2 Gifts We Gave Ourselves: Triggers and Signals

As Homo lumens you experience separation when your attention is focused on perceiving things as nouns.  You are separate from it.  The same happens when your attention focuses on perceiving change as verbs.  This separation from, being apart from it, allows you to experience it.  This separation, of being apart from the 10D reality, in a specific, lower-dimensional way, enables you as Homo lumens to be able (a) to notice triggers and signals, and (b) to give intentional attention to triggers and signals.  Two gifts.

Triggers, from any of your energy fields–your thinking, your feeling, your willing, your sensory perception–bring your attention to the choices, within the context of sensing and of your higher purpose, as reflected to your awareness.  The human system is designed to pay attention to the trigger, meaning to give it attention, then widen attention to your other energy fields to see what perspectives or textures they add.  You can start with any trigger (such as your feeling), noticing the trigger within any energy field, expanding to include the other energy fields (such as your thinking, willing, and sensing).

Signals are a process for working with the information within each energy field, across them, and as an integrated whole.  As Homo lumens you are designed to pay attention to context.  Since, out of context, the literally-infinite amount of information present at any instant forms nothing useful within (it does not in-form), as Homo lumens you start with the deeper shared purpose, which provides coherence to your awareness, then you look to the witness (to see experience and outcomes), to see, of what I know, what is available in this context?

Triggers and signals.  Something is off (triggers).  An integrated awareness (signals).  Two gifts.  Gifts you gave yourself.

Advertisements

The Power of Continuity

Does it make a difference if you care about what you do?  If you are really passionate and committed to what you give energy, or if it is just something that you do, because there is nothing better to do?  I observe that it makes a huge difference.  When I am connected to the power of that passion and commitment, I experience far greater energy.

Does it matter how much you are connected to that passion and commitment?  From not connected at all, to only connected briefly at times, to connected frequently, to connected much of the time.  I experience that how much I carry the commitment and passion with me influences how much energy I give to that commitment.  When it is high, I am a continuous ambassador for the passion.  Like with my family.

In our fieldwork right now at the Institute for Strategic Clarity, we are developing measures of this continuity power–the power of being connected to the deeper shared purpose, the love of the future for which I give my will.  In understanding the geometries of agreements fields, we are exploring how to assess continuity power as one of the key geometries.  “Continuity power” relates to (1) the gap between the desired and actual states of the deeper shared purpose, (2) the utility one has for closing the gap, and (3) the time that one is connected to that deeper shared purpose, of closing the gap.

Using the analogy of power, which is the amount of work done in a unit of time, and where work is the force applied over a distance, we see that the distance is the gap, the force applied is the utility to close the gap, and the time is the time dedicated to closing the gap.  Power = Work / time = (Force * distance) / time, or Continuity Power = Utility * gap / time.  Graphing out this function in the three dimensions shows an interesting geometry, where not all ranges of each of the three variables is possible.  We will be mapping this geometry and sharing the mapping of what we find in the world of human agreements fields over the next months.

This formulation also leads to some interesting initial insights, which we are now in the process of checking in the field.  Let’s work through the three elements: utility; gap; and time.  If the utility to close the gap is weak, maybe because of other priorities, then the work to close the gap will seem to be too great, which will lead to the need to reduce the gap.  The easiest way to reduce the gap is to lower the desired state towards the actual state.  This is a classic systems archetype, known as drifting goals.  If you do not see or connect to the deeper shared purpose, then the time connected decreases significantly, requiring much more continuity power to get the work done.  If the work to be done seems to be too much, this is probably a symptom of a low amount of time connected to the deeper shared purpose.  If it seems to be just too much work to be done to shift the system towards the desired state, then the easiest solution is to reduce either the force or the distance, the utility to change the system by closing the gap or changing the gap.

Conversely, as the time increases that you are connected to closing the gap between the desired and actual states of the deeper shared purpose, the continuity power required to get the work done decreases.  This suggests that it takes far more energy to move the system (to close the gap between the desired and actual states) when not connected to the deeper shared purpose.  It is much more efficient to move the system when connected more continuously to the deeper shared purpose.  It does seem to make a difference if you care about what you do, and how much of the time you are connected to that passion and commitment.  We will be field-testing these insights into the geometry of continuity power in the agreements fields over the next months, sharing here what we are finding.

 

From I Interact to We Interact

I have been in many conversations recently about how we, as Homo lumens, experience higher dimensions, in what often seem to be paradoxical ways.  As we explored our many different experiences in these realms, and how we interpreted them, I started to see another pattern.  This world that includes higher dimensions seems to be real.  We all describe our experience of it in many ways.  Whether with my kids, my wife, in the park, hearing about a friend’s beautiful experience with the hospital staff.  I experience the radiance the experience gives off.  I experience the pull to the experience.  I experience myself as part of and a part from the experience.  All at the same time.

If I experience this, then in some way it is real.  At least to me.  If you experience it as well, then maybe it is real in another way.  What if this world made of higher dimensions–higher than the one to four dimensions we normally perceive–is real, and it is mine and yours and ours?

This brings up, for me, the observation from psychology that much of what I see in the world is a projection of what I am seeing internally.  I am projecting my internal movie onto an external screen, which might look like you, and I am saying that the projection is real.  In this case, is the higher-dimensional reality where I am experiencing the push, the pull, being apart from and a part of my reality, your reality, or our reality?  It would be dangerous to assume that what I experience as your radiance and your pull is shared.  It would be healthy if you too experience the radiance toward me and the pull towards you.  It would be pathological if I believe you are radiating towards me and attracting me, and you do not.  Can I know which it is?  I think so.

Three simple observations might let me know whether this experience is healthy or pathological, only mine or shared.  First, when I experience higher dimensions, in my world, I simultaneously experience being in its radiance and its pull, apart from it and a part of it.  In my world, the one I experience, it is real.  Second, I cannot have your experience of higher dimensions.  I can be with you with your experience, but I cannot embody it.  That is your sovereignty, by design.  Third, I can know with you whether you are also having the shared experience of the same higher-dimensional essence.  I feel pulled to be part of this particular school community, and so do you. We are both part of a shared experience, and we can know this through our sharing.

So, I can know my reality of the push, of the pull, of being apart from, and of being a part of.  I can be with you with your experience of the same.  You and I can be in a shared experience together.  We can both experience the energy radiating from the experience and the pull of the deeper purpose we share.

When I experience this world within me alone, I interact with it.  When you experience this world, and I experience this world, with you, we experience it together: we interact.  We interact with the experience together.  I experience this interaction in my separateness from–as apart from–and in my connection with–as a part of.  So do you.  And when we interact, I experience that I need your perspective of the experience to complete what I can experience of our interaction together.  I need you to be different and relevant in this shared experience, so that we can interact in this deeper shared purpose, bringing the best uniqueness we each have.  If we do not each experience our own apartness from, then it would be more difficult to realize that we each have a unique experience of the push and the pull.  We can then choose to contribute our apartness from as a part of.

That we experience higher-dimensional experiences through our ordinary awareness in fewer dimensions then seems to be a gift.  This allows me to experience more directly my apartness from, my unique experience of the push and the pull, of what the attraction to and the partness of mean to me and to my unique gifts.  I can then consciously choose to be a part of the experience, to contribute myself.  I become a part of it, one with it.  When we each do that, we come together, we interact, and we create a stronger agreements field, through our conscious choice together.  We can co-host this experience together.  We can shift from I interact with the experience to we interact with the experience, and a much richer world can open up with us.

Push Me Pull Me: How We Experience Higher Dimensions

Sometimes I feel the strong radiance of the sun, or a beautiful performance, or just looking at the face of my wife and kids.  I experience this radiance coming out of them, like it is pushing its way to me, and I bask in its outward rays.

I also experience an attraction in these same experiences.  A desire to be closer, more connected in the experience.  I experience this attraction as a pull, like they are pulling me towards them.

A push I get.  A pull I get.  A push and a pull at the same time?  How can that be?  Mustn’t it be coming in or going out, pushing or pulling?

When I experience something that I am part of, I feel both its radiance, its vibrancy, and I feel its attraction–the desire to engage more deeply in it.  If I think of the essence of these experiences as geometries with higher dimensions, with dimensions that include my four-dimensional experience of it in space (3D) and time (1D) and dimensions that include the experience of energy, of deeper shared purpose, of reflection, of witnessing, of the creative process, then I am experiencing many more than four dimensions in the direct experience I am having.  I know this higher-dimensional experience, and I know the experience of the simultaneous push and pull.

Now, what if I try to make sense of this experience from my “normal” 3D or 4D world?  In lower dimensions, I feel apart from the higher dimensions.  They are not “here now” with me, in my four dimensions.  They feel like something else, out there.  I can see and touch the table in front of me or the face of my child.  I experience being with them over time.  Those other dimensions are not here right now in the same way.

Feeling separate from them, I feel the push from them and the pull to them.

And, when I simply sit in the higher-dimensional experience, I feel like a part of it–no push and no pull, rather one with.  So, maybe I experience the push from something and the pull towards it when I bring only the lower dimensions of the experience into my awareness.  When I bring the higher dimensions into my awareness, I feel at one with.  Not apart, rather a part.

Hat tip to BB for sparking this insight.

Too Much Resilience?

Can you have too much resilience?  It seems to depend on how you define your system.

To have energy resilience, in the form of calories available for your body, you need more calories available to you than you use.  That is the definition of resilience–the ability to continue to function when the environment changes.  You need to have enough calories available to burn in activities, given whatever activities that changes in the environment will require of you.  You can store those available calories inside or outside your body.  Inside your body, calories are basically stored as body fat.  To be more inside-body calorie-resilient, you need more body fat.  And, too much body fat, when you are out of calorie-balance, impedes proper body functions and leads to many diseases.  You can also store calories outside your body, in access to food.  To be more outside-body calorie-resilient, you need more access to food.  Since food goes bad quickly, you need access to continuously-replenishable food sources.  We do this by spending more time on getting food, having more people work on getting food, or by having more preserved food available.  It takes energy, the burning of calories, to increase calorie-resilience, whether we store the energy inside or outside our bodies.  And this increased use of calorie-energy for accessing the calories leads to the requirement for even more access to calories.

To have energy resilience, in the form of creativity available to do work, you need more human creative energy available to you than you use.  I am currently working on a model of human creative energy, which I call Homo lumens, where humans are beings of light energy, which comes straight from physics.  One challenge with energy resilience in human creativity is that the creative energy seems to dissipate very quickly.  We seem to have a creative moment, whether thinking of new possibilities, answering a question, or seeing how to apply a screwdriver to a screw.  They all take an instant of human creativity, of lumens.  To be resilient, we need to have enough lumens being generated to use in all of the required applications.  If this creative energy dissipates quickly, then essentially all of the lumens energy generated goes either into a specific activity or it is dissipated, used in some other way.  Following this logic, having more creative energy generated than is engaged in specific activities leads to more creative energy being dissipated.  This is inefficient.  Putting more energy into the system with the same output is less efficient, a waste of creative energy.  This probably leads to burnout, to people being disengaged or otherwise-engaged.

Energy resilience, whether in calories or lumens, seems to lead to a question of resilience versus efficiency.  Since both calories and lumens dissipate relatively quickly, we need to have constant access to them.  The activity of accessing them requires even more access to energy sources.  Having access to more than we need becomes inefficient.  We spend energy accessing energy that will dissipate before we can use it–wasted food, wasted creativity.  Not very smart.  Not having access to enough leads to low resilience, the inability to continue to function when the environment changes.  Not very smart either.  This suggests that to be smart, we have to figure out how to increase our access to energy, whether calories or lumens, without increasing the energy used to access it or losing lots of energy to dissipation.  One way to do that is by increasing the ability to access and tangibilize the potential energy available, without expending much more energy.  Until we need the energy, it remains in its potential form.  When we need it, we tangibilize it.  I explore how to do this, through our agreements fields, in a previous post.

Weak and Strong Agreements Fields

Agreements Fields.  Fields are systems where people interact, where there is a coherence that holds those interactions together.  An agreements field then is the coherent capacity of interactions to tangibilize the potential energy available in those interactions.  Experience seems to show that people experience weak agreements fields and strong agreements fields, which is supported by Agreements Health Check survey responses from 124 countries.

Weak Agreements Fields. When agreements fields are weak, we experience little capacity to making something with the available potential energy.  Though we might see the potential in individuals and in the group, our agreements make it hard to work with that potential: we tend to focus more on getting the required outcomes, and much less on developing capacities and relationships or on seeing and engaging potential.  To be responsible to the resilience of the group’s efforts, in weak agreements fields, we tend to try to increase resilience by increasing the flexibility of our capacity to get people to do work–our resource of human bodies.  From this perspective, we need to be able to scale up and down the number of human bodies available to do work.  When we need more output, we contract more bodies, and when we need less output, we contract fewer bodies.  We can do this more efficiently by contracting that pool of labor–bodies to do work–and keeping investment in their training and benefits low.  This leads us to focus on having flexible financial capital to be able to scale the number of contracted bodies available.  Does the liquidity of this flexibility of capital reduce the return on investment, since it needs to be more readily available?

Strong Agreements Fields. When agreements fields are strong, we experience a high capacity to tangibilize the potential energy available in our interactions, by definition.  We see potential, pathways to manifest that potential, and we use the outcomes of those pathways as feedback about the potential and pathways we saw.  In strong agreements fields, we seem to increase resilience by increasing the capacity of our interactions to leverage our inputs, by working with the reenforcing and balancing feedback loops in our interactions and in the viral nature of our social networks.  We study our interactions to find leverage through the nature of social systems.  This allows us to scale efficiency, achieving much greater outputs with the same inputs, the same number of people with the same level of financial capital.  By keeping the same people, we want to invest in their capacities and their benefits.  This leads us to focus on being more strategic, more systemic, and more collaborative, as a way to engage and learn from the potential energy available to us in the strong agreements field.

If agreements fields have within them the capacity to tangibilize the potential energy available in the individuals present and in their interactions, strong agreements fields seem to engage our intention and our attention–what we do for what reasons and what we focus on–in very different ways than do weak agreements fields.  I am curious what you find in these two different settings.