are doing. The high abstraction of the GP leaves little space for this kind of conversation.

So we end up imagining a space in which we could tackle those topics. If Collective One is our atelier/workshop, we conceptualized a "lab" in which we could ground and experiment with bits of our findings, so we can build artifacts/experiences that allow experimenting here and now what we are looking for with our work. So a sort of "lab of external signals" with a conscious choice of what, when, and to who expose them. Using the VNA approach in the lab for that would additionally introduce it to our crew without adding noise to the central task of the GP writing. A lab also to evaluate if those artifacts/byproducts of our work can become a source of income for the crew and the bootstrapping strategy.

Alex is going to make an invitation for the creation of the lab/space of the crew, which could take place in August.

Maybe I am missing something important because I did not take notes, or I did not get something right; please @Alex Rodriguez add anything I skipped that could be worth to be shared.

Thank you @Toni Blanco and @Alex Rodriguez for making space for this whole dyad experience and thank you Toni for sharing some of your experience through these words.

I do not feel inclined (for now) to comment on the contents. I do want to share that:

1. I feel light and liberated that this took place. I am so glad that Alex expressed a need and that you responded and that both of you made space for it and tended to it ... and that I had NOTHING to do with it.

2. I feel no attachment or need to know about what arose between the two of you.

3. I feel trust that whatever gems you discovered and mined are now available to our crew whenever we may need them.

4. I feel safe moving forward into whatever awaits us beyond the meeting with Jennifer & Robert. Your dyad felt like a seed, a microcosm that sets the stage for more people to step into what we've started: into both the work and the culture. I feel like I can almost touch the "material culture" that Toni mentioned and I feel sooooo much appreciation that, regardless of whatever else may have been generated between us, this is now available to us.

I am curious and looking forward to discovering what the "lab space" may be :)

and another thing ... I realized (duh!) that the dyad gives more spaciousness for depth and expression ... and reflecting on that made me wonder about another potential format of call where an inner group who are active in the call is surrounded by an outer group who not active but listening and maybe documenting.

Just thinking about this brings me a feeling of relaxation ... of the privilege of being able to listen without participating while still being a full part of the conversation. I can see such a conversation followed up by both asynchronous activity and additional conversations where roles can change allowing others to come into the inner circles and others to step out.

I can also see this as something that may contribute to scaling challenges. You could have a crew-size active circle (4-6 people) with maybe a larger (15-20 people) listening circle.

So, if, for example, the project expands to numerous crews there may be "high level" integration gatherings or cross-pollination gatherings where a representative from each crew joins the inner circle and anyone else who wants to listen in can participate in the outer listening circle.