IDEAS FOR DISCUSSIONS

- Everything, everyone says/does is an ATTEMPT to meet a need.

- Convergent Facilitation

- Static or Dynamic Language

- Agreement versus Chaos

- Measurement

- Purpose

- Style of Discussion

- Balancing Togetherness Versus Movement

- Paying rent/expenses as percentage of income

- 3 ways to get to know people

- Sharing and Culture

----- EVERYTHING EVERYONE SAYS/DOES IS AN ATTEMPT TO MEET A NEED

This is not true or false. This is not right or wrong. My life goes much better in so many ways when I choose to see the world this way. This comes from Marshall Rosenberg, Ph.D., book - Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life.

When I connect with Needs, Life Energy, I discover a very creative and compassionate source of knowledge.

----- CONVERGENT FACILITATION by Miki Kashtan

​For working out issues, we could identify what are the concerns around the issue that everyone is willing to hold/consider. Then, we create a proposal that addresses those concerns.

----- STATIC OR DYNAMIC LANGUAGE

Does language structure impact human consciousness ?

​Static language sees things as unchanging or usually constant. This is often expressed thru forms of the verb to be, talking in terms of of what a person is. Also, one action represents the entirety of the person. A good person is good. A bad person is bad. This leads to difficulty in seeing grey areas or humans having both good and bad.

Dynamic language sees things as changing, in motion, in relation to other things. This is often expressed in talking in terms of observations, behavior, words spoken, about a particular moment. The person is seen as changing. No one moment, represents the entirety of the person.

​E-prime language is one way to explore the question of Static or Dynamic language. E-prime excludes all forms of the verb to be from English language.

​----- Agreements versus Chaos​

Agreements maximizes individual freedom and people ability to work together.

Chaos - everyone going in his/her own direction, no consideration for what works for group

Rule bound – No freedom, everyone must follow the rules

​----- MEASUREMENT

Determining how we know an agreement is happening and or is complete

This maximizes the group and individual to effectively work together towards a shared goal thru having “power with”.

Two things often happen that undermine agreements.

The measurement is turned over to an authority figure or role to decide himself/herself if agreement is followed. This results in measurement being a “power over”, even though the creating of agreement was “power with”.

Measurement is not considered. Then, each person is using a different measurement to determine if agreement is followed. By using different standards, one person can argue the agreement is not followed and another could argue is it. Both are accurate. If each knew what the other was using as a measurement, maybe there would be more agreement on what is happening. Otherwise, without clarifying measurements, the arguments turn into un-ending power struggles.

----- PURPOSE

I see purpose as what is bringing us together. Why go thru the challenges of sharing ?

​The purpose becomes the guide for what the group does and or how it functions. It is what attracts people to the group.

What I wonder is how to balance individual freedom and working together ? If the group purpose turns into a group of rules everyone must follow. Then, individual freedom is lost and sharing becomes an ongoing power struggle. Without a purpose, individuals go in their own direction, so the group goes nowhere and disintegrates.

Maybe, the way to balance the individual and collective is focus on the life serving purpose. So, instead of following rules, the group can remain alive, adjusting to changing circumstances while continuing to move forward together.

I do believe in staying together until death. Sometimes, separating is the most effective option for the group to continue moving forward. And, sometimes separating is the most effective option for an individual to move forward in his/her life.

​----- STYLES OF DISCUSSION

Have different formats for discussions because people have different ways of communicating.

I see a spectrum. One end is “open”. Open is people talk when they want to. The other end is “order”. Order is talking in agreed upon order, such as stack (talking in order of raised hands), rounds (left to right or right to left), etc.

​Neither end of the spectrum is perfect, both have minuses and pluses.

​The challenge I see if for the group to find the balance of “open” and “order” in a way that works for the group. This balance is not static or permanent. This can vary by topic, personalities present at meeting, recent group interactions, etc.

​Consider having moments of silence after person stops talking, to take in what a person is experiencing, instead of going with reaction, which can lead to judging, blaming, accusing, which easily leads to breaking human connection

​Often the more intensity around an issue, the more helpful structure and or a facilitator becomes.

​----- PAYING RENT/EXPENSE AS PERCENTAGE OF INCOME

This came to me when I wondered how can income differences be reduced in an intentional community.

The challenge is how does a group decide, who pays how much.

​percentage of income

people say what they can pay, then continue discussion and make adjustments until total income needed is met

The key for this to work is human relationships, not the money.

​----- 3 possible ways to get to know each other, as a

Unique Individual

Social / Cultural Being

Shared Humanity, what we have in common as human beings

----- SHARING and CULTURE

I have wondered if one reason sharing is so challenging is culture, not genetics.

​I remember reading an article about a women and a few friends who moved out of a city to the country to start an intentional community. The purpose was to get away from she called a competitive and isolating nature of city life.

What she discovered was her group recreated the same problems they experienced in the city within their group. This was quite shocking to her.

This lead her to conclude that successful sharing is not just changing the physical location. It involves changing how to do things and how we relate to each other and the world.

I remember reading about a tribe that hunted dear. When the hunter returned, the dear parts were shared with tribe. There was no need for a big meeting to figure what to do. They had developed norms established around sharing the dear over years, generations, around who got which parts and how many. Those who grew up in the tribe, did not need to figure out how to share the dear. They learned how to share thru learning the tribe culture, tribe's norms.

I wonder if in our current culture, we have developed social norms that cause sharing to be almost impossible. If so, which norms do we change, so we can share more easily ?