An open space for global conversation
Pawel, I read your reply several times. If you are trying to ask me a question I don't understand what it is. I suspect you are way more intelligent than I speaking with such complexity. Not well read and not having gone to college and barely getting thru their primary educ system in Detroit. now, I don't much care for words anyway but forced. Hoping you'll find a more worthy banter. Sorry.
Dyck, I do not think intelligence has anything to do with education. One of the authorities shaping my world view when I was 25 had been a man who could not even read and write.
I can hardly believe our intelligences differ. I am the fan of simple logic and your logic attracts me. Complexity is no merit for me (although the real world IS complex and the fact is hard to ignore).
Although I tried to refer in my questions to your previous posts, the essence is very simple:
What is your motivation to be at Occupy Café and post? Do you think you share it with other members? What is the use of asking questions when nobody provides with unifying, meaningful answers?
I am active on the café since November and I can’t grasp the answers.
I live on another side of our planet; English is not my native language. No wonder our communication is not easy. It is however crucial for me to know if we can share motivations – or not. Motivations are prior to actions. Common motivation means ability of common action.
From my point of view it seems obvious WE (you and me, as well as America and Europe) need it.
My purpose in Occupy is the same as my purpose in life... to express myself.
This is the way I (my spirit) uses my body to learn, explore, relate, stimulate, create, .. where I find latent capacities and juice of life.
(I'm thinking that most people won't understand or believe this... wanting to modify it to be in accord with their own constructs of reality. I accept that... a limitation.)
I believe and try to understand - could you continue and give me a hand? My vision - my dream is to leap over the limitation!
As non native speaker I checked the meaning of "to express" in wiktionary.org and it says:
to convey or communicate; to make known or explicit.
Is communication the same as broadcasting? Does one really express himself unless heard/received? Should the cafe encourage more people to express themselves (quantitative change) or should we rather learn to listen (qualitative change)? Is ability to listen the limitation you speak about? Does the limitation concern only the communication from outside - or the inner, spiritual voice as well?
I think you are calling out a core challenge here Pawel. These asynch text-based threads are often unsatisfying because there is not a sense of deep listening taking place as much as we would like, especially compared to what is possible (or more natural) in synchronous modes, whether on the phone or in person.
AND... I do think we can shift this. I requires some different thinking around the process, and perhaps even the purpose, of dialogue in these forms.
So let me take a stab at this right now. I hear you expressing a concern that we ask questions but the answers that come back are not clear, or are not shared and communicated clearly. I think this is part of our growth edge, both in terms of getting better at synthesizing what is emerging from our conversations, and perhaps in becoming more comfortable with asking questions that don't lead to clear answers.
I also hear a concern about leadership, and about a kind of passivity you get from the term "emergence," as if all we need to do is listen to an inner voice and then the future we desire will arrive of its own accord, with no effort on our part to bring it forth. One of my favorite books these days is Engaging Emergence, by Peggy Holman. I think she addresses these distinctions beautifully, and provides a set of processes and principles for how to take constructive action in the context of the breakdown of existing systems.
The idea, as I grasp it, is that leadership in this context, to the extent we wish to create something truly new, must be different from that of the old paradigm. Peter Block also speaks to this in the section of Community that I just quoted in our thread on the Ownership conversation we held on yesterday's Cafe Call.
Finally, I want to thank you, Pawel, for the gift of your presence and your persistence. I am truly touched and honored by your willingness to continue to engage here despite the frustrations you are expressing about the value of these conversations.
The limitation I speak of is inherent to our limited use of our capabilities to express and to receive. For example, I know that I cannot express myself in words alone... maybe not even 20%. So, as a listener if you think you understand me 80-100% by listening or reading only, you must be mistaken. Quite a large disparity, no? But perhaps you also pick up innuendo, intonation & tenses, implication... subtleties.
I would say to understand "...to express myself." leave the dictionary and the mental world and go to intention. Intuit what is my intention? What is your intention in this dialogue? Put the two together. Is it possible to connect beyond the explicit?
To add to my somewhat dry words here I add... I say all this with affection, not challenge. Can you sense it, my friend?
Dyck, do you remember the departure point of our communication? The line I pulled out from your context two weeks ago?
Our delusional thinking makes us assume everything can be made explicit. Therefore we/species have built the communication code (set of words and rules to put them together) on this assumption.
Currently we can use the knowledge to understand the delusion; we can use the real time interconnectedness to create complementary code expressing the implicit. The limitation would be released. 100% is certainly not possible immediately, but ignition of the common process can be enough to start working together.
Ben: my intuition tells me this is the role of "asynch"
Currently we can use the knowledge to understand the delusion; we can use the real time interconnectedness to create complementary code expressing the implicit. The limitation would be released. 100% is certainly not possible immediately, but ignition of the common process can be enough to start working together... [My] intuition tells me this is the role of "asynch"
I am intrigued by these words, but do not fully understand them. Can you please say a bit more about this, Pawel, or refer us to some other posts where you may have done so already?
Also, I am reminded of a man I met recently who is working on a "means of expression" that can do for "wealth creation" what language has done for meaning (!). Deep stuff from a possible kindred soul! Would you like me to connect the two of you?
Ben, on June 13 I have sent a message addressed to Occupy Cafe Stewards box using OC messaging facility. I thought the content doesn't fit the attitude of the forum.
It was my view on the potential of asynchronous communication. Did you ever read it?
Today, reading it again, I myself find it very difficult to understand, especially when the context of "Occupy new mind" thread is forgotten. Anyhow I hope it is clear enough to inspire a feedback. Could it be the answer to your first question?
As for the second you can decide after reading the message. I am open to any promising connection and dialogue.
I can't figure out how to display old chat text, so I am not able to read the June 13th post! Can you copy it here, and also perhaps help me learn how to retrieve such things please?
I have sent it again - to your personal page message box. The message (not chat post) was my answer to you and Jittendra and I thought OC Stewards/admin page message box is accessible to both of you.
Isn't it the global problem? Old sense has vanished and there is no new and common sense to replace it. To solve the problem WE have to face it!