Ripened Fruits

This all resonates for me, Ronen---if you have come across any examples of websites that demonstrate these qualities, please do share links. I'm always looking to learn!

Re-reading this now, these words come to mind: "orienting ourselves in relational space"

I like that framing @Alex Rodriguez and I want to expand it

"placing and orienting ourselves in relational space"

orientation feels to me like it's driven by a self-centered mentality which is necessary but I feel there also needs to be a giving aspect, hence the "placing" - a broadcasting quality ... making ourselves known to others ... making ourselves available to relate ... entering MUTUAL relationships ... to both find orientation and support orientation for others.

@Robert Damashek and I had a conversation yesterday extending into today about his post.

I recorded the initial conversation. I attached it here in case anyone wants to listen to it.

Here are my notes about that conversation and our subsequent conversations.

I shared with Robert that I had no interest in working with organizations because in my mind the structure of almost all organizations out there simply do not allow for the drastic changes which I think are needed if the society is going to even begin to be functional and generative. I communicated a little too harshly and his feelings were hurt. We worked through that and I know I need to do better to soften my communication at times!

I asked Robert to help me understand exactly what the services would be that would be offered as consultants. He said he wanted to help organizations see and describe their living centers and their relational processes. He said this might help them realign to their missions. I said if that's what he and others in the crew want to do I'm supportive of that but I don't have interest in participating, at least right now. I would need to understand more clearly how it would work.

I expressed that what I want most is build the digital space and I didn't see how what he was talking about moved forward the building of the digital space. Robert explained his thinking along those lines and seemed to shift to realize that what he was talking about wouldn't actually directly help build the digital space.

During the conversation we mentioned a few things that haven't been talked about here or otherwise with the crew. First, I connected Ronen with Lorenz, who built a platform for facilitators and their participants. The platform is called Sutra. Lorenz doesn't have time to listen to the full GP for the digital space right now.

I mentioned a micro solidarity project that I recently learned about in Quebec and the larger ecosystem around it. I will write about that in a separate post. I will also write about what came to me in my initial experience of the digital space related to parenting.

Overall I think the resolution between me and Robert is that he shifted to thinking that the building of the digital space is what is most important right now and in the future some kind of consulting work may emerge from it and the work of the crew. Hopefully Robert will have time to add to/correct my version of events. :-)

Thank you, @Ronen Hirsch I'm not sure I see how Robert and I having a conversation together is different than any dyad conversation that people in the crew have. I remember that conversation you and I had about the word "financial." Please help me understand. Is it because this issue (what to do next) is important and so this dyad conversation is important for the crew to have insight into? Or is it that Robert and I are together physically that makes it different from any other dyad conversation?

Could you also help me understand this: "In larger constellations (which we may become) this also open the door for unhealthy power dynamics." What exactly would open the door for unhealthy power dynamics?

I like very much the idea of creating a website for the crew.

Thank you, Jennifer, for articulating our conversation and conclusions accurately and effectively. First and foremost, I want to thank each one of you for taking the time to think about and ponder my ideas. I acutely sensed that some couldn’t see themselves in my vision, and that was painful but quite real. It was even more painful to feel even the small possibility that what I wrote would cause a separation in or stepping back from the oneness of our crew. That oneness is what makes what we share so special.

So as we move forward, I hope we can find a way to take incremental steps that move our shared vision forward, realizing perhaps increments of the digital space in a way that is of tangible value to all of us and to others, and in which each one of us feels motivated to and can clearly contribute.

All my love,

Robert

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS

Interesting that you took it there, @Ronen Hirsch -- I had a whole extra paragraph about what I've been calling "echolocation" that gets into something similar, but took out because I hadn't fully fleshed it out into something that seemed coherent yet. But suffice it to say that we're on the same page about this and I have been ruminating on some ways to actualize this through shared real-time digital audio space ... to be continued ...

Hi Jennifer, thank you for sharing your concerns. I totally agree that the purpose of this crew is not consulting anyone but building a digital space with a novel approach that makes participants flow towards forming crews that practice microsolidarity. And I think that @alex has summarized above pretty well my perspective.

One of the central points that arose during the retrospective is to address the fact that the self-funding model of the crew is in danger. I think the natural response in terms of microsolidarity is to care for the financial sustainability (among others) of each of us so the crew can be viable.

What called my attention from your conversation is the reminder of the risk we talked about to let this conversation about our financial situation get in the way of the financial model of the space. In other words: take steps or design decisions based not on the whole but some parts. So we have to think about the way to have this kind of conversation about how to earn some money and not let that conversation contaminate our main work.

Of course, consulting, which is what Robert and I make nowadays to earn money, is not the only option. But obviously is the one we know and identify opportunities. This is actually the activity that brought me to the Looimo and the crew. I see myself promoting microsolidarity by consulting. Also, I use the word "consulting" because of economy of language, but consulting is an empty signifier that nowadays can be filled with very different even opposite things. I do not know exactly what you mean by seed spaces but sounds like what I was thinking about. Putting in common our skills and contacts, and finding opportunities for making money, testing if possible some of our ideas at the same time. I understand the dangers that having a consulting activity, particularly if it turns to be successful, means for the crew. Yet, I have a lot of confidence in this crew to sail those waters safely. I believe that this cycle has reinforced dramatically our shared vision and that we will put it in the center of the existence of this crew, making the rest instrumental or accessory to it.

Also, I have some ideas to explore together about how to make good use of the financial resources you offered to the crew, that could impact safely (with lots of "ifs") in the crew. Consulting is not the only way of assuring the material conditions of existence of this crew.

Anyway, the question is still open: how and where should we talk about our need of making money in a way that does not add noise to our central work?

@Robert Damashek I can understand why my inability to see myself in your vision pained you. I felt it was necessary for me to express authentically and clearly to you where I stand in order to give your vision a chance. I don't feel you did anything to compromise the wholeness of the crew or the work we are trying to do. I feel that part of taking incremental steps towards wholeness has to allow space for experimentation and experimentation has to allow for missteps. I feel that your proposal deserves more attention before it can be labeled a misstep.

Your message conveyed to me that you and Jennifer had reached some kind of conclusion or decision that your proposal is not valid. However, after listening to the audio recording of your conversation I realized that no such decision had been made. I feel that your message (the one I am responding to) is a capitulation to the assertive energy that @Jennifer Damashek expressed at the beginning of your recorded conversation. I, therefore, feel compelled to reject it. Though I feel I understand the origin of your response, I believe it manifests as misinformation and is therefore a negative outcome.

I feel dis-ease in writing this message. The dis-ease originates with the feeling that I am manifesting a quality of pushing-back. I feel I am pushing-back both against Jennifer's initial pushing (against you in the recorded conversation) and against your response (here in the thread) to that pushing. I am doing so consciously with the intention of presencing and highlighting the nature and (negative) effects of pushing energy.

Beyond that, I feel that your recorded conversation, once the agitated energy settled, held much generative potential.

I had much more to say that got lost ... maybe I will gradually recover more pieces ... but this I felt compelled to salvage and share.

@Ronen Hirsch Thank you for sharing your thoughts about my communication, and I’m very sorry you lost your longer initial post. I truly appreciated the authentic responses from you and @Josh Fairhead to my proposal, and especially the care that you both showed in doing so authentically yet also kindly. I also appreciated the authenticity of the post from @Jennifer Damashek, who also shared with me subsequently in private conversation some ideas that to me resonated as more closely aligned with the crew’s purpose, and as such my own. This conversation was before the discussion we shared openly with the crew, and before your request to share our conversation about the posts openly with the crew. So at no time did I feel that my proposal was invalid, neither do I feel that way now, just that the ideas I shared were not as fully thought through and that they didn’t reflect a whole space in which all of the crew could see themselves and fully embrace. I honor the fact that you pushed back despite your dis-ease, and am glad that @Jennifer Damashek and I were able to overcome that negativity and agitation, and achieve positivity with generative potential. I look forward to the full breadth of our crew’s engagement in the next cycle.

Thank you for writing this, @Ronen Hirsch. I hope I have the opportunity to learn all the other things you have to say that were lost.

As I sat with your post, I wondered how what I said to Robert at the beginning of the conversation was different from your directness when you communicate. I felt I was being direct in stating what was there for me. When reflecting, I realized I was rather harsh, so my tone and attitude could have been improved. However, I think the message I was conveying was appropriate and I needed to say it.

When I look back on the conversation, I realize I experienced Robert’s proposal as an invitation into something I wasn’t comfortable with. I assumed he would want me to support it and participate if that’s the direction the crew decided to take. I wanted to make it clear I wouldn’t be happy participating, and I wanted to make it clear why that was.

I think the hurt feelings that arose in the conversation came both from the fact that Robert wanted me involved in what he was proposing as well as my way of delivering that message.

I can support his idea and whatever arises from it in collaboration with others here, if that’s what they want to do. I can even perhaps help in some way, but I don’t know what that would look like right now.

I think it’s important that I and everyone else state directly if they aren’t comfortable participating in something that is being proposed.

I don't think Robert capitulated to my assertiveness, I think he listened to me and liked what he heard. I also think when I asked him questions about his idea he realized it hadn't been completely thought through. That is why it might be a good idea for others to get together with him and think it through.

You wrote:

I feel dis-ease in writing this message. The dis-ease originates with the feeling that I am manifesting a quality of pushing-back. I feel I am pushing-back both against Jennifer's initial pushing (against you in the recorded conversation) and against your response (here in the thread) to that pushing. I am doing so consciously with the intention of presencing and highlighting the nature and (negative) effects of pushing energy.

The question of pushing is interesting. I think the most important thing is that we have a safe space to be authentic, whether pushing, experiencing being pushed, or witnessing pushing. Being pushed doesn’t have to be a negative experience, especially if we agree that pushing and assertiveness is allowed and expected to some degree.

What if the objective of the consulting idea @Robert Damashek has presenced should not be viewed through the lens of "helping organizations"?

What if organizations and their dysfunctions are merely a stage that creates an opportunity for the individuals in the organizations to meet new ideas and potentials?

What if the consulting work was instead targeted to reach and touch individuals within organizations? To seed them with the ideas, skills, and qualities that have arisen within our crew?

What if it is not up to us to "help organizations" or even to "help individuals within organizations"?

What if our job is to disseminate that which lives in our hearts so that it may find its way to other hearts and do what IT needs to do there?

I realize that there is probably a selling effort required in order to reach organizations. And I realize that selling effort may require speaking to the "organizational needs." But maybe we should not conflate the sales pitch with what may really be going on?

Even when I taught one-on-one Yoga I never made promises of outcomes. I offered tailored practices trusting that those practices will do what they need to do. My teacher's teacher wrote that there is only one promise he can make: "I can care."

❤️ @Ronen Hirsch I think this is a wonderful unfolding and deepening of my proposal, particularly disseminating that which lives in our hearts. Just wondering how the connection is made between that living essence in our space and bridged to make a connection with another in their own space. Ultimately, this essential exchange is at the core of what @Jennifer Damashek and I envisioned for Find My Way. If the exchange makes a contribution to another, it can lead to a desire to provide the giver a reward, hence opening a place for money.

Also, just came across this quote in a book I'm reading, End of the Cognitive Empire by Boaventura de Sousa Santos. He writes:

Indeed, the postabyssal researcher is at the antipodes of the consultant. The latter is someone whose knowledge has a specific utility with a price tag and for which there is a solvent demand. The postabyssal researcher is someone for whose knowledge there is a huge and urgent but nonmarketable demand; his or her knowledge is useful for social groups who cannot imagine having to pay for it or, if they had to, would not be able to afford it.

I feel very strongly that what we are doing can be construed as "postabyssal research" (I can get into what that means in more depth if anyone is curious about the specific term) but am mainly bringing this in to point out that there is a strong tension with consulting work here that I believe we can hold generatively.

I’m interested in learning more about postabyssal research, as I think where you are headed may also link to my response to the post from @Ronen Hirsch today.