Who Are You

In the Work That Reconnects, we have a dialogue exercise in which Person A asks Person B "Who are you?" several times over a few minutes, as it feels right to reprime this exploratory pump; then person B does the same for person A. The person hosting, facilitating, enabling this reiterative question's redundant possibilities is merely an echo-present listener, noticing diversity within these multiple evolving responses, without judging good, bad, ugly, or even indifferent, quietly hearing rhythms of longing for love between the crippling cracks of anger and fear, compelling and compiling self with other hatred, pathology. The question, Do all these diverse self-descriptions truly fit this same love v. anger-fear polyculturing elephant? does not usually arise. Rather, we accept all these scrabbling voices and hats and feelings and ideas and beliefs co-occurring within one bilateral positive-health v. negative-pathology mindbody ecosystem, seeking diastatic fullness richness, poly-empathic polymorphic communication, design, development, co-empathic investment, and cooperative-integrative implementation outcomes, at the end of this elephant's rhetorical day, if not sooner. Why is this not always the case when we ask our friends and families, our public sector leaders and financial sector investors, "Who do you hope we are becoming?" What loves are we preparing to invest in and which past angers and future fears to divest of? What indicators can I give that I already invest in cooperatively regenerate health agendas, platforms, designs and intentions, co-mentoring therapeutic diapraxis of which I preach so positively to others? I know you support restoring regenerative health to our soil and preserving clean water, as I do. So does it bother you, as it does me, that we still contaminate our water with poo and pee instead of investing in nutrition-starved soil, where both could be positive resources countering past neglect and abuse, rather than doubly-negative pathology? We say we support cooperatively vibrant and healthy local economies and empowering political vitality, so does it bother you, as it does me, to so often hear "either-or" deductive reductivism and wonder why not first cooperatively consider "both-and?" I appreciate what you just said and I wonder if adding X might make your idea even better. Do you agree, or maybe you see concerns for yourself and others new to me, of which we might learn together? Could a cooperative election or social change campaign begin with compiling interdependent hopes and wishes and loves of Who Are You? thereby more smoothly avoiding stuckness-traps of fear and anger and dissonant pathological constipative outcomes. Could investing both-and cooperative communication norms better lead toward co-investing in healthy wealth, politically strong-embraced policies, procedural and dialogical transparency, polyculturally inclusive design and development and discernment of poli-eco-logical therapy v. multi-morphic pathology; co-arise local through global health outcome networks, diastatic eco-normativity, embracing each and every sacred Person A and B response to Who are we?