Do we need/have a higher purpose?

Submitted by George Por on October 26, 2007 - 17:13.

Many trails

Submitted by Bob Stilger on October 25, 2007 - 23:27.

Much is in motion here, and in so many other networks and communities of which I am a part.

I find myself in an inquiry I have held for many years. It is around "connection."

I'm coming to believe that connections are pathways to synergy and to entropy.

Sometimes connections are made in search of a purpose, sometimes in the presence of a purpose and sometimes in the absence of a purpose.

Sometimes the conversations which are actually in search of a purpose forget the search and assume that the conversation is purpose enough. Sometimes the conversations which occur in the absence of a purpose just wander all over the place.

Does anyone else experience this confusion or find this framing useful?

I raise it because I think I am at a point in my life where I really want to be clear about what conversations I join and which ones I pass on -- without judgment about the conversations themselves, simply judgments about whether they are for me.

Collective and individual purpose

Submitted by George Por on October 26, 2007 - 08:56.

Healthy, self-organizing social systems and movements are not purpose-giving but purpose-seeking. (Do a search for "purpose-seeking" on this page.)

I found Bob's post very relevant to that:

"Sometimes connections are made in search of a purpose, sometimes in the presence of a purpose and sometimes in the absence of a purpose.

Sometimes the conversations which are actually in search of a purpose forget the search and assume that the conversation is purpose enough. Sometimes the conversations which occur in the absence of a purpose just wander all over the place."

As emergence passes through stages, as the community's collective intelligence and wisdom deepens and unfolds, so does its purpose. It seems that in the potential/coalescing phase a purpose that would be more specific than becoming more visible to ourselves as an emergent whole, could risk not using the intelligence of the whole.

Bob also wrote:

"I am at a point in my life where I really want to be clear about what conversations I join and which ones I pass on -- without judgment about the conversations themselves, simply judgments about whether they are for me."

I picked that up because it seems it is a common predicament for many of us. My individual purpose is to become free from everything that would diminish my availability to bring my talents and passion in service to co-evolve our world, with you all, to the next level of harmony and consciousness. The conversations I am joining are the ones that evoke a big YES! in my heart. The fledgling intergenerational dialogue and helping it become more visible to itself is a YES!! YES!!

Interesting Question...

new

Submitted by Bob Stilger on October 26, 2007 - 17:03.

Thanks George.

My experience agrees with yours. The way I would put it is that sometimes having too much clarity of purpose in advance cuts off creativity. I remember the endless debates in my citizen participation days about whether it was better to start a meeting with a list of possibilities, or to begin with a blank slate.

So what is important here is having clarity about what conversation we're in.

I want to bring in a bit of experience from the first intergenerational dialogue on leadership at Shambhala Institute in 2004. Some people felt that the purpose of having an intergenerational dialogue was itself sufficient. Others felt that the dialogue lacked substance and focus because it did not have a purpose, beyond itself. The shift which was made at Shambhala in subsequent years was to bring intergenerational energy to bear on local issues viewed from a global context. And, as always, some felt that what happened was too primary a focus on the issues and not enough on cultivating the field of intergenerational energy.

For myself, I am at the point where it is difficult for me to participate in a gathering or meeting that is not intergenerational. I am always aware of -- and almost in mourning for -- the lack of intergenerational space. With that said, however, I believe it is critically important to consciously call an intergeneration conversation in service of something bigger.

Cheers,

Bob

An attempt at defining the 'bigger thing' we are in service of

Submitted by Sofia Bustamante on October 29, 2007 - 21:44.

Dear all,

Perhaps our purpose, building on Juanita and others’ comments, is at a gut feel:

* to explore more fully the field of intergenerational pioneering (out of which a purpose that is bigger could emerge)

* to map the practical examples of projects where this spirit is alive (some of which are inspired by this activity)

And, to make it in service of something bigger than just intergenerational pioneering.

Here is a a very rough attempt at suggesting the ‘something bigger’:

Taking into account a real existing project: the Bay Area Project that Juanita has witnessed emerging, is about “helping the local area become true multi-gen around critical local issues’

So what could the bigger thing be that the intergenerational pioneering field could be focused to serve?:

Perhaps it is about identifying the mechanisms by which the intergenerational approach remains in place. I.e. for example in Germany, the youth parliament are actually able to put items on the agenda of the adult parliament. In the UK that is not the case. So if we were able to do this in the UK, this would leave in place a very real result that systemically brought in young people’s views. So the mechanism in this case is - a slot in the adult parliament that is fed by the youth parliament. Imagine if we could map the examples of these mechanisms all around the world. It would not be the purpose of this project to create that mechanism. But it could easily be that people on this project are inspired, in their local area to make that happen, as a result of being involved with this project, of or hearing of the mapped results afterwards.

I.e Mapping the mechanisms that would make communities systematically intergenerational.

So while the local projects will be useful input, we will need to have a sense of the field as a whole in order to know what purpose wants to emerge out of their combined existence… That will take our ongoing collective reflection as the projects that we are watching are progressing, to get to the depth of what seems to want to happen in the world right now, around intergenerational pioneering.

Well, that was an attempt. I have a feeling that this event will benefit from Bob, Juanita and other people’s experience of previous IG projects.

Just to share with you:

Imagine the goose pimples when just today, someone said – you need to meet Amitye - and was introduced to a lady in the local council who said ‘I want to run constellation projects in inter-generational healing in the local area, here in South London. So the plan is, once she has time to breathe we will sit down over a coffee and plan what could happen locally. I would love that this activity feeds back into the exploring the intergenerational pioneering field, and that it is fed by it. I mentioned to her the gathering in Greece and we are both very excited. I couldn’t even begin to describe what a gem this online community is. But she got it in my inability to express it ;-)

On defining purpose:

Bob your clarification was definitely useful. I think we are in the ‘searching for purpose’ conversation. I found that it is useful to ROUGHLY sense something, or quickly get to the essence of the apparent purpose, and then take action, and then the stated purpose will be grounded in what is actually happening. So ultimately the deeper purpose is defined out both of what is actually happening AND what is intended to happen. Does that make sense?

If it does, I think that maybe we could quickly tune into it now, with a very gut feel approach and then re-tune in to the purpose after we see which local projects are actually manifest and what is the focus they seem to be having, and what our findings/sensings are in terms of the inter-generational pioneering field.

Does any of this make sense at all? I might have dangered into over specification…if so…. Let’s reclaim the spirit back from overspecs! And also, maybe its less about mapping the mechanism, and more about mapping HOW people changed the mechanism..

Love to all

Sofia

Clarity and possibilities

Submitted by Carsten Ohm on October 29, 2007 - 11:58.

Dear all,

I am writing this in a moment of quite a bit of information coming into my computer and my system. This might make me a bit bias today.

I really resonate with and find a lot of intergenerational wisdom in the words spoken.

And feel a need for grounding too.

The clarity is see is:

1) We want to combine local pioneering around the world with the intergenerational.
Not intergenerational for the sake of intergenerational - and also not local pioneering without acknowledging, making space for and putting the intergenerational to use of the common good.

Part of the possibilities I see is:
1) That we keep nourishing and grounding the container we have build around this. Challenge it, but also make it stronger and more conscious of itself and easier for others to engage with.

All the best,

Carsten

The what and the how?

Submitted by Helen Titchen Beeth on October 29, 2007 - 08:52.

Yes, so it's really quite clear and simple. The what is local projects and the how is through multi-general collaboration. And of course, it's the latter that makes the difference. Projects are ten-a-penny. It's the quality of the collaboration - and the multi-generational aspect adds (or perhaps I should say 'restores') a whole new dimension to that quality.

Re: Do we need/have a higher purpose?

Submitted by George Por on October 29, 2007 - 08:33.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Juanita Brown
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:34:05 -0700
To: Bob Stilger
Cc: George Por, Carsten Ohm, Lesley Williams, Sofia Bustamante
Subject: Re: Do we need/have a higher purpose?

Hi you guys,

I just read the post.

My initial sense is that it is a both/and. I DO think, having just hosted another intergenerational gathering in which we explored the power itself of multi-generational collaboration in bringing about and sustaining large scale systems change, was VERY nourishing to all involved....and now there is a local purpose focused on helping the Bay Area (or small portions of it) become true multi-generational collaborations around critical local issues....but that would not have happened had we not focused first on the multi-generational conversation itself, and if we weren't planning to continue to focus on it in that way.

My personal feeling is that at Shambhala we truncated the multi-generational thrust too early-- and by just then bringing in the local projects we really dissolved the multi-generational power that was building there, which could have fueled a much more powerful national and/or international movement in that direction.

We got exciting interest in the local projects--but did little to empower
the whole "field" of multi-generational collaboration which I think needs to be nurtured in itself as part of the whole....as it's not something most people are either familiar with/experienced with/or comfortable in working with other than in the old paradigm of mentor/mentee etc.

So, those are my initial reflections. Can you forward this to the rest of the group, who I didn't have e-mails for.

Thanks much,
Juanita
------ End of Forwarded Message

Not either/or but both

Submitted by Helen Titchen Beeth on October 26, 2007 - 20:03.

The pattern I'm getting from your exchange here, Bob and Duri, is a dance around wilber's four quadrants. What is the individual inner pull which will bring me into actual conversation/action? And what will the We that emerges from these conversations lend its attention to? Objects of focus in the outer world (local/global issues) or the "field" of - in this case intergenerational - energy?

Seen in this way, it would be less than complete to opt for one over the other, when they are all part of That Which Is Arising at every moment.

But what a hugely satisfying inquiry, Bob! I so recognise those three different types of conversation. And I guess it's a focus on one or other quadrants that keeps the one or other type alive - for as long as it lives. And I guess it's worth being curious about our individual preferences?

Activity

Intergenerations

User login

Enexus