Invitation to Experience the Awareness Expanding Inquiries for Mindset Transformation [9/20]

my intention right now is to show up tomorrow at the regular time, for whatever process you want to engage with together at that time. you might also considering sending directly to Ken, with justification for putting the zones as an unfolding spiral.

My desire for Cosmos is to develop a healthy, stable technological platform, vibrant intellectual culture, and loving, wise community that can generate amazing works of art for the emergent visionary-spiritual (you can call it integral) civilization. We are in the business of radical creativity and collective genius. We are also a place of deep inclusion for people who sincerely want to learn and grow and support each other in this dangerous process.

I have tried to communicate explicitly the “creative urgency” I feel around this project. It is not just economic anxiety, but also existential—I only have so much time to accomplish what’s been given to me to actualize in this life. I believe your theory of value and co-realization model are of great importance, and I wish support you in bringing them into the world for the benefit of the human community.

It sounds like you still to need to perform some experiments, however, to validate the compatibility you perceive between your Holonce model and Ken Wilber’s AQAL model. Personally, I don’t feel aligned with participating in that experiment, although I encourage you to pursue it if it feels like a good move for your work. What you shared, in our first couple conversations, about your theory of value and corealization process felt like plenty to work with and enough to move forward—next we could articulate our common goals, make some agile plans, roll up our sleeves, and actually co-realize Cosmos.

At this phase, I would prefer to focus the time I have on Thursdays at 12 pm Mountain time (aka “Corealizing Cosmos”) on the process mapping which @care_save presented at our last meeting, as well as developing the most salients items from her Key Docs. I also have various priorities, which I’ve yet to put on the table, and I think her process provides a way of doing so.

Her proposal feels much closer to addressing the creative urgency I feel—especially if we can grow the community which is already taking shape, inviting them to actively help shape Cosmos through the inclusive kind of role creation you quite beautifully, I thought, described in one of our last talks. Let’s work with that concept.

I love the idea that we can open up a process, right here and now, that engages the people who are already attracted to Cosmos (incl. Infinite Conversations, Metapsychosis, A Theory of Everybody, and the other creative projects which are taking root here). I want to build on our momentum—continue to nurture our cultural soil and community garden. Therefore, I prefer to focus the time I have on the communal priorities I feel most attuned with. I wish to work directly on immediate co-realization tasks for Cosmos, such as finally getting our “compost pile” (ideas, suggestions & possibilities —> priorities) out in the open.

I would be glad to review the recording of the IMP experiment with whoever participates in it, and offer my feedback. That may be the best way for me to learn in this situation. And of course, you can use the forum to continue expanding your insights, and I will review that material too. I agree it could be possible for humanity to go beyond our culture wars, and I hope Cosmos can play a role in that evolution.

As the experiment develops, and we see the results, I would be glad to connect with Corey and whoever else gets involved. At the moment, however, I don’t feel ready to jump in. I’ll be on the Zoom tomorrow to reorient around a common agenda.

I would like to find a way to transcend our misunderstandings for the sake of continuing co-realizing our shared-purpose…

Our shared-purpose:

My desire for Cosmos is to develop a healthy, stable technological platform, vibrant intellectual culture, and loving, wise community that can generate amazing works of art for the emergent visionary-spiritual (you can call it integral) civilization. We are in the business of radical creativity and collective genius. We are also a place of deep inclusion for people who sincerely want to learn and grow and support each other in this dangerous process.

Complete alignment with all of this!

I have tried to communicate explicitly the “creative urgency” I feel around this project. It is not just economic anxiety, but also existential—I only have so much time to accomplish what’s been given to me to actualize in this life.

Very important points on which I am also focused …

It is not just economic anxiety, but also existential—I only have so much time to accomplish what’s been given to me to actualize in this life.

For this I am immensely grateful and I more importantly want and need your help…

I believe your theory of value and co-realization model are of great importance, and I wish support you in bringing them into the world for the benefit of the human community.

Here is a complete misinterpretation of my intentions or desires…

It sounds like you still to need to perform some experiments, however, to validate the compatibility you perceive between your Holonce model and Ken Wilber’s AQAL model.

Personally, I don’t feel aligned with participating in that experiment, although I encourage you to pursue it if it feels like a good move for your work.

With the above interpretation I completely understand that you feel this way. My interest is not on the compatibility of the work as a way to gain credit. It is about us, what we are doing here, getting support from his credibility. I could be completely happy to publish this work as anonymous if it makes it more accessible…

Here are the bases for my frustration in not being able to communicate the reality of the CoRealizer Method and Model…

What you shared, in our first couple conversations, about your theory of value and corealization process felt like plenty to work with and enough to move forward—next we could articulate our common goals, make some agile plans, roll up our sleeves, and actually co-realize Cosmos.

Although you do have an understanding of what we have talk about… what I have shared so far is not yet sufficient to really see the much deeper and wider implications for what is actually possible. Not in the next 18 month but in the next three month. Actually possible for us to co-realize at the communal level. Communal as the Human Species not just Cosmos community. That is the big difference I would like to make the case for.

What is next seems you have made the decision about the agenda for today…

What you shared, in our first couple conversations, about your theory of value and corealization process felt like plenty to work with and enough to move forward—next we could articulate our common goals, make some agile plans, roll up our sleeves, and actually co-realize Cosmos.

It also seems you are not open to engaging on the experiment…

I would be glad to review the recording of the IMP experiment with whoever participates in it, and offer my feedback. That may be the best way for me to learn in this situation.

This would be very sad for me. Because, I can see people in these group have the communal consciousness capacity to engage at the level of human species. The reason for way I have feel it has been a blessing to find you. To feel I found my tribe, where I belong…

Please let me know if we could have a Zoom talk about this…Again, so we can find a way to transcend our misunderstandings and continuing co-realizing our shared-purpose…

Kindly,
Jeff

Hi Jeff, I will be on the Zoom today at 12 pm MDT. If you would like to make the case for this^, let’s do it. I will admit I am skeptical about making a human species level change in 3 months, when it’s hard enough to have three or four people decide what they’re talking about on a conference call. I am not against experiments, but it was beginning to feel like this was getting too complicated and detached from the realities I most care about. We can talk about it today if that would be helpful.

and @JeffreyQ1 what I see is a difference in style for each of you, shared with full appreciation knowing you guys for several years as friends and colleagues, and owning my own style. As illustrated by this diagram on integral politics, developed by Gregory Wilpert and used again in O’Doherty’s work.dimensions_of_ideology2 . I see Jeff’s desire for a big system that designates roles for everyone to have a little bit of “socialism” in it; and i see Marco as having anarchic tendencies – which he owns and it pretty up front about. For me, I tend towards the lower-left, wanting to associate with an ideal group of idealists. Yeah, fascism pretty bad. All these partial systems, anarchism, fascism, libertarianism and socialism, are forms of quadrant absolutism, and thus are problematic. But we are certainly allowed to have a political style as long as we don’t try to make it an absolute.

1 Like

Here is the comments generated in the chat sidebar of the Zoom video while it was happening. “Me” here is obviously yours truly… :wink:

From Me to Everyone: 12:20 PM
I’m interested in watching this video, Jeff–would you share the link or file, please?
that feedback loop between communal and self -actualization is so important and i love that you want to illustrate it in detail!!
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 12:22 PM
it is here, but behind paywall: https://integrallife.com/how-to-think-integrally/
not sure where to find it for free right now
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 12:47 PM
Adam Jacoby is involved in esports…he might have some interest in what a gamified selfdevelopment platform would be
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 12:57 PM
learning Kumu right now and studying the systems practice guide
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:07 PM
thanks, caroline — i’m stretching into your level of systems design work!
Kasatu working on search – David Raino and co.
From Me to Everyone: 01:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-ULbQmmF8 Level Up
From Me to Everyone: 01:29 PM
this process could generate: products, services, and/or cocreative consensual experiences (e.g. a community going out and doing something at a coordinate time and space for the sake of itself).
“the shift from outside in to inside out” discipline for community harmonics… YESSSSSS love this wording & concept for what Cosmos is hoping to potentiate with its focus on design patterns/code for social-cultural systems
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:32 PM
fearlessness :slight_smile:
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:39 PM
http://www.collectiveone.org/#/landing
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:44 PM
i think caroline did one
From Me to Everyone: 01:44 PM
Business Model Canvas
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:44 PM
how can we capture the side chat…
is that included in the recording?
From Me to Everyone: 01:46 PM
i also like the idea of using a canvas as a table of contents, that can link out/merge with key docs contents.
the chat is NOT rincluded in the video, so we’ll need to caputre it separately.
maybe i can copy and paste and put it as a comment in this IC thread?
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:46 PM
that sounds good
From Durwin Foster to Everyone: 01:53 PM
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-jones-b1817220/?originalSubdomain=ca

1 Like

@madrush @DurwinFoster @JeffreyQ1 – In lieu of a formal project management tool & space, I’ve attempted to capture tangible to-dos outcoming from our meeting. Please fill in any gaps you see! Here’s to some collective accountability :wink: a key ingredient for praxis (beyond just thought/talk) to emerge!

Next steps:

Friday 9/21: C to work on process map visual that was presented in 9/13 meeting. To send to Jeff for a later conversation about overlapping this process and the Corealizer process - and then to move into an experiment testing it, “for which we could get funding”
C+J to meet to review the business model canvas and explore the platform canvas template that J has.

Monday 9/24:
C + J to meet on Zoom (recording it too perhaps) to explore merging/transitioning content to the platform canvas.

Thursday 9/27:
M, D, J and any other members who are interested use the ritual Thursday meetup to dive into the contents of the business and/or platform model canvas. Generating lots of feedback.

The next meeting (proposed for the next Thursday one, October 4), Caroline would return (along with anyone else wanting to be involved and M, D, J) to review and engage with all the feedback, undertake collective editing/refining as appropriate, but with a real focus on gleaning notes of the most electric bits of content and ways of saying what Cosmos is all about to be plugged into outreach collateral. Next step on the horizon: developing a communications “process template” for outreach and recruitment of partners/members wrt Cosmos that is transparent, trackable, etc.

Loose ends:

  • Who is willing to promote the opportunity to engage with the model canvases on 9/27 to the members?
2 Likes

returning to Cosmos tomorrow, where my David Allen “Weekly review” calendar entry has been replaced by “Cosmos”!

Caroline ,

Here is the link to our Zoom conversation

TIME STAMP
At min 1:38
It starts with Durwin sharing about the way he feels we can balance the values of Self-Actualization and Co-Realization

At min 1:39
Caroline articulates the point of …“what happens when the self becomes global… it dissolves…”

Then today we agree that what dissolves is the entire self but the “false self”

What I hope to show is how the CoRealizer Framework represents this way of integrating self-actualization and co-realization. By evolving our sense of self into the Holonic Self-View while including and transcending the sense of Particular Self. This shift enables a much higher communal consciousness capacity for enacting transcendental intentionality for reaching shared-understandings on what is our most ideal-possible .

Hi everyone, I posted the video of our talk above, and also created a topic for a weekly/ongoing agenda for these meetings, which I’ve pinned at the top of the #co-op:workspace channel. Let’s use this to keep track of our progress:

https://www.infiniteconversations.com/t/corealizing-cosmos-weekly-meeting-agenda/2469

Please help me keep the information current.


Regarding our talk yesterday, I just want to say to @JeffreyQ1 that I’m sorry for belaboring the distinction between a “paradigm” and “model”—and you can use those terms however you want to. Unfortunately, in trying to explain what I was talking about, I left out another important term, which is “belief system.” I think we make slightly different cognitive commitments and engage our praxis differently depending on whether we’re working with a “model,” a “paradigm,” or a “belief system,” and my best explanation for my reaction is that I felt you are asking for one thing when you really meant another.

Wilber’s thoughts on “paradigms,” which I represented very incompletely, can be found in his (unfinished) Kosmos Trilogy, volume 2, Excerpt A: http://www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/ExcerptA_KOSMOS_2003.pdf —and is based on his reading of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where the concept of the “paradigm shift” first appears.

Here is the relevant section...

Paradigms

The way Kuhn used the term “paradigm,” of course, has been badly misunderstood by the public and by most critics and appropriators of the term, who incorrectly use it to mean some sort of theory or super theory. Fritjof Capra, Stan Grof, Duane Elgin, Richard Tarnas, Charlene Spretnak—the list is virtually endless—would say that a new holistic or ecological theory should replace the old atomistic, Newtonian-Cartesian worldview, and that would be a new paradigm. But that typically incorrect use has Kuhn exactly backward. “Paradigm,” for Kuhn, does not mean the theory or the superstructure, but the base or social practice. Paradigm is an almost exact equivalent of techno-economic base, social practice, behavioral injunction, or exemplar.

That is, a paradigm is a set of social practices and behavioral exemplars—specific types of experiments, for example, that generate a specific set of data or factual occasions. A paradigm, exemplar, or injunction brings forth, enacts, and illumines a particular set of phenomena, data, experiences, or apprehensions. (This is why my own broad theory of good science has three major strands: injunction or paradigm, enacted data or apprehensions, and confirmation/rejection. The first strand was modeled to take account of Kuhn’s important work, while setting it in a larger context of phenomenology, falsifiability, and other equally important if partial factors.)

Thus a paradigm, as Kuhn used it, might be a particular set of experiments that produce X-rays. These experiments, injunctions, or social practices (the Lower Right) becomes the models or exemplars of how good science in that field is to be done. Other scientists use and model those exemplary practices to produce (enact and bring forth) more data, phenomena, or factual occasions. And—almost exactly as in Marx (because they were both onto the AQAL nature of this thing)—around this base or paradigm (LR) grow various superstructures, theories, or worldviews (LL) that are molded and determined by the base.

Thus, for example, around an entire set of physical experiments and paradigms had grown the entire edifice of Newtonian physics theory. That is, around the LR base of technological production grew LL theories and worldviews. Or again, around the LR base of data production and injunctive paradigms (which enact and bring forth various types of data, experiences, and phenomena) grew various LL theories, superstructures, and worldviews that attempted to explain the factually enacted data. The base or paradigm helps determine the consciousness of the scientists in this regard (just as the techno-economic base helps determine the consciousness of individual in any society—although, again, for us it is an AQAL affair that does not privilege any single quadrant, level, line, or state). As we saw with Marx, the essential point is that third-person materialities have a profound effect on first- and second-person realities.

This arrangement—which is Kuhn’s “normal science”—works well as long as the data generated by the paradigm continues to fit within the prevailing worldview. The Newtonian theory, for instance, worked very well for a very long time to explain all of the data that had been generated to date. With a few exceptions… such as black body radiation. That is, as more and more sophisticated experiments were invented, new data were generated that could not in any way be explained by the old theories. Thus, the base of technological production—the new paradigm—was generating experiences that could not be accounted for by the old theories. The new base needed a new worldview, and thus science was set for yet another “revolution,” or dramatic change in worldview to account for the progressive increase in depth of the new paradigm demanding an increase in depth in a new theory.

And yes, this was scientific progress, as Kuhn made very clear (“I am a firm believer in scientific progress”), again showing his (correct, I believe) agreement with Marx in this essential regard (namely, there is a progressive Eros to the sequence, or else “revolutions” are not really revolutionary but are merely the old cyclical going nowhere).

Of course, virtually all of today’s “new paradigm” theorists—including all of the authors just mentioned, and literally hundreds of others—claimed that they had a new paradigm, when in fact they had no such thing. All they had was a new theory, not a new base, not a new set of injunctions to generate new data, not a new exemplar at all. The wildly popular version of “paradigm” had the cart before the horse, and simply presented a new theory with no new paradigms at all—that is, the “new paradigms” were entirely a boomeritis version of Kuhn’s important research (see Boomeritis, chap. 8).

Whenever a new (and real) paradigm enacts and brings forth new data, the old worldviews and theories are thrown into a crisis that can only be resolved by a progressive increase in depth to keep pace with the increase in depth in the new paradigm or techno- productive base. Whether this crisis (or paradigm clash—which means, clash between various technological forces of data production, or a clash between the types of experiments and exemplars that will be taken as producing the most significant data)—whether this crisis is resolved through overt revolution or quieter reform (see below), the results are the same: an increase in depth in both Lower Right and Lower Left (and therefore Upper Right and Upper Left for all those involved). In short, all four selection pressures in AQAL space swing into play and conspire to move Eros yet another notch forward in the Kosmic game. (This does not mean that all progress is sweetness and light; as we will see below, new progress and new pathologies often go hand in hand, but that fact in itself is not enough to deny the aspects of development that can and do represent genuine and progressive increases in depth.)

But let us immediately note that a paradigm clash is actually a small subset of a much larger and more important phenomena, so let us move forward to that larger discussion.

The reason I brought it up is because, to be honest, I see little that’s new or revolutionary in the “How to think Integrally” material—at a paradigmatic level, according to Ken’s own theory—and I also believe that how we’re enacting Cosmos is already beyond the kind of “thinking” being described by the video. I’d be glad to have a dedicated conversation on this topic and offer my criticisms in the spirit of intellectual transparency, as long as it doesn’t distract from our main agenda.

But your sudden proposal, as I understood it, that we first must do AQAL meta-theory in order to experience your promised insights triggered an “immune reaction” in me. I wouldn’t just call it an “allergy;” I believe the master intellectual framework-teacher/guru-centric paradigm (exemplified by the video) is exactly the wrong thing for Cosmos, and so my ‘system’ attacked it. Nothing personal with you. But if you offer me the experience of ‘awareness expansion’ and ‘mindset transformation,’ then I want to hear what YOU have to say…I’m interested in YOUR slice of genius—and OUR value, those who are actually showing up in Cosmos. I enjoy discussing meta-theory, and would be happy to discuss any aspect of Wilber’s integral theory in a reading group someday, but my top priority right now is co-realizing Cosmos—and WE are Cosmos. I hope that makes sense.

But what that also means is that, when you wrote above, regarding Wilber—

My interest is not on the compatibility of the work as a way to gain credit. It is about us, what we are doing here, getting support from his credibility.

—this again, is exactly the support my system rejects, because I don’t believe it’s healthy for our culture. There are many reasons for this, which it would be a huge detour to discuss. But I believe our credibility must come from the integrity of our own practices and productions—from our own ‘paradigms,’ if you will, which can reference and incorporate any number of ‘models,’ including AQAL; our belief systems and ‘ways of thinking’ are another matter.

I will refrain from further belaboring this point, but it’s an important one to me.

All that said: I loved where the conversation ended up.…so I’m glad we’re moving forward, onward, and upward. But I wanted to address my ‘resistance’ to your proposed experiment because it wasn’t coming from nowhere. I appreciate that we were able to mostly talk it through during our session together. I just a had a few loose ends to add to the discussion. Thanks for your care and attention to our process. I look forward to meeting again next week.

1 Like

this is an assessment of depth, and yet, Cosmos is seemingly rejecting developmental models. So, i would say we are right on the juncture where we could go beyond the kind of thinking that Ken describes, but we haven’t done so yet, because we haven’t transcended identity politics as a collective. I’m hopeful we will make it :). I haven’t checked it out in depth yet, but I did see this book:

Integral Pluralism, by Fred Dallmayr. A possible reading club title?
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/1399

If anyone could remind me how to get that link to show up as a nice visual, I would appreciate it?!

Seemingly! I wouldn’t describe myself personally as rejecting developmental models, but I will admit I don’t like the way they’re often used—the “label and dismiss” move is all too easy, and happens frequently in casual usage.

Aurobindo has developmental model, and so do other thinkers we’ve studied, such as Cosmos Café: The Reflexive Universe, by Arthur Young [11/14]

Also, I would probably describe “identity politics” more as a surface cultural feature than a deep structure of development. But that’s another conversation. Let’s continue on that topic elsewhere.

1 Like

Yeah I disagree…if you see identity politics as surface, it is only because you haven’t spent any time in academia in the last few years-- where your entire career can be blown away by someone’s objection to your surface identity! My hunch is that we had very different experiences around Ken. My experience was of Ken really having my back when I went through hell in my PhD program (national merit scholarship, btw, I wasn’t there because I was wealthy), and clearly you experienced him as not having your back when you worked at I-I. I see that Terry Patten is addressing the issues today. I don’t see how we will have intellectual vibrancy in the face of expressions of identity politics, in general, because those will shut me down, and I suspect others.

@Douggins , @DurwinFoster , @care_save , @madrush

What I see, declare possible and commit to Co-realizing Cosmos.coop as …

A New Way of Being and Becoming For A More Evolve Way Of Living And Realizing The Emergent Potentiality of Our Holonic Self.

By Facilitating The Holonic Emergence of Our Co-Intelligence

Co-Intelligence as presented here:

As an example of the reality of how we are embodying our proposition… watch our previous Zoom Co-Realization…
@madrush could you place the video of our last talk here…

Kindly,
Jeff
NOTE: Not sure if this is the best place for this declaration of possibility ???

2 Likes

I believe this is the video you are asking to be placed here @JeffreyQ1. I have watched most of this and hope to provide feedback soon. While watching, I too felt the sense of consensus condense into “sensed bits” of bliss, a sense not to dismiss! Keep up the great work, the four of ya! I hope to be present Thursday to provide an extra ear and extra perspective.

1 Like

Feedback from 9/20 recording:

  • I liked the discussion around the agent centric and the communal centric coming together. This could easily be imagined as a realistic possibility as seen with the Theory of Everybody personal profile/dashboard (agent) in tandem with Infinite Conversations (communal).
  • An example from Cosmos that I would like to share is this:

https://www.infiniteconversations.com/t/rough-draft-of-sponsoring-elders-not-ready-for-even-a-rough-read/1680/12?u=douggins

Without expecting anyone to read through these threads here is the main takeaway:

  1. Ann Roberts joined the forum January 2017 and shared a personal link. Her dissertation called Grandparenting and the Flow of Love Across Generations caught my eye. She later provided a link to this. I had a new personal expresso machine, time on my hands and energy flowing into wild ideas (feedback, sensed bits), many ideas stemming from her dissertation on top of ideas that began brewing during conversations through Cosmos Cafe and Infinite Convos.
  2. I posted a rough, rough draft of these ideas (entitled sponsoring our elders) (a dumping of the sensed bits) into a separate thread on the IC forum.
  3. I quickly received validation of ideas, accumulated responses from others…all without labeling this as a priority or even proposing an official something.
  4. Ann guided me through the process of articulating my ideas using thePO3 model as a way to propose my ideas.
  5. I never quite followed through with these ideas to reach the criteria steps and beyond, but…
  6. …Marco provided his own sensed bit which lead to the formation of the Wisdom Council.

Perhaps all of this is irrelevant to the next steps in your proposal (refining the Business/Platform Canvas; funding the endeavor), but I post this example as a sign that there is already support from within the Cosmos to make things happen; there is already a space to allow for this to happen. The Sponsoring Elders idea, if it had been a real proposal and not a dumping of inarticulated ideas, could have been realized fairly easily with a developed platform, could have been something on my dashboard for others to see. In the forum, an individual’s ideas or hard work can easily go unnoticed, easily become lost in the infinitudes. With the Dashboard and its various proposed features (i.e. a communal Cosmos ToDo list), the goals would remain on the front page and available for more eyes to witness and respond. I used @care_save’s terminology above, but from what I have learned of @JeffreyQ1’s proposal and planetary framework, much of both your efforts are in alignment. A definite plus for moving forward.
Oh…and I felt you @DurwinFoster brought your A-game and provided great feedback and questioning , which brought the meeting to a positive close and towards a more definitive step to (co)realization!


Sidenote:
Something of interest in the Colorado area, pertaining to dialogue: here in KY (and also in CO…you may have heard of AtTheTable, @care_save & @madrush) we had an On The Table discussion event, in which anyone could set up a group of 8-10 people at a public or private location. The discussions invited all ages and ranged from those interested in schools, housing affordability and race relations. Though this is outside of what dialogue needs to happen here with our particular goals, perhaps some ideas of how to get others to bring their own great ideas to the table (or to be mixed into the compost pile) can be learned from this valiant process. It began in Chicago and has had great successs in the few year that Kentucky has adopted the program.

3 Likes

@Douggins fantastic comment! :clap: :clap: :clap: (gee, where’s the Litcoin when you need it?)

I love your way of clarifying–to an inspired effect–the power of what is already happening through our generative collaborative coming-togethers. I notice you frequently embody this kind of presence in our discourses, and I revere it. And appreciate your suggested linkage to On the Table! Would like to follow up or have more of this conversation… :heart_decoration:

1 Like

As we are co-evolving our systems, I am myself not sure where to put this… I put it in Proposals for now, though it’s kind of a meta-proposal about utilizing a workflow for everything already enacted by the creation of categories corresponding to the proposal in the forum :wink:

but figured I’d link it here, and also in Marco’s weekly organizer wiki, so it’s highly accessible.

This is what I’ve got for mapping out the process template for a Praxis Process in Cosmos, whereby people can co-determine notions, responses to those notions, productions of those notions, and then responses to the outcomes of the productions as responses to the original notions. :open_mouth::exploding_head::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like

Yes, hoping @Douggins can you join Oct 4th meeting when Caroline is back?

This topic was automatically closed after 60 days. New replies are no longer allowed.