Virtual Meetup Impressions

... thinking out loud ... this train of thought that was triggered by:

1. Feeling the upcoming virtual meetup nearing.

2. Ingesting the Maastricht congregation videos.

3. Wondering where in the Microsolidarity language, the virtual meetup group fits.

Getting to Know People

I recognized a wish in myself to share with the group and hear from others about:

1. Gifts and skills ... what do you know and like to do?

2. Areas of interest ... what domains are you interested in exploring?

3. Ongoing projects ... what things you are already doing/involved in that you may want help with and may become seeds for forming crews?

Before going into how/when to do this ... I'd like to reflect on two additional potential "scales" (and contexts?) within the Microsolidarity framework.

Planet & Discovery Group

I'll start with the larger of the two scales: Planet Microsolidarity. I feel like there is a field that is out there, alive and morphing and gaining body. It is the field of people who resonate with the ideas of and similar to Microsolidarity. It is the shared vibration that was present in the first virtual meetup. It is in the body of Enspiral. It is in the field of the Maastricht congregation ... and other places. It is a field that may be easier to define by what is absent from it (mechanistic hierarchical power structures, exploitative social structures, capital seeking capital, etc.) than what is in it. But it is there. It is larger than a congregation but smaller than "everyone". It is a kind of subset of humanity with whom I feel I have enough in common to have a meaningful, intimate conversation. It is ... ahum ... "The Hum" that resonates around Micrsolidarity :)

The other scale is the group of ~20 people: Discovery Group. It seems to be manifesting both in the current Maastricht field and in the virtual meetup - neither of which have crews or enough people to be a congregation. This seems like it may be a size and construct in which people can come together in order to venture into "Planet Microsolidarity" ... which is too large and vague to grasp directly.

Getting to Know People in Discovery

• I am not convinced that the virtual meetup is a good space for getting acquainted (doesn't feel like the best use of our time together)

• I am not convinced that a Loomio thread will work for this because it doesn't have the "fresh energy of a physical gathering" that fuels it.

• I am imagining this as a continuous living process: a cross between LinkedIn & a dating site ... where an individual who resonates with Microsolidarity can begin to explore Planet Microsolidarity - people sharing the same vibration and the things they are interested in and working on.

Something feels awkward (and risky!) to me in trying to directly "create a congregation" or a "2nd Enspiral". The Microsolidarity constructs (diad, crew, congregation) feel like a retrospective description of a destination ... I'm not sure if they are supportive terms for the journey of getting there from our diffused state on Planet Microsolidarity.

Feeling inhibited to post this ... could just be me confused!?

Note I wasn't there on 10/04... but what you write @Ronen Hirsch resonates with me strongly. I've found myself (more discovery than deliberation) speaking about the vital nature of the one-to-one getting to know each other processes, as forming the groundwork of any social thing. The messages I am hearing are that some people prefer pairs, some triads; and there seems to be enough good established practice around triads -- though I'd personally just go for pairs.

We need to know about each other -- and/or get to know each other (which have a slightly different feel). On the 'know about' side, as someone who has thought a lot about personal information (book) I ask: what information about each other would help towards microsolidarity? Obviously it's a question dating sites (and LinkedIn etc.) have been asking for many years, with mixed success. "Who would I enjoy conversation with" clearly has a lot of resonance with dating, except of course without the same expectations! But if we can help newcomers find those friendly conversations, two things can happen naturally: first, they can learn a lot, explicitly and implicitly, about the group they want to join; and second, they can learn as much as the conversation permits about another person with similar interests -- but as every person has their own history, their own perspective, etc., each conversation promises an opening in some way.

If you (or anyone) want to follow up and explore this path, I'd be happy to ... well ... have a one-to-one conversation about it, of course 😉 What can be harvested, and how, from these one-to-one explorations? Can we do something better and more generative than simply deepening our personal knowledge of one other person, and growing in the process? Can the growing, the opening, somehow be shared, and if so, what? I don't have answers to these, but would like to explore.

I am acquainted with the Maastricht setup (met and talked with Joshua and Bea, alongside Ria) but I might not fit in personally as a peer of that actual group, I'm not sure. What I do feel is the desire for a crew (ideally embedded in a congregation) where we can share conversation at similar depth, with maybe related purpose?

The 2nd Meetup took place on May 8, 2020 with @Richard D. Bartlett , @Josh Fairhead (facilitated) and sitting with him Roberto, @Markus Koller , @Simon Grant , @James Lewis , @Joe Lightfoot , @Sven , @Ronen Hirsch

Please add meeting reflections in response to this comment.

The meeting structure was:

• Agreement on outline.

• Round of "failure stories" ... I recognized "trust" as a recurring theme ... that brought us to the hour mark.

• 5 minute bio-break

• Round of "successes" ... felt cut short by the 90 minute limit.

• Open "Real Talk" amongst the people who stayed beyond the 90 minute mark.

I left the meeting feeling dissonant. Writing these words I feel a tension to try to be coherent ... and am letting that go ... letting the dissonance be:

1. I have a feeling that this group is in a fragile state ... if we were a pod/crew trying to form ... I feel it may be short-lived.

2. If we are going to explore real-world cases (such as failures and successes) I would like to slow down. We defaulted to a round where everyone was invited to contribute. I would have preferred one person present a case and then allowing for spacious conversation around that. The path we took felt superficial to me. I felt that we shot past numerous opportunities to dig deeper. I heard questions about "trust" and felt a desire to dive into that ... possibly over more than one meeting.

3. The part about successes felt cut-off due to lack of time ... similarly, I would have wanted to delve deeper into one ... and maybe to experience/feel celebration?

4. The "real talk" was less structured and more raw ... it felt superficially good (a little "high" ... but it left me feeling confused/dissonant (crashed after the "high").

Elaborating on the confusion:

1. I feel a need to preface and say that what I am feeling may be because of my lack of experience in how groups work ... maybe all is fine and my expectations are out of alignment.

2. My underlying assumption coming into this group was that it would be dedicated to advancing/elaborating/deepening Microsolidarity.

3. Yet the majority (unscientific impression) of the group seem to be seeking crews and congregations ... and that seems to be bubbling under the surface and pushing for the group to become a crew ... but that doesn't feel in alignment ... I get the feeling that those who are already crewed ... are not looking to form another crew ... so what are we doing?

4. I am wondering why @Joshua Glass and @Beatriz who are NOW forming a congregation are not in this group? What does that say about the group?

5. One of the things that emerged in the "real talk" part of the call was an invitation for us all to state our needs ... which feels inviting ... but I came with a wish to be of service ... to give ... not to burden Microsolidarity with my needs ... there is an edge there I can feel but not sure I can articulate well enough!

6. Another thing in the "real talk" - I believe @James Lewis (please correct/adjust if I am misframing) asked something like "isn't microsolidarity about first getting to know each other well and then doing stuff together?" That led us to talking about the (complementary?) relationship between individual growth and development within a group. This touches on a yearning in me to experience the "group" aspect and I imagine is core in a crew ... but, again, this doesn't feel like the space for that = it felt to me not real / not whole / not authentic. We are not really committed to each other, we are not a crew (see point 3 above). It seems we share a wish to commit (to what??? I don't know) ... same edge ... same difficulty to articulate. I can say that I am NOT interested in a half-baked group experience. An invitation to explore my vulnerabilities without a real space to do so feels ... like an unhealthy trap ... I prefer to avoid.

7. I feel this group lacks clear purpose ... and I believe that nature doesn't tolerate a "purpose void" ... so I felt as if the natural pressure for the group to have purpose drew my own (and others) personal (and emotional?) needs to the surface ... and I went along with that ... and I regret that. I feel like maybe next time I need to be more discerning / defensive / contained.

... posting this as it is still fresh in me ... hope to not regret it tomorrow morning ;)

Just to add bullet points of some discussion around the things that worked and didn't work within crews/congregations from the call that emerged on 08/5/2020:

Formal space

• What didnt work:

• Dogmatisim

• Communication

• Onboarding

• Misalignment of vaulues/purpose and over alignment talking. Structure seeking. Offboarding

• People, ability to hold people and their shitness when they have been

• Filtration: member vs contributor

• Trust breaks

• Unspoken hierarchy due to lack of initial cocreation
  

• What worked:

• Working through things through shared commitment to practice/ritual

• Group work, sticking together as shared practice

• Check in without responding

  Informal space
  

• Shared Link

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFfXX2JHMbY
  

• Open questions

• What are the collective needs?

• Share what we need to stay involved!

(Disclaimer: I wasn't in either of the meetings, I only followed the conversations here)

I am very touched by your honest and courageous description, Ronen. Emotionally this must a uncomfortable and tricky place to be in. I feel for you. Please don't judge yourself for having noticed and put it into words, these seem all valid points worth exploring and worth being aware of.

As I see it, from my distant point of view, this is all a huge experiment and mostly a learning experience. The group has to find itself, how to work, what to aim for. There are different interests, motiviations, strategies and personalities coming together. Of course, this cannot be easy. Maybe, in this initial phase, some want to quickly explore as many options as possible while others want to slow down and dig deeper. Both valid strategies.

I'll stop here, as I cannot contribute anything specific, not having been present at the meetings. I just wanted to send some encouraging words in your direction, Ronen. Keep going! ❤️

To me it feels good that you @Ronen Hirsch have voiced dissonance and confusion. In the past I have found myself in the position of 'channeling' doubt, or something else that can come across as negative, and I believe these things are much better said than unsaid. In addition, my sense is that the person saying them is often voicing them on behalf of others.

In the Art of Hosting community, and certainly in the view of my partner Ria, clarity on the 'calling question' or purpose (of the gathering, not some high-flying abstract purpose) is pretty essential and it feels like we haven't reached clarity on that. In that same (recent) tradition, the natural responsibility for framing the gathering rests with the person or people calling it. Not that they have to do it all themselves -- they would normally first gather a 'hosting team' to clarify what the calling question is to be -- what feels like a resonant question for themselves and potentially for others.

Can we make that part a more conscious part of our practice, I wonder? Would that help, do you think, Ronen?

Just to compare, I can try to write a little about what this group means for me ... I have a great interest in the ideas and practices behind Microsolidarity, and the name seems to have taken hold as a flag, so that's OK for now. Yes, I am looking for an effective 'Congregation' to be part of, and I agree with Rich that this seems a natural way of doing the initial getting to know part of the 'dating' with low commitment. Can we have "Deliberately Developmental Congregations" (to adapt the Harvard term) which are also a learning organisations (and other good things, including terms that are a bit passé)? So this particular group seems to me to have the potential to be a little bit of an action research crew. I am interested in both participating and reflecting on / learning from the experience of participation. I want to learn more about what it takes to set up a congregation effectively, and that involves what it takes to provide the fertile ground for the emergence of crews. This is also why I am trying out participating in the nascent Maastricht congregation, which is just about close enough for me to attend in person when travel restrictions are lifted.

I also happen to agree quite strongly with the idea that the one-to-one relationship side would benefit from more attention. It was great that the question came up about couples as part of crews -- with the observation that it could be great or awful. To me, the potential is even more than that -- a couple 'held' by a crew seems to me to have a much better chance of a long, rich and generative life than a couple who have no one else co-participating, living the same level of life around them. Are people ready to go there yet, I wonder? For many people (not necessarily only 'straight') a couple can be a vital place to explore the interplay of masculine and feminine archetypes, and to me this is also a vital need within crews and congregations. If it weren't for the fact that the men there yesterday are much more aware of their feminine sides than average men are (as far as I could sense, anyway!) I would have been quite worried that it was an all male meeting. It is something that is never far from my mind.

In terms of your own psychological / emotional safety, Ronen, I can empathise with you feeling an "invitation to explore my vulnerabilities without a real space to do so" and we certainly need to take care that we don't (explicitly or implicitly) promise anything that we can't follow through on. Great that you have expressed your feelings. I wonder if you are able to express what would (positively) make it feel (and actually be) safer for you?

@Joe Lightfoot shared this video during the chat ... I just watched it and felt I wanted it documented here:

I'm guessing that is at least 50 or 60 years old. Watching it made me amused at the notion of later generations "inventing" circling or authentic relating.

Watching it also made me wonder why didn't this social technology latch on and propagate? Why have we forgotten about it and felt we need to re-invent it? Are our efforts going to suffer a similar fate? Was something missing? Is there something we can do differently to make sure that this time the chick succeeds in learning to fly?

Yello y'all!!!

This is my first post in this thread! Wo-oh, yay!

Before all, I would first like to acknowledge everyone's contribution to this thread. As I see it, Microsolidarity is a living response to bringing people together, and coming here and seeing that so many people are keeping it alive feels inspiring and rewarding. Let's keep rockin' 🙌

I must say I've skimmed through this space before, but only now I took the step to become active in it as @Ronen Hirsch kindly called for. I came to let you all know that the reason why I am not active in this group is because I could not find the mental and real-life time/space to engage in it. @Joshua Glass and I have been quite blessed in our Congregation experience, supported by our members and by (among others) @Richard D. Bartlett @Simon Grant and @Ria Baeck. Even if this thread seems super pertinent to me (with a lot of very juicy food for thought) I simply choose not to add more to my plate (rather not doing that to be one foot in and another out and then let you down?).

Hopefully I'll be able to join during the next meeting, and see what's rolling with my own eyes. I'll keep them open for dates and time.

Looking forward to meet y'all!

Love!

These feel like valuable questions to me. I wonder two things. First, could the answer be something to do with designing the IT to fit so well with this social technology that it becomes a constant enabler and reminder? (Not sure to what extent that is feasible, but never mind, it's still a question!)

Second, I'm wondering if there are some people who are more able or willing to focus around these deeper questions (including the ones you raised earlier, @Ronen Hirsch ) perhaps (in my mind) to come up with a clearer focus / intention / "calling question" for next time? (along with someone volunteering to facilitate.) If the whole thread is up for that, fine, let's take it forward! but if not, let's volunteer.

Third thought that comes up on reflection. Would people prefer (rather than a smaller team volunteering) to leave this whole matter until the next call? I'd particularly like to respect the general feel here, or indeed feel free to tell me if I've missed the point somewhere!