Transformative Organization of Human Interactions through Light-Verb-Noun Levels

You can now see how, in the figure below, that when you see organizing at the light level, you experience collaboration towards the highest harmonic vibrancy available within the group.  Working with the harmonic vibrancy is supported by “inspirited” structures that simultaneously support all five primary relationships.  When you filter out possibility, from the light level of organizing, you ground the harmonic vibrancy in specific opportunities for cooperative development and relationship building, at the verb level of organizing.  This is supported by structures focused on each group’s charter.  When you filter out time, from the verb level of organizing, you find the overlapping needs of individuals in the here and now, at the noun level of organizing.  This is supported by competition among incorporated structures focused on the needs of each group.



This highlights the insights gained over the past century at the light, verb, and noun levels of organizing, and how they interweave.  At this stage of human evolution, people want to learn how to work with all three levels simultaneously, transforming the infinite abundance of the light level of organizing to the experience of abundance at the verb level and sufficiency at the noun level of organizing.  This way people can experience the greater harmonic available by integrating all three levels, as in the figure below.



Implications for previous agreements

In the course of your life, you engage in organizing your interactions with others at the light, verb, and noun levels.  What you do at each level is very different.  How you see the potential in individuals and in the group, at the light level, is completely different than the development and relationships at the verb level.  Both of these are quite different than the contracting at the noun level.  You have also seen how collaboration is completely different from cooperative-competition and competition.  You know this, from your own experience.  What you know can change the agreements you make when you organize.

Most agreements today around how you organize your interactions start with the concept of contracting.  This belief focuses on the noun level of organizing.  Through contracts you agree on everything, from how much you pay for your phone and electric bill to your jobs to the taxes you pay and the price you pay for a banana at the grocery store.  These are all contractual agreements you enter, whether you are aware of them or not.  This is noun thinking, and it seems to work well.  Nonetheless, it does not include the verb and light levels of organizing.  Not integrating the verb and light levels of organizing decreases the group’s ability to attract higher potential people and bring in higher potential relationships, increasing duplication of efforts, decreasing the health of the work environment, and decreasing the group’s intellectual and social capital.  Fortunately, you have also seen that people are very comfortable organizing at all three levels, making it possible to shift the organizing agreements you enter.

An April 2011 article in the leading business magazine Forbes, whose motto is being “the capitalist’s tool,” highlights the predominance of the “obvious” noun-level approach to people, stating that, “the only three true job interview questions are: (1) can you do the job; (2) will you love the job; (3) can we tolerate working with you?  These look at (the candidates) strengths, motivation, and fit.”[1]

It is also clear that the movement from light to verb to noun levels of organizing leads to different results than the other way around.  Starting with a noun-level understanding of organizing, with scarcity driving contracts and an environment of competition, it is very difficult to add time and relationship to get to alliances and cooperation.  It is even more difficult to add possibility to arrive at expansive invitations and a collaborative environment.  Starting from the other end though is straightforward.  From light, you start with the assumption of infinite possibility, choosing to manifest specific verbs, which will meet in particular ways to become nouns here and now to address specific needs you choose – all from abundance.  In a space of expansive invitation and collaboration, you can choose flows where you enter cooperative alliances around specific developmental flows and relationships.  Within the cooperative flows, you can agree to very specific and concrete terms under which specific needs are met.  Both processes work with the interweaving of light, verb, and noun levels of organizing, and arrive at completely different experiences of what is possible.  The other goods news is that people around the globe are understanding this.  In the process, they are innovating many new organizing forms for working with abundance-based agreements, including new forms of the inspirited, chartered, and incorporated organizations (see figure below).  The framework of ecosynomics provides a light for identifying these people and learning from their experience.

Connection to big questions for value and resources

The big questions around organizing looked at why people organize in the first place, how to increase efficiency through agreements, and the specific structures and incentives to support these agreements.  As you explore these organizing questions, it becomes clear that the potential you see in people are the very resources the group wants to develop, as are the relationships they have.  You also see that the motivation for organizing a group and for contributing to that group are best expressed in terms of the value exchanged between the individual and the group.  Thus, the questions of organizing clearly interweave with those of value and resources.


[1] In this article, George Bradt interviews leading experts in executive recruitment (Bradt, 2011).


Agreements on “How the Relationships Interact”

4th of 5 posts on “Lenses for Seeing Agreements”

A third question now arises, asking how, through the agreements we make, the abundance and vibrancy questions interact with each other, the five relationships, and the three levels of perceived reality.  How do the agreements address all three levels of reality, for you, me, us, nature, and spirit?  Do they?  This organizing question connects the experience of relationships and realities to the experience of harmony.  As I shared the conversations I have been in with hundreds of people over the past two years, I told you how people clearly preferred the experience of greater harmony.  This third question provides a lens for seeing how to bring in the harmonic.

These three questions (how much, what I experience, how the relationships interact), which naturally arise when looking at the five primary relationships in three levels of perceived reality, are lenses into the core building blocks of all agreements.  Economists call these lenses resources (how much), value (what I experience), and organization (how they interact).  Typically resources are seen as the inputs to the production process, which people organize their work together to produce into a product or service that someone else values, as shown in the figure below.  Theories about these building blocks and their application to human agreements have evolved over hundreds of years.[1]  Equating the three lenses to the three building blocks allows us to benefit from what many people have observed about agreements over many years.  Remembering that agreements are arrangements in relationships, and that eco-nomos means rules of relationship, there is much to learn from the centuries of development of these three building blocks.

Before I jump into what the three lenses show about agreements in more detail, in the next blog post, I want to point out a subtle shift that just happened.  As I showed in the figure above, the current thinking about the three building blocks – resources, organization, value – relates the building blocks linearly.  First resources come in, then people organize to transform them into something that, finally, others value.  One then the other then the other.  This framework greatly simplifies a great number of complexities, and it leads to dividing them up into separate fields of study.  While sophisticated theorists recognize their interdependencies, and sophisticated practitioners work with complex models that deal with these interdependencies, common use of these three building blocks separates them into distinct disciplines.  Common practice builds off of resource theories or organization theories or value theories, but rarely off all three together.  This makes seeing the agreements implicit in them very difficult.

Framing the questions as lenses on the same relationships makes the agreements visible.  It puts the agreements up front, instead of the lenses.  By equating these building blocks with the lenses of the three big questions, we see that they are different lenses on the same thing – the harmonic vibrancy experienced in the five primary relationships at three levels of perceived reality – and not three separate disciplines put together linearly.  I will say that another way.  The shift is from trying to figure out agreements buried in amongst three different disciplines (resources, organization, value) to having three different lenses on the same agreements.

The next post looks at the questions that emerge around the agreements we make within and across these three big questions of how much, what I experience, and how the relationships interact.

[1] For a multi-century history of economic theories of resources, organization, and value, see (Roncaglia, 2006).