Answers are Godly in that they are ultimate, absolute and universal.
God cares beyond his answers, entertaining questions.
People think beyond their questions, entertaining answers.
We can bridge this chasm.
Fostering Caring = Growing Responsiveness.
Fostering Thinking = Growing Awareness.
An opinion is, for practical purposes, a letter. An exploration
is a string of opinions where question chases after question. An
experience is the germ of an opinion, an answer to a question.
Responsiveness/Awareness with regard to opinions is thinking relevantly/thinking
motivatedly.
Responsiveness/Awareness with regard to explorations is thinking simply/thinking
powerfully.
Responsiveness/Awareness with regard to experiences is thinking concretely/thinking
sensitively.
The fruits of awareness: We have three methods by which we can find
Godly answers to our questions:
We look at how, in discussion, opinions sort themselves out, and consider
what endeavors we can accomplish with the system of opinions.
We accumulate subjective answers to a question, and note that the perspectives
inherent are quite limited, and we establish a language of concepts based
on such perspectives.
We explore how question gives rise to question, and we map out the
system of questions, and note our interests in various parts of that map,
and take up roles accordingly.
I want to build a workspace where independent
thinkers can "think
out loud".
Creating such a space involves a lot of human
engineering. As
creators, we need to engage others, and as users, we need to engage
ourselves. Unfortunately, this may be manipulative, and fortunately,
that troubles me.
What is the difference between engaging and
manipulating? I'll
investigate to figure this out:
1) I'm going to write down all kinds of examples where this problem
arises. I invite your examples, also.
2) I'm going to consider, for each example, how problematic is
it, how
might I resolve that?
3) I'm going to group the examples by their nature as problems.
4) I'm going to consider what kinds of problems there are, and
what
solutions we have for each so that we can defend ourselves from
manipulating, or being manipulated (although I'm more concerned about
the former).
5) I'm going to consider what must our workspace be like to solve
all
of these problems.
If our workspace can't solve these problems, then I think I'd rather
not
have a workspace. Certainly not, if we can't address them.
More
likely, we'll see that we can solve various problems, but in a hodge
podge way, a conflicting way. What I'd like instead is to have
the
various solutions reenforce each other. That's what I mean by
a
"coherent" workspace. It's coherent in that all of the various
virtues
of the workspace, (the safeguards, the benefits), support each other.
So that's my plan for my investigation.
I've finished desigining,
and now I'll conduct it.
Here's a dilemma to start off with:
In "thinking out loud" it helps to have
other people around,
especially other independent thinkers. We're finding that we
can
establish a "social space" well suited for thinking out loud.
However,
the creation of such a space requires people. Furthermore, the kind
of
thinking out loud that we can do depends on the level of awareness,
the
level of engagement, of the thinkers around. Simply put, if people
don't understand why you care, then it's hard to talk to them about
it.
You look for ways to get them to care enough so that they could
understand you. (Is this engaging, or is this manipulating?)
Socrates had, I think, various techniques
for getting the wheels
to turn inside of people. The "Socratic question" is one such
way,
where he would assume that they know something deep, and then explore
by
asking them questions. He could get people to go through the
motions
that he himself was going through, regardless of the routes that they
offered him. In particular, he was able to show that the mind
doesn't
offer very many routes at all. (Was he engaging, or was he
manipulating?)
Over the last couple of years I've learned
a lot of practical
rules of thumb as to what works, and what does not, in order to generate
participation within the laboratory. (Although these rules tend
to
change, too.) For example, we've gained many members through
Raimundas'
questionnaire "Do you organize your thoughts?" That's a magnet
for
helpful, kind and relevant people. Another chain of entry is:
I meet
them in person, we have an interesting conversation, they let me sign
them up for our gateway Minciu_Sodas_EN, after several months they
may
start to write, after several more months they might fill out a
questionnaire and become a member. I know that certain things
don't
work, for example, it doesn't work if people let me "keep them posted"
with a newsletter, because I never hear from them, and my newsletters
are cheezy anyways, and that's not worth the effort. So I know
that I
have to invite them to our gateway, or just forget about it. I imagine
that I can map out many different steps in how people get engaged with
us, along with likelihoods, expenses, length of time, etc.. (Is
this
engaging, or is this manipulating?)
I'll be listing out more such examples,
and I appreciate yours.
I'll also start recording some thoughts that come up.
One idea: I think it's OK to manipulate
the overall system, to
know about how it will unfold, if I don't predict for any individual
person, what they will do. Every individual should feel the freedom
to
control the level of engagement.
Another idea: I think it makes
a difference whether I focus on
engaging the person, or advancing my own work. For example, Raimundas'
questionnaire is designed and used to accumulate experiences that we
find valuable. So we're happy to receive them anonymously, or
never
hear from somebody again. So long as that's the main purpose,
then it's
fine that it's also a helpful vehicle for bringing in new members.
But
if the primary purpose is recruitment, then I think it's manipulative.
In general, I think that if I focus on advancing my work, then I'm
able
to disengage from any relationship, which is perhaps necessary for
others to engage themselves.
Another idea: It doesn't seem
to be a problem to manipulate God,
to "cut deals with him", to "stay one step ahead of him". He's
very big
then, and takes it all in stride.
Another idea: Is that because
it's a parent-child relationship?
I think it's true that children are keen manipulators. What's
that all
about?
By the way, I have a rather thick skin,
and slow response rate, so
don't be afraid to be blunt if you think you can be helpful.
Yours,
Andrius
I write about our laboratory's policy regarding God, and also that I
find it useful to think of God as, at the least, a hypothetical
participant. I start work to make my investigation less vague,
looking
for the dilemmas, especially: "I want to engage, but I don't
want to
manipulate." Sorting through these dilemmas will help me clarify
why I
want a "coherent" workspace. Yours, Andrius, ms@ms.lt
***************************************
Natalie, Annette!
Thank you for your feedback.
First, I think you both know my policy regarding
God, but I will
state this for all of us. Our mission here is to foster "caring
about
thinking", in other words, to encourage concern about thinking.
(Which
you both do!) If we ever feel we may be going "off-topic", then
we just
stop to consider, can we relate this back to fostering "caring about
thinking"? (Usually, we do find a way). How are we able
to care about
thinking? Through our ability to think, but especially, through
our
ability to care. What are we able to care about? We are
able to care
about others, and our relationships with others. We are also
able to
care about God, and our relationships with God. (If you're able
to care
about something more, please let us know!) As a laboratory, we
don't
make any claim that either others or God exist, etc. Our only
claim is
that if any of us are able to care about others, care about God, care
about our relationships, then we welcome that as relevant to our ability
to care about thinking. With that in mind, we wish to welcome
the
widest variety of views, experiences, investigations, endeavors.
(Should I expand on this?)
Next, let me say where I'm at with my investigation
(which I'm only
just designing). So far I have:
- A focused direction, a never-ending objective: "re-thinking relevantly
about other stands"
- An achievable endeavor: "building a workspace for independent thinkers
to think out loud".
- A key belief: "A Unifying Perspective Is What Makes a Workspace
Coherent".
- A public question exploring the implications of that belief:
"What is
the unifying perspective that makes a workspace coherent?"
True, I have other related beliefs, and I
expect to explore their
relationship with my key belief. One of these beliefs is that
God is an
independent thinker. So if God were to walk in through the door,
(or
even through the door), and participate in our laboratory, and followed
our rules, then I'd want him to be welcome. In fact, I believe
in God,
so I myself make efforts to reach out to him. Even if God is
just
concept, then I myself still find it useful to ask, what kind of
workspace could he use? At the minimum, God is one of many hypothetical
participants. There's a lot of practical questions about how
he could
possibly participate. These are noteworthy. For now, I
just want to
say that I find it very helpful to consider what God might find useful,
because I expect those are the fundamentals of what an independent
thinker might find useful. That's why I write "If it's good enough
for
God, it's good enough for everybody else, in fact, it will elevate
us".
Our workspace helps us focus, and can thereby shape us. I do
think it
would elevate us to have a workspace that shaped us to think as God
thinks.
Your responses make me realize that my stated
belief sounds vague
and distant: "A Unifying Perspective is What Makes a Workspace
Coherent". So I want to work now to clarify why I want my workspace
to
be "coherent". What are the problems of an incoherent workspace?
As I wrote above, we use our workspace for
our work, but also, our
workspace shapes us as we work. This makes for a lot of tricky
problems
even for an individual, but especially in working with others.
In
general:
- I want to engage myself and others (and
I'm learning how to do
that) but I don't want to manipulate myself or others.
Do you see the dilemma?
I think that next I might describe in detail
such dilemmas. I
could consider where they come from, what it means to a walk the fine
line right through them.
Thank you for your help!
Andrius
Hi! I haven't read any letters since I last wrote. So what
I'm writing
may be disconnected from what you're writing, or better yet, may have
unexpected connections. I value feedback, but it takes time to
absorb,
so I won't acknowledge it right away. I will just forge ahead,
and I
encourage you to work independently, likewise. We're affecting
each
other in the long run.
My general feeling, in building a workspace, is to build one that God
himself finds attractive for his own work. If it's good for his
work,
then I think it will elevate our work, too. Certainly, it makes
for
lofty requirements, but also keeps me from many distractions.
My goal
this year is to set up the laboratory so that it works on its own,
and
only then invest in decisions as to what business models may or may
not
be involved. I'll certainly think about business models, and
hopefully
try some out, but I don't want to invest in them. I want to keep my
obligations small and experimental, except with regard to God.
I'll proceed by applying our laboratory's methods to the challenge of
building a workspace. First, I'll ask, what is my endeavor?
By
endeavor, I mean the reason why I'm doing this, what I'm trying to
tangibly accomplish in two or three years.
My underlying endeavor is "building a workspace for independent thinkers
to think out loud".
Our laboratory's method (or at least, my method here) is to make
advances on a shared endeavor by publicly exploring the implications
of
our beliefs. So, next, I'll ask, what are my beliefs, what are
my
hypotheses, that I can publicly challenge?
One belief is that God is an independent thinker, so in particular,
this
should be a workspace where God may think out loud. Another belief
of
mine is that "If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for
everybody else, in fact, it will elevate us".
I've had some thoughts regarding what I would want a workspace like
this
to have, whether for myself, or for God, or for others. I'd like
this
to be a workspace where:
A) we offer choice
B) we engage ourselves
C) we re-think and re-care in every way
D) we adapt our workspace
I think the purpose of C (re-thinking, re-caring) is that we go beyond
our current thoughts and take a stand. The purpose of B (engaging
ourselves) is that we go beyond our stand and follow through with
action. The purpose of A (offering choice) is that we get true
feedback
on our actions that we can reflect on. The purpose of D (adapting
our
workspace) is that we can customize and intensify the feedback loop
(taking a stand, following through, reflecting, and so on). I
think
that A, B, C, D all help us go beyond ourselves.
My belief, which I'd like to challenge, is that "A Unifying Perspective
Is What Makes a Workspace Coherent". I want the workspace that
I'm
building to bring together A, B, C, D, and I believe that there must
be
a unifying perspective that can do all that. I expect that God's
perspective achieves this.
Next, I'll ask, how will I publicly challenge my belief? What
is my
investigation? My purpose is not to prove or even worry whether
my
belief is true or not. The whole purpose of having a belief is
to be
willing to take a stand, before there is any proof! Instead,
I
challenge my belief by exploring my willingness, by making that
intuition explicit. In this way, the implications of my belief
will
become more clear, as may the belief itself, and other related beliefs.
I will challenge my belief by asking "What is the unifying perspective
that makes a workspace coherent?" My mind is rising from believing
"whether" to asking "what?" In my case, rather than worry about
whether
there is a unifying perspective for my workspace, I want to ask, What
must that perspective be like? Or, for example, rather than worry
about
Whether God wants a workspace? I will move along to a question, What
kind of workspace would God have use for? What must such a workspace
be
like? Concretely, what does it take to have A, B, C, D coherent
within
a workspace?
In future letters, I'll design and conduct such an investigation.
In our laboratory, another important thing to note is whether we pursue
this through "material gain" or "material loss". That's because,
in
organizing services for independent thinkers, we want to be able to
include every kind of objective and endeavor and investigation.
However, certain kinds of objectives, namely "caring about God", "caring
about relationships with God", "caring about relationships with others",
"caring about others", will get us in to trouble, I think, if we pursue
them through material gain. Money can bring us together, but
you can't
pay money to get somebody to care. That's because there are no
"deliverables" for caring, often caring means doing absolutely nothing.
So we should stay away from attempts to formulate such deliverables,
and
we acknowledge that by recognizing that the lab and members pursue
such
objectives only through material loss. Other objectives, such
as
"re-thinking sensitively, powerfully, motivatedly, concretely, simply,
relevantly", will go better if we pursue them through material gain,
that is, if we have deliverables that strengthen our work together.
Finally, I'll ask, which objective does my endeavor fit within?
Will I
pursue it through material loss, or material gain?
My endeavor to "build a workspace for independent thinkers to think
out
loud" is, I feel, part of our laboratory's objective to foster
"re-thinking relevantly" about Other Stands. Therefore, there
should be
deliverables (a workspace!) and it will be stronger if we pursue that
through material gain. From this perspective, God and all of
us are
just individual clients. In fact, we could have very evil clients,
but
the way that we get around that is we focus on "caring about thinking".
Evil ones do a lot of thinking, but I've yet to see them "care about
thinking", or care about anything, even themselves, for they truly
destroy themselves.
However, I certainly intend to be very careful when it comes to building
workspaces for God, or for individual people, because at that point
we're venturing close to "caring about God", and "caring about others",
and so on, which we pursue through material loss. So I should
be ever
mindful.
Next, I want to think through the design of my investigation, "What
is
the unifying perspective that makes a workspace coherent?" I
look
forward to your letters, feel free to poke at anything, or to suggest
directions. Any tangents you may take are also helpful in the
short or
long term, they expose what is relevant.
Yours,
Andrius
For most of this year I will be concerned with what kind of workspace
we
should create. In general, we're a workspace for us, independent
thinkers, so that we can "think out loud". One of the purposes
is so
that we can "offer choice" to God and others, in other words, we can
live on a cusp, ever free to respond in every direction. Another
purpose is that we might "engage ourselves", not just listen to our
hearts, but follow our hearts. I wish to make this tangible through
the
structure of our laboratory, and especially through the feedback that
participants get through working here on what they care about.
I will do this by designing an investigation. (I'll give myself
some
time). I'd like to start by asking you to consider, what workspace
would you like, as an independent thinker? To make this concrete,
consider the many ways in which you "think out loud". In other
words:
How public are you, as an independent thinker?
- Do you think independently?
- Do you converse with independent thinkers?
- Do you subscribe to a gateway group, or an equivalent publication?
- Do you publicly distribute your thoughts and feelings?
- Do you contribute reuseable experiences?
- Do you belong to a working group, or an equivalent team?
- Do you instigate the exploration of ideas?
- Do you coordinate with others for the sake of your shared workspace?
- Do you work independently and publicly on an investigation?
- Do you apply an investigatory method to advance an endeavor?
- Do you foster synergy across workspaces and amongst endeavors?
- Do you structure a system of workspaces for synergy amongst
endeavors?
You can imagine that the American Revolution and the United States
Constitution involved independent thinking in all those many ways.
But
they're also relevant as we grow up in families, or raise our families.
I'm interested, in the context of our laboratory, which of the different
ways you'd like to take up here. I've listed them in the rough
order of
how people become engaged here, although people do skip around.
I'm
curious of the general flow of the laboratory. I'm even more
interested
in how individuals become engaged, how and why they participate in
new
ways. For our business, I want to know what services might be
relevant
for every kind of participation. I'm also very concerned not
to
manipulate people into participating, which is wicked and I'm always
at
risk of doing that. Instead, I want to make sure that we establish
ourselves as a workspace for offering choice. Every aspect of
participation needs to be voluntary. I hope that we set ourselves
up so
that every person feels right about the ways that they are
participating, or not. A place for us to explore our wills.
What would you yourself like available, what kinds of participation,
or
non-participation? How do you imagine that?
With your help, I'll start this up, and then I'll keep bringing this
back, as we bring in new topics. I also welcome any tangents,
because
they help us map out the many ways our thoughts might lead.
Yours,
Andrius
Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt
+1 (559) 735-0262
in Visalia, California
through July, 2001