Dyad Echos

Sunday 17th October,

Context: On Saturday, I checked-in with @Ronen Hirsch to make sure he didn't feel disoriented or left behind with the Obsidian experiment, as my assumption was that it would be his preference to get involved when things were a bit more stable. He said he felt too out of alignment for tech-hacking at the moment so I suggested a personal call instead. We then slowly arranged a time over Sunday daytime and converged in the evening.

Content: It was largely an improvised personal call with no agenda or imperative, a spark to get the fire lit with an implicit understanding that we were just hanging out while it remained warm. We covered a number of topics over a few hours just enjoying each others company. The first constellation of topics I remember us conversing around were practice, rituals, processes, interactions with the world. Finding the right ecology of practices and the difficulties of that path. Life-curation and life-simplification.

We discussed a book Ronen was reading about symbols, which was fertile for discussions. What stood out to me was the idea that at some point letters, previously having meaning and significance, became phonetic instead. This allowed for a looser abstraction space, but at the cost of grounding.

The word `dissociation` which @Alex Rodriguez presenced last meeting remains a descriptor that stayed with me and applies to the symbols/language discussion. This lens came around a few times over the course of our evening conversation. In relation to this we talked about re-association, embodiment and so on. This is where juggling came up, a practice of mine that brings me back to self.

The conversation looped and weaved, so the above are paragraphs might be considered centres that unfolded and became more elaborate as we continued to discuss things.

The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World by David Abram

https://www.amazon.com/Spell-Sensuous-Perception-Language-More-Than-Human/dp/0679776397/

@Alex Rodriguez and I partook in a 2 part dyad.

The first part was about dealing with frictions and tensions in couple relationships.

The second continued into an exploration about when is it correct to be authentic and direct and when it isn't. This drifted into the notion of a learning process that swings like a pendulum from discernment to integration.

We talked about basic communication skills and efficient signaling. This led to a specific conversation about how Alex & I interacted on Loomio around the reading club and specifically about conscious decisions and motivation in using polls (or other decision-making Loomio tools) or threads.

Alex mentioned that he recently had (is still having?) a good experience with an organizational development consultant which in retrospect I want to connect to the consultation exploration currently held by @Robert Damashek and @Toni Blanco ... Alex may be able to provide insight as a "customer organization."

... and this also came up: everywhere I look ... no matter what domain I feel I would like to be active or contribute to ... I feel I first need the digital space ... basic communication, basic listening, basic expression, basic objection, basic triggering, basic deciding, basic accountability

this is probably, at this point a biased perspective :) but there it is!

@Alex Rodriguez and I spoke on 11/1. I asked to speak with him because I wanted help processing the sense I had that I'm not welcome to bring my full self here. I also asked him to help me understand the hesitancy I experience on the part of the crew to seek direct funding for building the digital space.

I also want to note I'm not sure why we write these reflections or what is expected to be contained in them. I don't feel I had a say in whether or not these reflections are required, how to write them, or why to write them.

In this specific case, you writing this brief reflection lets me know that you feel not welcome to bring your full self to the crew and leaves me wondering 1) why that is and 2) if your conversation with Alex helped you process this and if so how? Had you not posted this, I would have not known.

I am also not clear how you came to experience that the crew is hesitant to seek direct funding. Can you say more about this? (<- could be a dedicated thread or a response on cycle 4).

I sensed I was not welcome to bring my full self to the crew for a couple of reasons. The most immediate was because Josh expressed anxiety over what I wrote in comments under the invitation to a Lunar Ritual Encounter. He also indicated that for him associating feminine energy with the moon was identity politics.

It’s ok with me if what I write and say generates anxiety, but I’m not sure that’s the case with others. I also am not sure it would be welcome to ask Josh about why associating feminine energy with the moon and lunar rituals is identity politics in his mind, but I do have that question. I wasn’t sure if there was space for me to express myself freely after that exchange. I have been hesitating to post on Loomio because I didn’t want to cause anxiety or discomfort, and it surprised me that exchange did so. It left me feeling there might not be much I could say without generating discomfort here, and my sense is that the discomfort isn't welcome.

I also felt that way after exchanges with you, Ronen. I expressed strong feelings about the word “financial” and you had uncomfortable feelings about that. I want to emphasize here that I was comfortable expressing my strong emotions, and it surprised me to learn later that they troubled you.

You also had a reaction to the recorded conversation between Robert and me. These two events left me feeling it wasn’t welcome to express myself freely. That’s why I hesitated to post on Loomio and I hesitate now.

I do want to avoid troubling anybody if possible, but I won't do that at the cost of not being myself.

What I would like is to know that even if I make a mistake or something I say generates unpleasant experiences for others, that is expected here. I would like to know that my presence and contribution is valued. Then I would feel welcome.

Yes, it helped to talk to Alex. It helped me to get his feedback and insights. Talking to someone who is able to listen without judgment or reaction helps me process my experiences and make sense of them.

I can see that posting the reflection of the conversation brought this to your attention. However, I wonder if would be better to leave it up to the people having the conversation whether they want to reflect to the crew that the conversation took place. Robert and I have conversations quite often about what happens here. What should we do about that?

I mean, we all have conversations in our own heads about these things, and we get to choose what we bring here publicly.

I felt there was hesitancy in seeking direct funding for the digital space because what I see being pursued first is jobs and other work for the crew. I can think of so many ways that the digital space might be profitable and venture capital or other types of funding could be sought for different applications of it. My sense is that those here who need more income want to get work as individuals or as a crew first, and then later build it? I’m not sure, all I know is what I see which is interest in jobs and some kind of work for the crew other than building the space. That's fine with me, I just wanted Alex's insights on why that might be.

1: Being yourself

Thank you for elaborating. My current understanding is that your conversation with Alex has resolved (at least for now) whatever needed resolving and that you are now able to be yourself in the crew. If that is not the case, please indicate what else you feel you need.

2: Dyad Echoes

I have more to say but nothing that feels needs to be said right now except for this: it IS up to the people having a conversation (dyad or otherwise) to decide if/what to share about it. I don't know where you got a different impression.

3: Direct Funding

I, personally, have not brought up direct funding because I can't see how that can be possible. I am especially concerned about VC funding given that we are trying to create something of a "Tibetan village" and I expect that VC funding will likely cause a "degradation a healthy, joyful community."

But more importantly: if you believe in this possibility why haven't you brought it up and carried it forward? If the answer to that question is the subject of being fully yourself, and it has been resolved, can you now help the crew to move forward with this?

4: Really ...

Personally, I am not really after funding or a job. I am interested in growing a healthy team that is able to manifest and care for the digital space while having their needs (and my own) met.

I want to be able to work peacefully without having to worry about the roof over my head. I want to experience abundance instead of being told fantastical stories about it. I want this for everyone who is currently a crew member and everyone who will join this effort in the future.

The work, I think, that really needs to be done now in terms of manifesting the digital space is:

• Expanding the sharing in order to test relevancy and viability in different communal environments while forming an informal interest network.

• Making it possible for the people on the crew to dedicate regular time and attention to the work.

• Exploration of the technical stack upon which the space can be built.

• Bringing on technically-skilled people who can begin to experiment and explore with the technical stack while gradually forming an iterative technological-design process that points in the direction of the digital space.

In the world we currently inhabit, money seems to be needed to do this.

Hi @Jennifer Damashek, I am using the time of a last-minute canceled meeting to pop up here. I am super-super-bussy and kidney stones stroke back, so I have not participated in the time I would like to.

Let me thank you first for fully expressing yourself. I think that I told you before but I say it again, I am a big fan of the kind of energy you bring to the crew and I wish I would be a little more like you. I think that generating anxiety, concerns, etc. on others is part of the journey; the key is what we do collectively with that. And we manage that fine.

I was surprised by Josh reaction to your comment and since he did not want to stay in the thread I was not sure how to talk about it. I understand that the relationship of gender and symbolism is sensitive because power dynamics take advantage and there is a long tradition of oppression. That said, I consider that making such a distinction between feminine and masculine in those terms is not necessarily oppressive or identity politics, starting with the classic point that feminine≠woman and masculine≠man. This is my field of expertise after my PhD so I can tell you that "the moon calling feminine energies" or "saying that is identity politics" is oversimplistic. All symbols are ambiguous by definition, and the moon is an extreme example, to the point that in terms of masculine or feminine, it is an archetype of the androgynous. In Spanish "la luna" is feminine and "el sol" is masculine, but for instance, in german, is the other way around ("der Mond" and "die Sonne"). Of course, the moon is strongly connected with the feminine and women, and often with a very negative valorization! (and that is why is problematic). Like it or not, the symbolic connection between the moon and women is not essentialism or biologism, is just an almost cultural universal fact (menstruation has a lot to do with it, in France the menstrual period is known as "the time of the moon" ). Again, what we do with it is what makes the difference.

I have a workshop of introduction to symbolic hermeneutics that I think clarifies a lot of these questions and misunderstandings. Happy to have a dyad with you (open to anyone) to go through it.

Money, funding... a friendly reminder to you guys that we just initiated a whole cycle to address this key and complex topic!