Agreements on “How Much”

2nd of 5 posts on “Lenses for Seeing Agreements”

How do you choose agreements in five primary relationships at three levels of perceived reality?  I suggest a framework of three big questions that have been handed down over the ages: (1) how much; (2) what do I experience; and (3) how do the primary relationships and levels of reality interact?  These questions provide lenses for seeing the agreements.

When looking at the five primary relationships and the three levels of perceived reality in the figure below, a natural first question could be, “How much is there?”  In the context of a specific set of agreements, how much exists – how much shows up – in my relationship to my own self, at the level of things-noun, at development-verb, at possibility-light?  How much of what I can do, at the things-noun level, is acknowledged and utilized?  How much am I developing my capacities and relationships, at the development-verb level?  How much of my potential is visible, at the possibility-light level?  Likewise, through the “how much” question, I can see what is available through the agreements with the other, group, nature, and spirit, at each level of perceived reality.

By asking the “how much” question, I prequalify the answer.  More is better.  More what?  Abundance.  This question of “how much” connects the experience of relationships and realities to the experience of abundance.  Earlier I shared how people clearly preferred the experience of abundance to scarcity.  The “how much” question provides a first of three lenses in seeing how to achieve it.  The next post looks at the second lens.

 

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Agreements on “How Much”

  1. Pingback: Agreements on “What I Experience” | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  2. Pingback: Agreements on “How the relationships interact” | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  3. Pingback: Abundance of “How Much” | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  4. Pingback: The Resource Question of “How Much” with Things-Nouns | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  5. Pingback: What Is Possible in Resources? (Possibility-Light) | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  6. Pingback: Three Levels of Reality in Resources | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  7. Pingback: Seeing the Light-Resources in All Primary Relationships | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  8. Pingback: Converting Resource Verbs to Nouns | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  9. Pingback: Globally Local Agreements — Innovating in Results Developed from Possibility | Institute for Strategic Clarity

  10. Pingback: Agreements on “What I Experience” « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  11. Pingback: Questions Emerging with Each Lens on the Agreements « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  12. Pingback: Abundance of “How Much” « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  13. Pingback: The Resource Question of “How Much” with Things-Nouns « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  14. Pingback: What Is Possible in Resources? (Possibility-Light) « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  15. Pingback: Three Levels of Reality in Resources « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  16. Pingback: Seeing the Light-Resources in All Primary Relationships « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  17. Pingback: Converting Resource Verbs to Nouns « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  18. Pingback: Resources as Nouns — A Choice of Scarcity or Abundance « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  19. Pingback: Resource Implications for Other Agreements « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  20. Pingback: History of Thinking about Resources, Organization, and Value « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  21. Pingback: Globally Local Agreements — Innovating in Results Developed from Possibility « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  22. Pingback: Ecosynomics — The Study of Deviance and Diversity in Human Agreements — Another Framing « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  23. Pingback: Get Real! More Real. « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  24. Pingback: GRASPing Ecosynomic Lenses « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  25. Pingback: Seeing “What Is” — The Economics of Abundance « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  26. Pingback: Vibrancy Is A Choice Checklists–Re-membering Abundance-based Agreements « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  27. Pingback: Vibrancy Is A Choice Checklists — Re-membering Abundance-based Agreements « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  28. Pingback: The Memetic Code of an Agreements Field « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

  29. Pingback: Ancient Systems Thinkers, 2550 Years and Counting « Jim Ritchie-Dunham

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s