Home › Blogs › Martin Ehrensvärd's blog ›

Thought in the aftermath of Evolutionary Salon 3


I’m in Seattle, at some friends’ house. A few dags ago Evolutionary Salon 3 ended. Tomorrow I’m going back home to Denmark.
It’s been a rich experience. I arrived without hardly knowing anyone, and I had the priviledge of connecting with many people. I see the meeting as having been a non-stop interaction with new people and new impressions.
Some of these meetings have left some marks in me that I believe I will carry with me for some time. Important lessons. Overall, it was a great event and I’m very glad I came over.
I also feel some sadness. I had hoped to find a circle of people wanting to venture into the unknown, into the unstructured, into the radical trust that what is needed will be provided by the collective. For many people the Salon probably was a venture into the unknown and the unstructured. But since I have experienced what it can be like to be together on a radical journey into the unknown, into trusting what will arise in the middle of a group of peers, the Salon was way way too structured for me. This is the cause of some sadness.
I see why it had to be that way. To venture into the unknown demands a readiness to let go of some of the ego, to put oneself in service of the whole. To be willing to openly inquire into whether or not I am in service of the whole at any given moment. Willing to listen into the middle between us and sense what wants to emerge.
There were people at the Salon, and even in the planning team, that – in my perception – were unable and unwilling to do so. This meant that there was a limit to how deep the event could go.
This is not to detract from the event and from the hugely challenging task of the planning team. It was marvelous to be there. AND I feel sad that we could not take it even further, exploring new boundaries, evolving into radically new ways of being together.
These are my thoughts in the aftermath of ES3.
Submitted by Martin Ehrensvärd on May 27, 2006 - 20:14.

here we are. . .

Submitted by Tree Fitz on May 29, 2006 - 18:04.

here are are, in Martin's personal blog. . . . is this where this conversatin 'should' be?!

What did we 'learn'?  Thanks, Heather, for the question.  And thanks especially for reminding us that whatever happens is the only thing that could or should.

I have decided to post the rest of what I wrote under my personal blog. 

Was something missed?

Submitted by Heather Tischbein on May 29, 2006 - 16:01.

I'm finding this convesation interesting...as there were many feelings I had that I shared with only a few because I did not feel "safe" giving voice to my thoughts and feelings that questionned  1)who are "we"; 2)what  are "we" doing here at the salon and in general as homo sapiens/noeticus; 3)why are "we" doing whatever "it" is that we are/were doing;  and 4)what difference did/does any of "it" make in the lives of 6.6 billion people on Planet Earth, plus all other sentient beings.  I take full responsibility for my own fear-fullness...but only my "measure" of responsibility for the system conditions that gave rise to It.  Participating in this conversation is my attempt to work with my fears in a way that might benefit the whole and hopefully shed some light on how and why particular system conditions "trigger" fear for people.

 It seems to me that if the four principles of Open Space were manifesting at the salon, then we could not have missed anything: "Whatever happens is the only thing that could have."

 If we assume this principle to be "true", then perhaps a useful inquiry could be framed around "what did 'we' learn"?  Or perhaps around "what are 'we' still longing for, and why?"  Or perhaps something around how do we experience the difference between "doing" and "being"?

 

 

thanks for your reply, Martin

Submitted by Tree Fitz on May 29, 2006 - 06:36.

I appreciate the dialogue, limited though it may be.  Again, I ask you to not see my words as defensive.  I consider the question of tiptoeing to be a very important one myself.  I personally have little skill at tiptoeing and I carry a tension in most groups because of it.  Embracing conflict  is, I believe, an essential element of any meaningful huiman interaction and I was frustrated at this salon by an impulse to 'make nice', to suppress challenge and tension.

But, having said that, I can also report that I dealt directly with quite a lot of conflict throughout the salon.  As you know, Martin, I resented something you did and I voiced it to you directly.  You did not see, however, that I had two high conflict encounters with the people I did convene with.  On the first day, Ashley/Margo/Peggy and I convened and we had a very challenging conflict as soon as we met.  It took us much more time to face the conflict than it took to plan our convening for the day.  I am not sure this kind of work has to be done in larger groups to be real or effective.

 On the penultimate day, Margo and Aviv were convening.  And I had decided to do the money the last day. But during that penultimate day, Tuesday, I 'got' that I had to do it Tuesday afternoon.  It was very unsettling to step on Margo and Aviv's plans for the day and once again our planning work was all about dealing with conflict.  Once again, we stopped and took the time to deal with the conflict and it took quite a lot of time.  And, once again, I am not sure this work has to be done in larger groups to be, well, to be real . . . or to benefit the larger group.  In fact, I would say that these convening subgroups are engaging in tension and conflict quite literally on behalf of the whole.

It is interesting for me to see your dissatisfaction compared to the Moving the Edge event, martin.  I myself had a much more satisfying experience at the january salon than I had at this one.  The two events were completely and totally different and I carry an unsettling sense that we missed something.  What did we miss?  This question is very, very, very important to me.  Did we miss something? 

Visions for inquiry

Submitted by Martin Ehrensvärd on May 28, 2006 - 21:37.
Thanks, Ria. Moving the Edge being my first ever contact with a co-intelligence group, I guess that I need to realize that it was quite its own experience, uncomparable to other events. And still, my vision is that a larger group of dedicated listeners, in an open inquiry, would co-create some way of splitting up into managable size groups. Or the large group would sense into the middle and find that more structure is needed, and co-create the structures needed.

Thank you Martin

Submitted by Ria Baeck on May 28, 2006 - 21:21.
Thank you Martin for your words, they relate with what Judy wrote while being in the Salon. Probably we are a little 'spoiled' by being in Moving the Edge in Denmark; which was a 'adventurous inquiry', with hardly any facilitation. I don't know if it could work in the same way with a lot more people; but it would be worthwhile to experiment with it.

Tension and discomfort

Submitted by Martin Ehrensvärd on May 28, 2006 - 17:38.

Tree, good, let me expand on this. What I am talking about is actually not so much certain specific moments but an underlying tension that was not being spoken openly about among all the implicated. A tiptoing and a fearfulness that was there and was alluded to but not spoken to openly in the circle/at the planning meetings. By not openly addressing this issue, I believe, the planning team prevented itself and the Salon from functioning up to its full potential. Not that it was a bad meeting at all – it was in many ways a really good and well planned meeting. AND the underlying, unresolved and unspoken to tension prevented a fully open inquiry. Holding us as a group and as individuals back from being in full service of the whole. As I see it.

I understand and accept that we as a group, including myself, were not ‘there yet’ = capable of resolving this issue. I wish to throw out there that I felt this tension and discomfort.

Martin, could you say more?

Submitted by Tree Fitz on May 28, 2006 - 00:47.
Martin, you wrote that 'even in the planning team' people were unable or unwilling to inquire into whether or not (they are) in service of the whole at any given moment.  I am not feeling defensive as I write this so if I come across as defensive, please ignore that.  I ask in genuine inquiry:  could you share a specific example of a moment when you felt that the team was not able to put itself in service of the whole?