Even in the most difficult of contexts, humans are full of potential, which we can choose to engage — this podcast, The 100 Types of Humans, with barrister Dexter Dias QC and broadcaster Nihal Arthanayake explores the depths of what is real now and what can also be real now, in very difficult situations — it is a choice.
Work. A word people use a lot, which means different things. Maybe they are different. In worker-employer relations, work is the labor power–the work done per unit of time–that the laborer sells to the employer, who applies that work to getting something done. In thermodynamics, work is the amount of energy transferred from one system to another. In physics, work is the application of a force over a distance, transferring energy from one place to another, or one form to another. The word “work” comes from the PIE *werg-o-, suffixed form of root *werg- “to do.” Maybe they aren’t different. The common thread of these perspectives then might be work as doing something, setting something in motion. That seems straightforward. We work.
Work is measured in energy terms. Compensation is measured in energy terms. Common terms for measuring energy include metric joules, British Thermal Units, kilowatt-hours, and calories. This suggests that work is measured in the energy we bring to the labor we apply over a period of time, measured in some form of joules or calories. The word calorie comes from the Latin calor for heat. We give our calorie energy to our employer’s activity in exchange for money with which we pay for the calories that nourish us (food) or for the protection from excessive waste of our heat energy (shelter and clothing), which are both defined as our basic human needs.
It is nice when work is pleasant and engaging, though recent global surveys show that work is not pleasant for most people. Maybe part of the reason so many people around the world are disengaged at work is because of the way we define the very activity. Maybe the problem is that it is seen as work. The labor contract pays me for my work, my energy, my calories applied for a period of time. What if, instead, we saw that I was invited to contribute my creative expression towards a deeper shared purpose, integrating my head (thoughts), heart (passions and relationships), and hands (will, intention, and action). The unit of measure might then be the creative energy that flows through and from me–lumens–the light we see in the creativity of another’s expression. These recommended readings explore this other worldview, where creative people most express their talents in the form of energy when fully engaged in spaces of trust.
Expressing lumens energy in terms of calorie energy, to make it easier for business leaders to apply, management consultants Michael Mankins and Eric Garton find that, “talented people show up for work every day, but then something happens and they can’t get as much done as they believe they could or should. We think of that something as organizational drag, a collection of institutional factors that interfere with productivity yet somehow go unaddressed. Organizational drag slows things down, decreasing output and raising costs. Organizational drag saps energy and drains the human spirit…While the level varies, nearly every company we’ve studied loses a significant portion of its workforce’s productive capacity to drag” (p12).
Psychologist Jim Loehr and journalist Tony Schwartz suggest that, “The ultimate measure of our lives is not how much time we spend on the planet, but rather how much energy we invest in the time that we have…We have far more control over our energy than we ordinarily realize. The number of hours in a day is fixed, but the quantity and quality of energy available to us is not. It is our most precious resource. The more we take responsibility for the energy we bring to the world, the more empowered and productive we become…Human beings are complex energy systems, and full engagement is not simply one-dimensional…To be fully engaged, we must be physically energized, emotionally connected, mentally focus and spiritually aligned with a purpose beyond our immediate self-interest” (pp4,5,9).
Neureconomist Paul J. Zak finds that, “Managing people as human resources to be exploited for maximum gain produced workplaces that confirmed economists’ claims that work provides disutility. Or, in the vernacular: Work is a drag. Except sometimes it wasn’t. There are organizations in which employees love what they do, where they are satisfied professionally and personally by their work…You have humans at work, not machines…It turns out that both trust and purpose activate regions of the brain that motivate cooperation with others, reinforcing behaviors essential to meeting organizational goals…Trust acts as an economic lubricant, reducing the frictions inherent in economic activity” (pp4,5, 10,11). “A Deloitte/Harris Poll shows there is a serious worldwide Purpose deficit. Sixty-eight percent of employees and 66 percent of executives said that their organizations do little to create a culture of Purpose” (p175).
While we would prefer to spend our time in great places to work than being disengaged in awful places to work, it seems that we would far prefer to fully engage our creativity in spaces of trust, great spaces to shine. Which do you prefer? It is a choice.
Tashiro, Ty. Awkward: The Science of Why We’re Socially Awkward and Why That’s Awesome. New York: William Morrow, 2017. Read an excerpt of Chapter 1 here.
When it is appropriate, most people like being seen. Seen for who they are, for what they contribute, and for their creativity. Appropriateness depends on the context. In contexts of trust and support, people tend to like to be noticed and supported. This seems obvious. And, in many situations, people do not experience being seen. They are disconnected from others in those contexts. Recent global surveys seem to indicate that where people spend most of their time, at work, is one of those contexts where many people experience not being seen. What is the cost to creativity, to innovation, to organizational resilience and impacts when people are not seen?
To experience being seen, someone else has to be doing the seeing. What capacities are required for this seeing of another? What happens when people lack these capacities or fail to use them in specific contexts, like at work? In his recent book on awkwardness, psychologist Ty Tashiro explores the world of empathy, those who lack capacities for seeing another, and how the particular ways that they look at the world bring other gifts.
The World of Empathy. “Empathy is defined as the ability to understand another person’s emotional state and to deliver an appropriate response” (p71). To be seen is to be in relationship, a basic need of humans. Research finds that “humans’ psychological drive to maintain a few gratifying relationships was as fundamental as physical needs such as food and water…When we satiate our need to belong we feel a surge of positive emotion…The strongest predictor of happiness is not our job, income, or attaining our fitness goals, but rather the presence of gratifying social relationships…People with gratifying interpersonal relationships have better physical health and longer life expectancies” (pp9-10).
Specific contexts, and the ways that we agree to enter them, are making many of us more awkward. That we are always plugged into our devices, completely oblivious to what is happening around us, we become socially awkward, in a high percentage of the interactions we have with others.
The Costs of Empathic Inaccuracy. Empathic accuracy is the agreement between (a) what you think another person is thinking and feeling and (b) what they are actually thinking and feeling. How well are you perceiving what is actually happening in the other person? This is a critical capacity for being able to interact with others, to seeing and inviting their unique contributions, to being able to collaborate on creating something unique together. The lack of empathic accuracy leads to the costs of empathic inaccuracy. When we ignore others or talk at them, we have no idea what is actually happening inside of them. When this happens, none of their FREEE energy is being engaged towards the purpose we are inviting them into. Despite the obviousness of this, most people in most processes in most interactions seem not to do this. It requires curiosity, inquiring into the other, which most people, especially at work, seem not to do. The costs of this are huge. The potential energy that is always there does not engage. People get exhausted, contributing nothing. The lack of innovation and learning decreases resilience and increases the likelihood of becoming obsolete. The problem, and the resulting costs, do not seem to be a problem with the individuals, per se, rather with the ways people consciously choose or unconsciously accept to interact–the rules of the game, the agreements field they interact in with others. This is the good news, because we can agree to change our agreements much more easily than we can agree to change the basic nature of who we are and how we function as individuals.
Other Gifts. While social awkwardness seems to be increasing rapidly, and its costs are huge, we should not be too quick to judge all awkwardness. Some types of awkwardness bring other skills. “If you think about the vibe that characterizes your interactions with awkward people, there is often an agitated energy that underlies the interaction, which can make them appear nervous, irritated, or generally upset. But if you view the awkward person as someone who is experiencing the interaction as particularly intense, then the unusual vibe they give off starts to make more sense…Avoiding eye contact helps them avoid the strong emotional cues conveyed by faces and especially the eye region” (p75). This type of awkwardness results from a high capacity to focus, on very specific, reduced sets of information. One term for this is “localized processing style, which describes people who tend to narrowly focus on some of the trees rather than the entire forrest. When people are disposed to a localized processing style, they tend to create social narratives that feel fragmented and incomplete…Although awkward people are missing important social information that falls outside of their narrow aperture, what they do see is brilliantly illuminated and this gives them a deep nuanced perspective about things that no one else takes the time to notice. The parts of the world they can see are seen with remarkable clarity. They become experts in all things stage left and their clear, focused view on their specialized interests give them a unique view of that part of the world” (pp21-22).
Whether the social awkwardness we might experience in ourselves or in others is due to the way the person is or to the way we agree to interact, greater empathic accuracy can help us. More accurately interpreting what is happening in the other person’s thinking and feeling has great benefits in both cases, and it greatly reduces the costs of empathic inaccuracy. It is a choice.
Looking back on 2018, there were two insights that changed how I see everything. First, everything we need, for that which is in front of us to do, is already right here, available right now. Second, the people who are figuring this out are no longer just the lucky, weird few; there are lots of them everywhere.
FREEE energy is everywhere. The energy we need to do whatever we can imagine is right here right now, right in front of us, and it is FREEE. The amount of energy each human being releases in any given moment is huge, and our current forms of engaging it are very weak. They don’t have to be. We can learn from social experimenters who are learning how to engage people in purposes and processes, consciously choosing collaborative agreements that release this massive energy available, transforming it and transferring it into a far greater impact with far greater resilience. It just depends on what you give your energy to. The tools of pactoecography let us see this energy, where it is, how it is released, how it is transformed, and how it is transferred.
Positive ecosynomic deviants are no longer deviants. They are now normal. 15 years ago I was able to find only a few, seemingly rare groups that were working with abundance-based principles for how they approached life and the impact they wanted to have together. Today I see them everywhere, and lots of people are talking about them. I will be co-investing in 2019 with the Global Pactoecographic Collaborative to map the social topography of the planet, through the Global Initiative to Map Ecosynomic Deviance and Impact Resilience. We know about the topography of the Earth’s geology and biology: now it’s time to understand the topology of human agreements. What do they look like around the world, at their best and at their normal? Where can we learn from deep and successful human experimentation in healthy agreements? Let’s see.
We have the energy we need, and lots of people are figuring this out. Let’s get with it.
All the energy you need, for whatever you are doing, is Forever Right-there in Everyone Everywhere Everyday (FREEE). [It is free, with an extra “e” thrown in, at no extra cost.] It is all there. If you engage it, you use it towards the purpose you invited it to serve. If you don’t engage it, you lose it, usually at great cost to yourself. Engaged energy is FREEE, lost energy is not. Lost energy comes with a cost.
This is the exact opposite of what we are usually taught. We are told that it costs something to use energy, and that not using it costs nothing. Let’s see. You already have the people in the room. You have invited these people to work with you–to co-ordinate, co-operate or co-llaborate–towards a deeper purpose that you want them to share. The ones who are there with you showed up. Each person generates massive, seemingly infinite, energy, on any scale we can see. They generate this energy by their existence, whether you engage it or not. Now you need to engage that energy. How you engage it and how much of it you engage depend on the agreements field you have generated. Weak agreements fields engage very little of the energy available. Strong agreements fields engage much of the energy available. The point is that you are completely responsible for the use or loss of this energy, as well as the benefits or costs that come with it.
There is a massive cost to not engaging that energy. The law of the conservation of energy, aka the first law of thermodynamics, applies here as well. You have to account for all of the energy generated. It has to go somewhere. Purposeful energy, that which humans generate continuously, goes to one of three purposes: (1) the invited purpose; (2) another purpose; or (3) self-preservation. Analogously, the energy will go into the invited activity, diffused towards other activities, or dissipated as heat. The energy generated by the people in the room that is not engaged towards the invited purpose has high costs.
If the energy is diffused towards other activities with other purposes, it disengages the people present, which recent, global studies have shown to be very expensive. They are not actively engaged in the activity, the purpose, for which you invited them. Just because they are in the room physically, does not mean that their energy is serving your purpose. They are thinking about something else. And, that is for the diffused energy towards another purpose. The energy that is dissipated as heat comes from those in the room who are trying to serve your invited purpose, or their own, and yet the agreements field you generated does not allow either form, yours or theirs, to engage in a healthy way. This ends up in dissipated heat, which serves as self-preservation, which can be very destructive. You know this form of energy loss as burnout, fatigue, distress, active disengagement. It comes with huge costs, such as the costs of turnover and presenteeism.
So, there are no extra costs to engage the energy available in the room, and there are huge costs to not engaging it. The difference between engaging it and not engaging it is a function of the agreements field you have generated. There are 8 guiding principles for the strength of an agreements field. While each principle, on its own, is relatively straightforward, strong agreements fields require all 8.
- Is the deeper shared purpose clear and inviting?
- Are the people invited into the room clear about and continuously connected to the deeper purpose? Is it consciously shared on a continuous basis?
- Is it clear to each individual why they and everyone else is in the room? Why their individual contribution is unique and important in the service of the deeper purpose?
- Is each person clear on their experience of this relationship to their own self, to the other, to the group, to the creative process, and to the creative source?
- Do the group’s collective agreements consciously invite, acknowledge, and engage the potential, development, and outcomes available to the group?
- Does the system they work in leverage the efficiency of their direct actions, the effectiveness of the feedback dynamics they interact with, and the coordination of those different dynamics towards the deeper purpose?
- Are the agreements, that are embedded in the impact they generate for other stakeholders, agreements that the stakeholders want to and capable of engaging with?
- Does the system have the capacity to engage the amount of energy it needs to generate its desired impact, towards its deeper purpose?
All the energy you need is already available, right there in the people who are already there with you. As Einstein showed over 100 years ago, the amount of energy in a very small amount of matter is far more than we typically understand. The energy is there, in potential. You just have to learn to work with it. And, if you bring it in the room, it is there, and you have to account for it. Use it or lose it, to your own benefit or detriment. The only thing that is not cost-free is not using it once it is there. Said another way, it costs you greatly to not use it. How to use it is well understood and easy to do, as millions of people demonstrate every day, everywhere around the planet.
Hygge. Danish for something cozy, charming, or special. It is also the art of creating intimacy. Author Helen Russell explores how hygge might be one of the secrets of Denmark’s perennial position in the top ranks of the happiest countries. To understand her experience, over a year-long journey of living in Denmark, she shares many funny anecdotes of her daily life, and she uses her journalistic skills to meet and interview Danish experts in the many aspects of daily life that she explores.
She uncovers widespread attention to the environment one creates in one’s home, to being comfortable on one’s own, to being honest with and supportive of others, to respecting and supporting the many contributions people can make to society, to the creative process and getting feedback about what one is learning, and to celebrating the creativity that is everywhere, if one looks. In ecosynomics terms, these are co-hosting the five primary relationships. The global Agreements Health Check survey (from 124 countries) shows that as people get better at co-hosting the five primary relationships, they experience greater vibrancy, more hygge. I highly recommend this fun, well written discovery of the secrets of living vibrantly every day, even where it is very cold.
What is a human being? What does it mean to be a human being? How do we know? How do we know when human actions are good, beautiful, or true? Big questions. Questions the answers to which guide what human beings do–everyone, everywhere, everyday–whether they are aware of this guidance or not. If these questions so deeply and continuously impact everything, maybe it would be good to be aware of what they are, who is asking then, what answers people are coming up with, and how those answers impact each of us. Maybe.
The above books, in chronological order, provided a highly recommended excursion through the development of a way of looking at these big questions. In his political philosophy, Locke provides an early view, in the 1600s, of human beings capable of making healthy decisions on their own, without divine guidance from the king or church. Locke’s Essay provides the moral-philosophical foundations of this view of the human being–what a human is, how humans understand the world, and how this knowledge influences what humans are capable of deciding.
Kant provides a very logical structure, in the 1700s, for understanding what a human being should do, based on reason, an expression at the end of the age of enlightenment, furthering the idea that human beings are completely capable of developing their own moral philosophy. Kant explores, through reason, the emerging terms of freedom, the rights and duties of people and of the state, and their relationship to the law.
Lewin applies the emerging concepts of energy fields and topology in the early 1900s to the behavior of human beings, finding that there is both the inner experience and an outer structure or environment, which mutually influence each other, and, to a great part, influence the behavior of the human being. The human being has its own internal processes and is influenced by and influences its external environment, a region around it, and this interplay influences the human’s behavior. This takes the purely rational human or the purely influenced human and blends them.
Bauman in the new millennium brings the fluid nature of reality into the question of what humans are and what they are capable of, finding that both the descriptions of humans and the structures that support them are based on static, stable frameworks, whereas reality is fluid, and so should be the understanding of humanity and structures of the individual, work and the community.
Bartow brings back the questions of long ago to today, developing a picture of the human as the natural manifestation of spirit, conscious and unconscious of the reality the human being interacts with and as part of. This framework blends what is known from modern science and the wisdom traditions about what makes up reality and the role of human beings in it.
Building on the foundations placed by the lines of this evolution of thought about human beings, we are developing today a picture of the human being, of Homo lumens, as a being full of potential, a potential that the human being can choose to manifest. Homo lumens experiences value in life through the vibrancy of five primary relationships (self, other, group, nature, spirit). We know this from our own experience. We can also see, from our own experience, which we can validate with external evidence, how well our agreements support the experience and outcomes we want from our efforts together. We see that most of these choices are unconsciously accepted, and they can be more consciously chosen. The start of a moral philosophy based on the abundance of potential in humans and nature, towards a more vibrant experience in more harmonic interactions that lead to far more interesting experiences and far more impactful and resilient social forms.
While these are challenging reads, they are well worth the effort, to see where we have come from in our understanding of being human, where we are now, and where we might be heading. Honing our axiology of what we are, and how we can live the life available to us.
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.
Two sayings. One recent. One very old. Just be yourself. Know thyself. While some people might be referring to the same thing with both of these statements, most people intend very different worlds, processes, experiences, and outcomes with these two sayings.
Is this psychobabble or relevant in everyday life? I suggest that choices are being made for you in every instant of your life. I also suggest that you are not involved consciously in most of those choices. Choices that greatly affect your life. And, you could be. One way of looking at this is, who is choosing. Thus, the two sayings. Just be your self, and know thyself.
This kind of “just” statement–just be yourself–means only or nothing but. You only need to be yourself. Nothing but yourself. Just be you, in whatever comes out. If you are thinking, just be yourself. If you are feeling, just be yourself. If you are following your gut, your intuition, just be yourself. No worries, just be yourself. That is one way of looking at it, at being your self.
Know thyself, expressed in the Ancient Greek as gnōthi seauton (γνῶθι σεαυτόν), means to know your whole self, which includes your thinking, your feeling, your willing, your lower self in waking consciousness, your higher self in your soul, and your highest self in the I AM. The task of know thyself is to integrate these different dimensions of your self into one whole knowing, self-aware here now.
We can expand on the description of the “know thyself” task, using the three ecosynomic levels of perceived reality (light, verb, noun). At the noun level, we only perceive outcomes. What we can pay attention to in this instant of what we perceive through our senses. At this noun level, we see only the capacities we have in this instant, the capacities that are already finished, already here now. This self contains what is already finished in our lives, what we have already created and manifested. These capacities are amazing, and that we are able to manifest them in this reality is even more amazing. These are our sacred nouns, the marvel of everything the universe needed to do to have that much energy hold those capacities together right here right now in the way they do. While what it took to get to this instant is amazing, there are no choices for us, as this instant is already finished. The choices were already made. All ways always. That is what we see of our self, when we focus at the noun level.
At the verb-noun level, we perceive the development of capacities and relationships, and we perceive the outcomes of that development. Both development and outcomes, verb and noun. This self contains what is becoming and what is already finished, what we are creating and what is already created. What is changing over time, and what is also in this instant. What we are learning and what we already know. At this verb-noun level, choices enter. We can choose how we develop these relationships and capacities. We can learn from what we observe in this instance of the noun, and we can choose to alter the verb. At the verb-noun level of our self, we experience our becoming and our already finished.
At the light-verb-noun level, we perceive the potential, the development of that potential, and the outcomes of that development. Potential, development, and outcomes. Light, verb, and noun. This self contains what is in beingness, becoming, and already finished. The potential to create, what we are creating, and the already created. The infinite energy in potential, the energy being used to manifest the potential, and the capacity present in the already finished, the outcome. We can choose what potential we see, what potential we bring into existence and begin to manifest, and what we learn from the feedback presented as the sacred noun, the outcome. What we could learn, what we are learning, and what we already know. At the light-verb-noun level of our self, we experience our potential, our becoming, and our already finished. All three levels are always available to us in all ways.
In addition to the three levels of perceived reality, we also experience our self through different dimensions of reality. In earlier explorations of our multi-dimensional reality, we saw that physicists to philosophers suggest that maybe we live in and are made up of many more dimensions of reality than the three we are most accustomed to–length, width, depth. My current research explores what it would mean for us human beings to be made up of these dimensions: how being constituted that way affects the choices available to us. One way to see this is to play with our human capacities of thinking, feeling, and willing. What if the thinking capacity is a reflector, where the light inputs of our senses have a surface to reflect off of, so that they can be perceived. [Remember, we don’t see light directly, it is passing by all of the time invisibly; we perceive the reflection of light off of something.] The feeling is the witness that observes what is reflected off of the reflector. The willing is the chooser, engaging our body in action.
If our self is purely in our thinking, engrossed in a feedback loop amongst our own thoughts, then our attention is only in the reflections of our reflector, without the witness (feeling) or the chooser (willing). We get stuck in our thoughts, oblivious to what is happening in this world, until we “come out of it.”
If our self is purely in our feeling, witnessing our witnessing, we get caught in the infinite spiraling up and down in our emotions, our witnessing of witnessing. While we are purely in our being present with what is emerging, the only emerging we are presencing is our witnessing. Again, we are lost in the world of our witnessing, oblivious to the reflector’s sensory perceptions of what is happening and to the chooser’s choices engaging our will.
And, if our self is purely in our willing, with the chooser, then we are following our gut, which means that it–our gut, our intuition–is leading: we are not. We can put our awareness in our chooser, in our willing, our gut, and watch it being chosen for us, oblivious to our reflector and to our witness.
Another option is to put our awareness in the simultaneous integration of all three. What our reflector is showing us about what is being perceived through our senses, what our witness observes from the reflector and from what is being chosen in the will, and how that aligns with our deeper purpose, then consciously choosing how we want to manifest, from the potential, into the context we perceive from our reflector, into the choices being made in our willing. Through this integrating process, we can align our reflector thinking, our witness feeling, and our chooser willing with our self that is perceiving the environment we are in right here right now, with our higher self that guides our deeper purpose toward the future we love and to which we give our will, with our highest self that guides our service in the unique contribution we are uniquely constituted and contextualized to make.
Coming back to where I started, “just be yourself” leaves completely open the question of which self. The invocation to “just” might lead me to pay attention to any one of the many dimensions of the self we explored above. “Know thyself” invites me to bring my awareness to all of these dimensions at the same time, which I can do, because they are all me. My self. The trinity of me, myself, and I. Always all ways. All in one. So, the next time you make a choice, who is making it?
As Homo lumens, a being of light, you know when you experience being alive. You experience many dimensions of aliveness. Energy, attraction to something, your senses, reflections on what you are perceiving, potentials, activities, outcomes, choices, physicality in 3 dimensions (breadth, width, depth), groups, others, your own self. You experience all of this. And, you are unique in what you experience and in how you experience it.
You are uniquely contextualized. You are the only human being that can be in the exact place where you find yourself in space and time. Nobody else can be in the exact same space at the exact same time. So, everyone else is in a different space at any given time, or in a different time in any given space, therefore their experience, their perspective, on any experience is different, even if only a little bit. You are also the only human that has grown up with the exact set of experiences you have had. Nobody else has had the same whole set of exact experiences you have had. This chain of experiences has influenced your context. Your contextualized experience throughout life is unique.
You are uniquely constituted. You are the only human being that was born to the parents you were with the exact genetic code that you have, which has expressed in the particular way your genetic code has. Even identical twins have different experiences, which cause different expressions of the genetic code to show up over time. You are uniquely constituted, with different gifts, developed capacities, potentials, and learning opportunities.
Since you and I are each uniquely constituted and uniquely contextualized, I cannot be having the same experience that you are having. They are different experiences. Different in what I see in the experiences. Different in how I relate them to elements in my lived context. Different in what I can do with them. Not at all like your experience. Ever.
Sometimes that our experiences are different is irrelevant. That your experience is different does not add to my experience. At the park, you experienced soaring with the eagles and smelled the pine trees, while I remembered making tunnels in the dirt in that same park as a kid. The difference does not matter.
Sometimes that our experiences are different is relevant. We work together, because you are creative, and so am I. That your experience is different does add to mine. In our conversation at the park, you were thinking of who to invite to dinner and games we could play. I was thinking about what we could eat, weaving in the food preferences of our guests. I need you to be different and relevant.
Since your experience is different than mine, there is only one way to know and benefit from the difference. I cannot directly experience your world. I can be with you in your world. I can ask you about your experience, and I can listen.