protecting the conditions for conversational emergence

here is a piece that connects to the healthy thresholds when sharing and expands it further… and thanks to Carl for seeing the ‘warrior who protects the space for emergence’ in me.

i love sharing and transparency. however, i am learning about the value of notions of holding back, protecting or letting things find other ways than the direct one i could trench.

i am an absolute fan of deep and long 1&1 conversations! and i appreciate if people are aware what they do and especially what they block by “just inviting someone else to join”. it’s very green-meme-ish to include someone for the sake of it. it’s of high spirit to be very aware not only how the physical but especially the social conditions are determining a healthy and beautiful space for a good conversation to emerge. of course we want to include everyone and sit in a nice circle… but… but then? quantity/quality. cheers to meaningful large-group conversations though! seems to be magic to find the juicy attractor that is/becomes interesting for everyone other than sharing memories/rumors or laughter… group conversations that are pointing forward instead of looping around shared experiences or deliver fascinating stories are so beautiful… and rare!?

a meaningful conversation is sometimes a subtle creature that needs a safe and gentle space to come to light. it has it’s own integrity and is an intensification in time and space of something that was building up till right before and continues afterwards… it can almost be sacred space. makes sense here to tie a loop back to my ‘mapping’-thoughts in conversational exploration.

i am allergic to artificial conversations like the typical job interview, where we speak from one role to another – a conversation that you have to prepare and rehearse to sell well does not feel authentic to me. i want to talk from human being to human being – and again, its not about being equal: i disrespect artificial role-based hierarchies and highly respect authentic hierarchies of experience, knowledge, wisdom and inquiry-based ownership.

something from my own experience on that line that i’d encourage to be aware of – when i am in divergent phase of accessing my inner wisdom and gather information through filtering the world through a particular inquiry – it can be very distracting and overloading to get tips from people in what field that is tying into and what book i should read and so on. It’s a threshold though, in other moments you want to hear that. So its a very delicate dynamic to see your own seeds in the light of the human-species-wide explorations in what other people think is the field of your seed… it can cause a “oh well, than i leave it up to them to explore further” or it can be very motivating. i wonder if we can learn to be more sensitive to what input/listening is appropriate, both on the sharing-end and on the receiving-end of ‘native-born’ inspiration. sometimes anchoring stuff in it’s field is not so important as tuning into the actual content and relating to it from ones own experience. does that make sense?

and then there is the mystery… i am touching briefly on it in my previous post on evolutionary love. what is there to be leave unspoken and rather emitted through the body or the pure intention…. to leave it up to time to show, to trust that the information will reach its destination through another knot than me. the mystery is what drives is to explore… and there ARE things you can never find out in a direct 1&1 approach – how is this person for instance relating to other people, how is this person handling an extreme situation? how is this person talking about me when i am not there?

that’s something i want to actually add to my recent post on using each other as a tool – of course you never fully ‘understand’ what your friend is about, and you shouldn’t either, after all it is another universe. and maybe you are curious to place your impulse right in this persons mystery… ? so maybe there are rather high concentrations and gradients of knowing instead of points and straight lines in between. Maybe the impulse itself is too direct, maybe it needs to be soaked with the information of the system it is traveling through before reaching you?

what else are conditions for conversational emergence?

Advertisements

Published by

Benjamin Aaron Degenhart

Currently pursuing a Masters in Computational Science and Engineering at TU Munich.

3 thoughts on “protecting the conditions for conversational emergence”

  1. The prerequisites for conversational emergence are (as I know and practise them):
    * opening to the other as Other – more than a person, more than a ‘reflection of the divine’, much more than a mirror to any self, more than a name, more than an embodiment of anything other; the Other: unique, intimate, intriniscally unknowable, You
    * opening to one’s own whole and embodied/feeling/intelligent ‘being here with you’
    * trusting the ‘in-between’, the ‘whatever is happening here – me-being-with-you – continually
    * trusting ones eyes, ears, feelings, intelligence, discrimination, spirit
    * a more or less ‘secure ego’ that can step into the background
    * mutual apprenticeship (good! but not required)

    A short list that takes a lot of practice.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s