TheGivingConference: CommonLanguagePractice

Showing revision 10

This is a space to being to translate current practices of commons, open space, humanist movement, pattern language, buddhist ideas, GlobalChicago:SomaticOrganization understanding what organizing as a commons is (especially around what gives life to being human) -- and coming up with a simple and shared language to express different points of strengthening is what Open Space, the Humanist Movement, Buddism et all is about, constructing a possible map that we can use to guide us for the overall journey

partners
- co-conveners in open space
- orientors in HM
- Julies talks about facilitator as a person not looking for credit
friends
- people that show up for open space
- adherents (or members) in HM
titles of lineage
- the HM has been describing these as levels (when you start you are A; then when you have 10 A's with you, you become B; then when you have 10 B's [your A's have turned into B's the same way you did], you become C; and so on)
- just as when you have children you become a parent and when your children have children you become a grandparent
If we are interested in how these languages and constructs fit into becoming a web within a web within webs -- and are interested in ultimately presenting this content to others to educate them and ask for their participation, we need to be able to explain how these concepts scale up. For example, the following (which is no where near clear) is how I see the same aspect of scalability for the following three languages:
- Humanist: (instance 1 + instance 2 +instance 3 + instance 4 - assembly)
- Open Space (open space conference + dialogues + global chicago wiki + e-list + monthly calls + weekly team meetings + action fronts + network of action fronts + common infrastructure)
- Appreciative Inquiry: (Defining a question + AI interviews + understanding common values + dreaming possible futures together + designing the ultimate larger concept together + writing a vision statement + scaling the large down to small simple commitments each participant agrees to do + delivering commitments --- common function --- + evaluating what works + defining the questions again + AI interviews....).
just as siblings all have the same parent
- in HM peers all have the same orientor
invitation
- in open space co-conveners invite to a meeting or a conference and friends show up, conveners then put topics on the wall and friends show up (or not, in which case the idea dies or the convener makes another invitation to the same or a different group of friends), those not in the open space session cannot veto the work of those that did show up and decided to work
- in HM, orientor invites with generosity and without expectations (thus avoiding dependency) - whomever wants to work on a particular action front does so, the others do not nor do the others get a say in how the action front is carried out, just as
web within a web within a web
- sounds a lot like fractals which is how HM is organized: I have a team and each of my people has a team and they each then have teams and we can zoom in or zoom out with levels of abstraction and it looks the same
- seems a lot like the bigger body concepts
- quarks makeup atoms makeup molecules make up cells make up organs make up organisms make up tribes make up clans etc etc
- some see a beehive as having an overmind so the whole hive behaves as one organism (bigger body)
- some also see the galaxy as having about the same amount of empty space between the matter as your brain does between the neurons or atoms (propotionally) - couldn't that also be a mind?
- don't we also create an overmind when we're all working toward a common future?
- isn't an eco-system also a bigger body in the way that a machine is not?
a center
law of two feet

HistoryOfInvitingFriendsAndPartners GivingConferenceWikiHome? | RecentChanges | Preferences | GiftHub

Some question we might ask ourselves:

What does the organizing process look like?
What roles facilitate this type of organizing?
What models and examples provide us with illustrations of successful systems and their outcomes that work as a commons (at different scale)?
How can we explain this process and these roles using common language?
What are some hypothetical examples of what the process looks like at different stages of development?
What functions need to be in place at different levels of scale to facilitate sustainability and replication?

Understanding how our language can be used in ways that facilitate how we go to scale is critical in designing an action plan that address point 2 vs. point 1 – which I believe is what you are aiming at accomplishing with your work. It’s tricky, because the design is multi-dimensional and is not linear. Thus it can not be truly planned, yet, we need to be able to communicate intentions to create design plans. This type of planning (in the more linear context) is sometimes called Action Based Research. Are you familiar with the term? I can define it and post some definitions to the wiki if you like. In fact all of this might benefit us at the wiki. Perhaps you and Michael can help with this, as you are better at generating structure.