Who Are We

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, listening, facilitating, enabling this reiterative question's redundant possibilities remains 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 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 these scrabbling voices and creolizing hats and complex feelings and chaotic ideas and multiculturing beliefs co-occurring within one bilateral positive-health v. negative-pathology mindbody ecosystem, seeking Alpha/Omega Point zeroistic fullness holistic richness, poly-empathic polymorphic communication, design, development, co-empathic investment, and cooperative-integrative implementation outcomes at the end of this elephant's rhetorical event, 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, nutritional wealth platforms, designs and win/win intentions, co-mentoring therapeutic diapraxis, active multicultural listening 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 growing Earth pathology is bicamerally euphemized eulogized as inevitable climate "change"? We say we support cooperatively vibrant healthy local economies cultures good humors and empowering political vitality, so does it bother you, as it does me, to so often hear "either-or" deductive left-brain dominant reductivism and wonder why not first cooperatively consider ecofeminist "both-and?" I appreciate what you just said, and I wonder if adding X, and even Y, and maybe even YY=XY, might make your idea even better. Do you agree, or maybe you see concerns for yourself and/or others new to me, of which we might more curiously learn together? Could a cooperative election, a vacation from judging and blaming and shaming, a social-neurological peace revolution campaign, begin with compiling interdependent win/win hopes and wishes and loves of Who Are You? and Me? as We? Thereby more smoothly avoiding win/lose stuckness-traps of fear and anger and dissonant pathological constipation non-outcomes. Could investing both-and cooperative listening norms better lead toward co-investing in healthy wealth, politically co-empowering policies, procedural and dialogical compassion transparency, polyculturally healthy design and development and wealthy discernment of poli-eco-logical therapy v. multi-morphic climate pathology? Could deep cooperative listening co-arise local through global health outcome networks, climax ecstasy as mere everyday eco-normativity, embracing each and every sacred Person A and B response to Who are We?