It was great to see Drew on my recent trip to the West Coast. He is a networker who is excited about the Point A project and has mad skills. He also has stories.
One of his stories that i was excited about was his experience of playing Frisbee at Acorn. An ultimate game he claimed was the best he had ever played. Not because we are especially good players, tho we can field a respectable team. It was the way we play. In his blog he writes:
We didn’t keep score, something I hardly noticed at the time. It wasn’t necessary to keep score because we were all infinite players playing a series of finite games.
It was at the moment of the opening disc thrown that the finite game started. We played for the point at hand. Not for the accumulation of points. Once that point was scored the finite game ended, the winning team got the title of team to most recently score a point then we started play on the next finite game.
We played to keep the game going. If one team kept winning and the other team was getting frustrated we would trade players to even out the skill levels. We would adjust the rules, boundaries on or off, people rotating out, etc. to ensure that the game continued (until sun down, of course).
Each finite game was played to it’s fullest. We played with great seriousness. Even more serious than professionals I would guess. Because no point was worth any more/less than another. We were never so far behind in points that scoring couldn’t keep us from losing or so far ahead that we could go easy on our opponent. We were never playing warm up or pre-season games that “didn’t matter”. We were playing for the point, the only point—at that moment in time—that mattered.
I had not thought of this analysis before, but i found it compelling. While not universal, anarchist score keeping (aka not keeping score) is common in the communes. Quite some Volleyball games start and end with scores of 7 to 7. They are no less fun that ones i played with highly competitive rules and cultures.
We climb trees. We often muse as to the number of other people in the county or state who are also climbing trees when we are (typically midnight under a full moon). There is a new place to climb to at Twin Oaks. Shal and Christian built it.
This is not an easy climb (though Shal already has plans for how to make it much easier). The tree has no branches for perhaps the first dozen feet which is plenty discouraging to most people. Shal is not most people. Launching climbing ropes into higher branches he set up the tree so for folks with the right equipment it is possible to climb. You need climbing rope and harnesses and two types of ascenders, and quite some level of conviction
We arriving in the fading light, the tree is prepped, with a climbing rope up it, but not in a way which would be at all inviting to a random passerby. Shal helps me into the harness and sets up ropes and ascenders and bags. We will likely be the only tree climbers this evening to bring a powerful portable sound system. We like to listen to Tangerine Dream space music while we watch the moon rise and talk about our lives and plans.
Shal reminds me of the slightly counter intuitive spider climbing technique. You alternate between ascenders, standing in a loop connected to one, then sitting back being supported by the other which is attached to your climbing harness. We have done this before, but he needs to teach me again, for it feels strangely backwards. I ascend the first dozen feet, climbing ropes vaguely like a spider. At the first real branch I leave the foot loop behind and start climbing like the monkey i am more closely related to. The lower ascender remains attached to my harness and the rope, so if i made a mistake the ascender would stop me in a couple of feet.
Even as the light fades the view from the platform is amazing, we can see far across most of the Twin Oaks land and soon appreciate the additional light from the moon rise. We celebrate the new areal place to reside on our monthly full moon outings, and we plan trips to the West Coast Communities Conference at Groundswell Community, and other adventures out west.
Seeing the moon-lit world from high in a tree while listening to spacey music and planing new adventures might not be what anyone else was doing last night, and it might just be that everyone else got it wrong.
Were there any justice in the world, April Fools day would be the annual nuclear power holiday. The industry started by fooling us from its very inception.
Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace has been the vehicle for the development on nuclear weapons around the world. The Price Anderson nuclear insurance act fools you into thinking there is liability protection from nuclear accidents, there is not. Pundits from Fox News to the NY Times claim reactors are a solution to climate change, but they aren’t. Nuclear proponents claim they produce inexpensive power, but they don’t. One of the biggest jokes on us is the idea that renewables with constantly decreasing generation prices are not going to eventually beat out extraction based technologies like fossil fuels and nuclear. In fact, we are well past this point.
Were we to embrace this obvious fact, we would not be building 5 reactors in the US right now. In the spirit of this nuclear foolery holiday a small handful of British activists blocked the road going into operating UK reactor Hinkley B. Their basic complaint is that this reactor is operating past its design life and endangering the locals and money is being wasted on upgrading it, especially given the fact that the price of renewables is markedly down in the UK. But the real joke this year is Hinkley C. The proposed total cost for this new giant Anglo-French reactor complex is over US$ 50 billion. This project is often billed as “the most expensive energy project ever.” It is also being attacked for its massive subsidies by anti-nuclear Austria. With a government negotiated contract guaranteeing $137/MWH which is twice the current UK wholesale price and over 5 times the current US price.
Don’t be fooled.
I have not done a single Transparency Tools workshop on the current PANYC trip. I have however been working with Ogtar who has so far done two of them. In trying to explain the technique to him there are some things which I observed that I think are worth commenting on. The first is that I see as the three levels of transparency.
The first level is simple self revelation. Most common among the our tools for this are “If you really knew me” and hot seat (where others deeply question someone in the group). While people are encouraged to be a bit daring in these exercises, you are always at choice as to what you reveal and how much.
The second level is empathy building. This is when instead of a self revelation you reflect experiences or emotional states you have had which are similar to those of another member in the group. This type of transparency frequently comes out while the crosstalk tool is in use or “i have a story about you”. After some transparency exercise (and especially after “if you really knew me”) we ask for cross talk, where the share of one participant has sparked an empathetic or other emotional response from someone else in the group. By sharing this (in crosstalk or some other tool) it builds bridges between the members of the group who have similar histories.
The third level is emotional housekeeping. When a member of the group tells another something which is standing in the way of clear and complete communication. This is most regularly done using the Withhold or Unsaid tools.
It is this last level of transparency which I refer to as the sharp edge of this tool set. This is because it is where some of the most important healing and connecting work is done. And it is also the tool in which it is most easy for people to mess up and hurt each other. In part because of this it is the tool I most often introduce new groups to, without having them try it on each other.
Often, if the group consists of people who don’t know each other, it is an inappropriate tool to use, because there is not anything important for people to clear with each other. But even when there are things to clear among participants, in the first or second transparency tools session the group may not yet have built up enough trust for it to make sense to try. And again this week while we were introducing a NYC collective house to the full Transparency Tools set, someone grabbed this tool after it was explained and used it to get stuff off their chest which was bothering them about another person in the group. [This also happened with the Catalyst Ecovillage group we trained in February.]
There is something deeply satisfying to me as a purveyor of these tools when new users feel so excited about a tool they are introduced to that even when they are discouraged from using it, they daringly grab it pick it up and try it. So far the results have been impressive and positive.
Crow screwed up. They recently acted out in a way that had made people feel uncomfortable and some even unsafe. It could have been any of a number of kinds of things: An intoxicated incident, a minor consent violation, a petty crime, even an especially poor choice of guest. The specifics don’t matter. Crow knew that they had created a problem for themselves with Acorn and they were coming to me for advice. What could they do to make things better? How could they mend their frayed relationships with other members? At Acorn this answer is easy, you do what we regularly do, you have a clearness.
And it turns out that this is a very good thing. Many communities have self care mechanisms that feel punitive. As i have written, the Feedback system at Twin Oaks very often feels punishing, even though it often need not.
But because Acorn does regular individual clearnesses, adding another one to normal rotation almost always feels accessible. The clearness format is the same as a routine clearness (meetings with each individual member, checking in about their experiences of each other, and then a group clearness which summarizes all the individual clearnesses).
The lesson is clear here. When you are designing self corrective systems within a community, you need to consider how they feel to the users. It is not enough to insure the community is taken care of, these systems need to feel non coercive to the members who are going through them. The best way to have that effect is to have a familiar and non-threatening group communication facilitating tool. I think the clearness process is one of the better ones.
A week later i talked with Crow. They had done a bunch of clearnesses and felt much better about their connection to the community. They felt better understood.
The most common complaint about community clearnesses is that they take a lot of time. “Do i really have to talk to everyone else in the community one-on-one?” Only if you want there to be cohesion in your community. Only if you want to be able to fix significant mistakes people make and successfully rebound from it. You only need to do this if you want a healthy community.
For many people this is too much work and i think this is central to why so many communities fail.