What I am learning from this organizational process is how easy it is to let things get lost in translation. I am still unsure of where anything begins or ends in cyber world and it is becoming more illusive than ever. We still require linear time frames to make anything happen. Curtain goes up at 8 pm.
In the room, the women come and go, talking of Michelangelo…
Sharing attention is becoming more and more difficult as more and more voices and faces get introduced on this little screen, appreciated, and then disappear, not to be heard from until they return somehow perhaps on another thread, another site, another topic. The technology giveth and it taketh away, as fragile as are our attention spans and our quickly evaporating ideas and alliances.
Good news. I do find that the meet up sponsored by Carolyn and Marco, focusing on Carolyn’s text, is a very good model to follow. A text generated a panel discussion and this was moderated well by Marco and I enjoyed it and learned from my participation.
What I learned is that our current fractured politics is more caught up in the Euclidean geometry of our founding fathers than I realized. Our political personas evolve out of notions such as " It is self evident that all men are created equal." This is like an axiom out of Euclid.
I learned that I yearned for a Politics that embraced Paradox rather than attempts to eliminate paradox. I yearn for the excluded middle. A deviant logic in which contradictions are sometimes true. This is not the same as Truth is relative.
I also learned that other panelists have rich and varied experiences and that we can support our fellow citizens in this turbulent period to re-organize our ways of knowing.
I proposed that a familiarity with Topo-Dimensionality is a great help in making a transition from the Euclidean/Newtonian political framework of our past to a more friendly relationship to alternate ways of knowing/being/becoming.
Our language is pretty clunky, our vocabularies stuck in the old ways of organizing thoughts and feelings. Metaphors are important and we are starting, I believe, to entertain with new metaphors and narratives. All of this is recycled from lots of conversations, threads, YouTube videos, workshops and seminars.
So hey kids! Let’s do a seminar!
So I am wanting to create some boundary around this Nov 14th event. We are gathering to discuss what the hell this vague idea about a conference on consciousness could be. We are looking at Young and perhaps others in the future.
This meeting is not about the Globes adventure scheduled for some other time. Or Aurobindo.
I am a great believer in open/closure. We have no freedom if we have no constraints. I would like to point to the excellent planning that Marco and Carolyn put into the ongoing series. I think it is a good model to follow.
I am interested in using a text to bounce my ideas off of. And so the texts are important. I am concerned though that if we cast too wide a net we loose track of each other’s attention very quickly.
I just point this out to Marco, TJ, and Ed and Geoffrey whoever else may be paying attention that I understand this is an organizational meeting for the consciousness meet up. Have I got that right?
If it isn’t about that it is fine. But I like to prepare and do some homework to make the most of these encounters of the third kind. Thanks for your kind attention.