Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:01:05 — 41.7MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | RSS | More
In this episode (recorded July 19) Jascha Rohr returns to catch us up on his recent, current and upcoming adventures in taking healthy generative process and applying it to cocreating new modes of global governance!
Check out the Cocreation Foundation here, our last chat here, and Jascha and Sonia’s amazing article on their field process model here.
You can sign up to the Cocreation Foundation’s e-newsletter here and check out their youtube channel here. In this clip Jascha fleshes out something we discussed during our chat:
Jascha also shared a white paper for the Cocreation Foundation’s Global Resonance Project you can download as a pdf and read here or by clicking the image below.
Here is a link to the book by Hanzi Freinacht’s book The Listening Society that Jasha mentioned.
Oh yes, I make mention in the chat of a few complementary approaches that have been rocking my world lately, namely the work of Carol Sanford (who I interviewed here), Regenesis group (which includes Joel Glanzberg and Bill Reed) along with Possibility Management (created by Clinton Callahan who I interviewed here).
Enjoy and catch up with you in episode 22.
I’ve been looking forward to this one and it didn’t disappoint. Thanks Dan for another great podcast. I’ll have to listen again to get the Christopher Alexander line you mentioned – something about intellectualising and feeling – it was the perfect encapsulation of some of my current thinking.
I found the discussion of essence interesting. The idea of essence and personality, the way you describe it, is relatively new to me. My initial feeling is that the essence of a whole doesn’t change, but the way it is expressed – its personality? – will change depending on context. The way we interact with, and within, other wholes will influence the way they express themselves. This is how we can make change. The best we can do is immerse ourselves with other wholes to know their essence as best we can, then make decisions about how to interact with them for generative outcomes. Given the infinite complexity of living systems we have to concede that our decisions will be based on incomplete understanding – or what you said Christopher Alexander said 🙂
Thanks for another great podcast, Dan.
I have some thoughts about your ‘essence’ discussion. For me, ‘nature’ might be a better word. What is the nature of this place? What is the nature of this thing? To answer Jascha’s question about the potential for change, I don’t believe that identifying the essence or nature of something inhibits our capacity to change it. Far from it. There is no such thing as a blank canvass. All situations come with their limitations. Much of the damage done to our planet has occurred because people did not respect or appreciate the nature of things. They sought to impose their own patterns, systems, processes, limitations, constraints and so on upon something without due consideration to its nature (or essence). Perhaps the best example I can think of is dynamic equilibrium, which is part of the nature of all living systems other than human systems. Without an understanding of dynamic equilibrium, humans make decisions that disrupt the natural balance. Another alternative to ‘essence’ might be ‘pattern’. What is the pattern of this place? What is the pattern of this thing? When we understand the pattern, we can identify both its potential and its limitations. We can find what I call ‘points of leverage’ and what I think Carol means by ‘nodes’. We can sometimes find a point of leverage that results in a transformative shift. Failing to fully understand the nature or the pattern of something before we seek to change it is analogous to me handing you my prescription glasses and telling you they will improve your eyesight. Seek first to understand the pattern because only then can we find the most efficient ways to evolve it. It’s all gardening really 😀
These are broad brush strokes. There are patterns within patterns within patterns, as you know.
Great stuff Dan.