Inquiry: Space - making & holding

thank you for those words @Toni Blanco - what shimmered for me were the notions of flow (into, out of and between spaces), continuity (of relationships, generative processes, and vibes) and temporariness (of the "actual" things we are working on).

However, I felt that with your words you made a sweeping generalizing movement which reduced clarity and discernment. I resonate with the notion that we step into "existing space" and give them life - that we recognize latent potential and, with our presence, attempt to bring manifest the latent ... AND that can be said of many kinds of spaces. So while I resonate with it ... it does not feel like a helpful tool in discerning between different kinds of spaces/contexts. I am interested in qualifiers of spaces that help us tend to a more specific subset.

For example, our crew "space" is NOT a space I imagine addressing with our work. It is a small and private space with a specific intention & vibe and increasingly refined membrane (bringing someone new into it, I feel, would require conscious time, attention & effort). There is a large body of knowledge (tools, techniques, processes, etc.) about being in, inhabitting and holding a space like ours.

The space I am imagining when I consider our work has other qualities. I will try to describe some of them:

1. It is a space that has a specific intention. When this intention resonates with an individual there is an attraction that draws the individual into the space. eg: microsoldarity is about doing meaningful work in small groups of mutual care and making a living from it.

2. The intention of the space feels simultaneously vast & fuzzy and small & specific. It is a kind of intention that requires time ... which means that the space will likely have a long (even if fluctuating) life ... and will outlive many of the more temporary spaces that emerge from it. Work, money & care is a vast but very specific (combination!). It touches on core life issues, and as such creates a strong gravitational pull. The specificy of our crew and the even greater specificity of our cycles are much narrower and short lived.

3. Resonance is the (only?) key to passing through the membrane and joining the space. eg: if you think this "mutual care" stuff is bullshit you will be repelled from the space. Here is an invitation I once wrote ... it was so clear that (for quite some time!) no one responded to it :)

4. Unless you were ushered into the space by a friend, once you arrive in the space you may have a mixed experience: you may feel belonging (coming from the resonance with the intention) and you may feel alone (since you don't know anyone in the space).

5. Unlike "businesses" you do not have a JOB in the pace. Your "job" is to get to know yourself, to know others, to acquire skills and to discover meaningful work where you can come into service.

6. You will likely know of/about someone who plays a leadership (seeding) role. But you may live for a long time in the space without ever having a direct interaction with them.

7. It is difficult to sense the size/scale of the space. It may feel vast when in reality it is small ... it may feel small when in reality it is far reaching. It may feel dormant (as the current Microsolidarity Loomio space feels) but may be thriving with activitiy in some of its more peripheral spaces.

8. Becuase of these (and probably other) qualities, it (the space) has a divergent tendency ... fluctutating activity, fleeting connections ... except for that clear intention which persists with its gravitational pull.

Maybe Toni , it can be said about this kind of space that it is there primarily to seed other spaces!? It will never "produce" anything specific like our small crew-space. But it is REQUIRED for our small crew-space to come into being.

Also, Toni, I feel that it takes more than "having conversations" to spawn new MEANINGFUL spaces. Having a conversation is more likely to create a temporary, fleeting space (even if with a deep sense of connection!) that evaporates. I do not mean to down-play the importance of such "conversations". I do mean to imply that something more is needed in order for these "conversations" to crystallize into something more (in the case of Microsolidarity into meaningful, value-generating work).

When I imagine "making a space" I imagine introducing to the space additional qualities/features ... likely small and subtle ... but in such a way that increase the odds of the "right" strangers bumping into each other in the "right" contexts so that a productive-convergent quality can emerge from the space.

Examples I am aware of where this is needed:

1. Microsolidarity

2. Warm Data Labs (Nora Bateson's work).

3. The Stoa

A recurring theme I recognize when I think of these spaces is how to make them into ACTUAL PRACTICE spaces. How do you provide the people who are drawn to them an opportunity to go beyond intellectual ingestion ... how to put them into PRACTICE IN YOUR DAILY LIFE ... so that you come to embody them ... AND THROUGH PRACTICE come to form SUBSTANTIAL connections with others who have done similar PRACTICE-WORK so that you can TOGETHER DO MEANINGFUL work.

ON Remote vs. Physical

I agree with you @toni that coming together physically does not guarantee anything ... but I wouldn't pour out the baby with the baby water!

Though I am clearly biased when I speak for remote work ... I do so because I believe that there are patterns in remote work that are valuable (maybe even more valuable!) when you can be physically together. The skills and qualities that are required for remote work, I imagine, can boost (in both quantity and quality) the performance of a physically-together team.

I believe it was Matt Mullenweg (of Automattic / WordPress), whose company has been remote-from-the-start, once said that when working together physically you should work as if you were continents apart! I believe he said so in the context of fairness/inclusiveness of people who are not present ... but I believe there is much more to it.

When thinking about the two matters of concern raised by Josh and Alex, I asked myself what made our space special and unique for me, like “why today I felt that I have not been in a space like this before?”. I have not fully articulated an answer to that question, but I had some insights that help me to address Ronen’s questions.

As I see things now, the space is pre-existing. Any space is pre-existing. And its true nature is neither remote nor face-to-face. That is a little misguiding. My take is that the best grasp you can get of the space is the one that we get when Alex guide us to it with his voice, in the way he does it. We have the sense that it is easier to find a generative space in a face-to-face environment, but it is quite an illusion. How many times those spaces are quite the opposite? So, only when we use our active imagination we can get an idea of the space. It is just that the face-to-face meeting gives us a quick visual representation of the space to work with and easier access to non-verbal information. But that will not replace the use of the active imagination. So a space is this place we find in the jungle and mess of our daily activity in which we can have conversations. Different spaces will lead to different conversations.

So, how do we find a space? By having conversations in other spaces. Even when we think we found the space alone, we did not. We found it in a conversation, or thinking about that conversation afterward, or maybe talking with my self of the future or my self of the past who had conversations, with other people in a face-to-face meeting, or reading a text. In our case, we found our space in a conversation held at the microsolidarity space Richard found (because others conversations in other spaces), which made Ronen write the invitation to go to that space (seed), and then by accepting the invitation we went together to that space. I think it is important to honor the collective finding and occupation of the space. And I think that we kind of did that by sharing what attracted us to the space, our feelings, and expectations, etc. By sharing conversations (authors/people) that helped us to create or accept the invitation, in what sense we challenged some of the other space assumptions, etc.

So, what happens next once we accept the invitation is a matter of the generative process reflected/put in the seed. So that is why the monstrous diversity of spaces that exist. And in that (more or less) generative process, some interventions or skills are needed, so we enter the dimension of the collective holding of the space. In the case of our generative process (Ronen’s seed), the involvement in it is almost mandatory, and compel us to inquire about it, (in the same level and the meta-level!). Other seeds are less demanding to the group, of course. So about holding the space collectively, it is a matter of the seed, and probably around two dimensions: the demands of specific skills that different members can provide to the seed and its generative process as it unfolds (interventions), and the need to “carry the load” together when it is heavy. For instance, the skill of Ronen was needed to find the space and articulate the concrete seed/invitation to it. Josh quickly helped a lot with technological/tool aspects. Alex with his skills of psychagogue to enter effectively in the space. I started to document it in the chat. And so on. In each intervention, the criteria of a particular member may be more useful.

I think that we often abuse the metaphor of “journey”. Crewing remotely can be a journey, or not. It depends on if you have the generative process clear or not. If you don’t, then it feels like a journey. If you do, it feels like crafting a basket with hemp. So, as I write these lines, I think that what makes this space different is that its reflexivity in terms of its generative process. I like that we (parsimoniously) look for its coherence and the aesthetic dimension in each step. So we do not have the generative process but feels like it because we are crafting it in each cycle.

When thinking about Josh mandala, I imagined the possibility of drawing collectively the space in form of a mandala, representing each intervention (embellishments and twists) from its collective genesis to the date. But I guess that it is not until we complete cycle two we will not be ready for drawing cycle one, and so on.

So, regarding Ronen's question of what to address first, the definition of space or its collective holding, my first answer would have been "let us define first what we want to talk about". But thinking it twice, I go with the "collective holding" one. Because as I experience the whole thing, the space was pre-existent, Ronen saw it and invited us, we went into it, and now is what we want to do collectively about it. How we occupy it.

I was talking about any space, with any qualities. The fact that you can describe the space with detail reinforces to me the idea that it was already existing and you found it, but do not take me very seriously; this is just an influence of my recent Neoplatonic readings. I am sorry that reduced clarity, I was being playful here.

And I agree that meaningful conversations are necessary but of course not sufficient for generating any space. And totally agree that particular practices are the key to "stay" in a particular space, again, so to speak.

Trying to sink into the new rhythms of asynchronous development here ... and I'll admit that it's more of a challenge than I had anticipated. Engaging at this level of abstraction via long text exchanges requires a level of spaciousness that is rarely present in my day-to-day life. And it also brings up feelings of loss and anger about my "former life" in academia, where this sort of thing was what I did for a (very meager) living.

Some things that would be helpful for future reference: artist, album, or podcast recommendations! I think it's helpful when I'm getting some kind of direct sensory feedback that invokes your ongoing co-presence. Listening to something that one of you recommends could be one way for me to do that. Today I'm listening to Javiera Mena, the Chilean art-pop diva, which reminds me of my connections and people in Chile (I met Javiera through an international Buddhist group I was part of when I last lived there five years ago...)

As you all know I've been thinking a lot about sound as a dimension of this space-making ... it's also what I wrote my dissertation about ... and I do feel like the edge of this exploration for me is how to continue in a way that moves in both the journey-into-unknown and honing-a-craft articulations. I've been thinking about this through the lens of "fractal geometry" that informed Richard's initial ideas about Microsolidarity (a word I don't really like and hope that we can move past in our own work soon!) So the idea about there being fractal scaling resonances between the individual, dyad, crew, and congregation is what I'm thinking about. And in the remote context, I think we can design a process that could have an originary point at any level of scale but offer some scaffolding to fill out and explore the other fractal dimensions.

Let me give an example: we all met through a congregation called "Microsolidarity" that Richard convened to discuss and explore this idea. As we have discussed, the space felt shallow and chaotic but also very broad and permeable; it allowed us to find each other across big distances of geography and life circumstances (although as Toni said, there are some striking similarities in our backgrounds that we are learning about as we get to know each other) and to manifest something at the "crew" level of scale. Now what I think we're talking about is another congregation-scale space that allows for more lasting and authentic crewing than the one that we entered into, and developing a process orientation around consent to get us there.

As I mentioned on the call, I'm also wondering what we can do while we're in this phase around the smaller-scale forms, dyad and individual. It's been interesting that in our "bardo" phase between cycles 1 and 2, we ended up connecting in various dyad constellations, and that felt generative. I'm noticing for myself that so far we have talked about "work" more than "money" and "care" ... and in terms of where we go next perhaps this could be something that we get into a bit more. Perhaps thinking through the implications of money and care as they relate to our efforts here could lead to some further clarity around both "sides" of the inquiry we opened up (around space and collectivity) in our last call.

In the meantime, I look forward to assenting To Ronen's proposal and watching the updates to the Audit Log :)

I need to wrap up for today (this has been a little over an hour of thinking/writing/listening to music in our emergent asynchronous space), thanks for reading and considering! I hope that we can start getting into the weeds of the "process document" in the days ahead here.

Oh, one other thing I wanted to flag that I don't have time to delve into but want to next time I'm here: the experience I had of this group being "seeded" with Ronen's call also related to some sense of connection/desire for connection that emerged out of the "congregation calls" that preceded it. So I'm wondering if there is a way to account for both the "seed" and the "womb" so to speak. OK more soon friends!

I'd like to zoom in on the example you offered @Alex Rodriguez and try to place some feet on the ground :)

"we all met through a congregation called "Microsolidarity" that Richard convened to discuss and explore this idea"

I am guessing there is a long and fuzzy tail that retrospectively can be described as "Richard convened" ... but I would like to relate to a specific action: the creation of the public space on Loomio. THAT, to my understanding, was a (the?) critical step for us all to gravitate in on our individual paths and find each other.

"the space felt shallow and chaotic but also very broad and permeable; it allowed us to find each other across big distances of geography and life circumstances ..."

My thoughts, when considering "making space" are around how to make a real space (as "real" as you can call Loomio :] ) that is better for congregating and more likely to lead to good crew-seeds.

Loomio is NOT a good congregation space. It isn't intended to be. It is a threaded decision making space for groups that already have some cohesion (usually established in person!). There have diverse attempts to use Loomio to congregate ... but for the most part, it doesn't seem (from where I am experiencing it) to work very well FOR THAT!

That leads me to the question:

What would make a GOOD congregation and crewing space?

And a wish to inhabit generative sequencing leads me to reframe the question:

What would be a GOOD generative process that leads to a good congregation and crewing space?

... and for me ... it seems obvious that it begins with one person! There are probably pre-conditions with which that one person arrives at the moment of initiation - conditions that increase the likelihood that space will come to life. Those conditions may include (for example) having a crew to help in shaping and holding the space ... but there ultimately one person who will "do the deed" and make a new space. The next "deed to be done" may be to bring in the crew ... but that (heads up rhyming ahead) is step two!

I don't think we're quite on the same page about this (I tend to follow more along the aphorism, "it takes [at least] two to tango") but I also don't think that this is the best moment to explore the divergence. Thanks for articulating this piece clearly.

Alex, this made me realize that I am carrying around an assumption that maybe I have not spoken out clearly or explicitly enough? ... though it is kind of "in the title"

I am inhabiting and tending to a "remote reality" ... in which we ARE physically alone. I am therefore imagining a digital space ... and in THAT reality ... we simply CANNOT push buttons together. I AM WITH you on the "dancing together" ... but in a remote digital environment ... ???

I realize this may sound mundane ... but I am investing in it because I think there may be more to it than meets the eye (that we may discover as we progress) ... it relates to the grounding I am seeking in our crew. In my mind, we are individuals ACTING ALONE towards an experience of coherence and shared resonance. The digital space I am imagining is therefore about what an individual CAN DO. We are not sitting on the grass together ... we are not acting on the world together.

In the Holochain project there is much talk about agent-centric design (with which I resonate deeply) ... and I am reminded now of these thoughts from one of the founders on the fallacies of time and data:

https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Arthur_Brock_Against_the_Consensus_on_Data_Consensus_in_the_Blockchain

Oren Marshall - Introduction to the Story of Speedy Sponda :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axvOHFS4KfU&list=OLAK5uy_kmII0wFDViWfVq-JHTGw9zzTG7n3b4EBg

this is interesting Ronen and gets at where you and I may be coming in with different assumptions about what "we" are "doing" "here" hahaha.

A story that's on my mind: in January of 1985, I was a newborn baby living with my parents in a small apartment in Seattle, USA. My wife Marina was a newborn baby living with her parents in a small apartment in Bobruisk, USSR. Although we were almost 8,500 km away from each other, in hindsight it feels impossible to imagine us living separate lives because of how intertwined they have become since. I think of my life as already being lived in relationship to the things to come, and that the agency is an opening into that space rather than a directional search for coherence or resonance. And this is why I've been trying to think through sound and resonance as a way of co-creating space that at least approximates the possibility of spontaneous group insight---because that is what has felt liberating in previous experience.

That said, what is happening here asynchronously is different in a powerful and useful way. I resonate with the text you shared and love what is being seeded here. So I'm following along as best as I can with great interest :)

@Alex Rodriguez that touched me in a very personal way ... though I expect maybe not in the way you imagine ... and I feel dis-inclined to get into it in writing ... it is subtle, complex ...

HOWEVER I have two other more tangible echoes.The first is this picture (painted this morning) that emerged from holding your words (attached to this comment)

The second will be a proposal I will be posting right after this (stay tuned).