Consciousness amplification instrument--opportunity to learn in San Jose, Bay area

Hello permies,

This instrument is really impossible to describe but I feel deeply helped by it, and it's free and open source.  The inventors are pretty insistent about spreading it slowly and in person, so if you're in the Bay area (San Francisco in California) or in San Jose then now is a time to learn it.  She's in the country for a few weeks all the way from Malta!

I've found myself more at peace with others' disagreement or difference of opinion, more hopeful about the results of my efforts toward being a responsible inhabit of the planet, and more aware of my body's communication with me.  It keeps going deeper each time I use it, and this after a 2000+-hour training in a body-mind discipline.  

It's not televised not even on the internet, just purple moosage me if you are interested in trying it out .

I posted it under "communication" though technically it's not a communication instrument, I've learned.  But it answers the desires I have for communicating with other people!!

In community,



Joshua

So a device, or an exercise? What are we talking about here?

-CK

I want to share the info for transparency but I don't expect this will be useful, not a good intro.  But you are completely free to experiment.

Materially, it consists of a round mirror in the center, a ball of strands (the 'voice'), a bell and stick, 2 pawns or rocks (the "trophies"), and a handkerchief/tissues for wiping tears.  The handkerchief says all emotions are welcome. Each item has a distinctly-shaped base to sit on also, for blind-accessibility.

Generally you need at least 4 players to play the instrument, and a maximum of 15 or so.

My version of the instructions (any inaccuracies are my responsibility and not of the inventors):

1 the main move is speech plus a mirroring back of what the person with the voice says.  The gesture to offer mirroring is a flat hand pointing toward the speaker.

2 you can interject, short, supportive, or clarifying-question interjections when the person holding the voice is speaking, by pointing two fingers at the ball.

3 if you are emotionally overwhelmed or triggered, you can pick up one of the trophies, and hand the voice ball to someone to facilitate you through your feelings.  They ask: what are you experiencing? And echo back what they hear; What are you feeling? and echo, et., What do you feel in your body? What does your breathing feel like?  And echo back and repeat the cycle of questions.  When you feel complete with the emotion, you put the trophy back. ( The second trophy is for a second person's need while a first person is using the first trophy)

4 the bell is for resonance or art; the ringer/stick is for silence (hold it up to pause the speech).


A feature that makes this permacultural is that it needs no electricity or hard-to-procure elements.  If you don't have a ball of strands, a fruit can substitute, anything soft, for example.  A bowl of water can be a mirror, or a puddle.  

Chris Kott wrote:So a device, or an exercise? What are we talking about here?

-CK

Good question.

Yes .  

Also, "accept feedback" (of nature and of humans' behavior) is a permaculture principle.  For me, this instrument really clarifies the feedback.  

Bill mollison said, in an interview,that as an anthropologist he studied what humans did, not what they said, and that informed his ideas.  I see this instrument as amplifying that feedback.  

My hope is that many people in the USA will try learning and experiencing this while we have the chance to learn it from one of the inventors.  If it's a dud, oh well, but she's here for a limited time, so if you can make time for it now please do!  If someone comes to mind who might be more inclined please pass this info on.  Thanks!

Has anyone tried to use this? any results to share?

I really think the group that's created the "consciousness amplification instrument" is the Wheaton Labs of community-creating tools.  It's at a higher level than the generic things.  

I would love to see a podcast interview with some of the inventors!

I would love to see the core group at the Lab experimenting with this instrument, for 5 sessions over the course of a few months, and reporting on their findings.

I believe this can go a long way to turning "comedy" into coordinated action.

I realize there are many things that lay claim to being the next big thing--this one has stood the test of time for me in still being compelling 3 months after I've learned about it, in being so dynamic and open-ended, and in being accessible to all.  And attending to the global and the local both.

My community has been substantively altered by using it.  I am able to listen ot people more and find the way to turn negative situations to positive much more rapdily in the moment, and to sense more quickly when I'm off track and wasting my breath or my time.  It's not made all problems go away, but there is a substnative shift and clear sense of potential for more.

In his podcasts on community/20 people under one roof, Paul's said this is the thorniest subject, the hardest to unravel.  I appreciate how Paul always finds such amazing and original thinkers and innovators in all different areas, and I believe the drL people's work is in a league with the best thinking in other areas like hugelkultur, earth-integrated shelter, rotational grazing, rocket mass heaters, etc.

I request mirroring back what I've said here.  Thank you.

Joshua Myrvaagnes wrote:I really think the group that's created the "consciousness amplification instrument" is the Wheaton Labs of community-creating tools.  It's at a higher level than the generic things.  

Are you saying that Wheaton Labs created this thing, whatever it is?

Thanks for the clarifying question.  

No, they are a group out in Malta who created the drL.  They're in the same league in their field as Wheaton labs is in its field.  

I'm going to post a new writeup on the directions for this, since I left out some pieces.  It's very important to me that this be available for all to use, regardless of whether they have money or not.



Again, is _my_ version of the instructions for what moves the players of the instrument can make, and some of the gestures (any inaccuracies are my responsibility and not of the inventors):

At least 4 players, and up to 20, play the instrument.

The elements are:
1. a ball of strands
2. a mirror
3. a bowl-style bell
4. a stick to ring the bell with
5. two "trophies"/pawns/stones
6. a flat heart-shaped stone for the ball to sit on
7. a triangle stone for the bell to sit on
8. a square stone for the trophies to sit on
9. and something to wipe away tears with (a box of tissues, for most Americans, or, more sustainably, a pile of handkerchiefs--it indicates that all emotions are welcome).

The mirror sits in the middle, it is the base of the instrument.  The other elements (ball, bell, and trophies) sit on their bases around the mirror, with the bases touching the mirror:


(bell)(mirror)(ball of strands)
       (trophies)


Gestures/moves:

1 The main move is speech; to speak, one player holds the ball of strands.  

1a. The other main move is mirroring back of what the person with the voice says.  The gesture to offer mirroring is a flat hand pointing toward the speaker.  If the speaker accepts mirroring, you say back to them what you heard them say, in your own words, while watching the speaker.  The speaker continues to hold the ball of strands throughout.

2 While that one player holds the ball of strands, any other player can interject, short, supportive, or clarifying-question interjections, by pointing two fingers (crossing your fingers) at the ball.

3 If you are emotionally overwhelmed or triggered, you can pick up one of the trophies, and hand the voice ball to someone to facilitate you through your feelings.  They ask: what are you experiencing? And echo back what they hear; What are you feeling? and echo, et., What do you feel in your body? What does your breathing feel like?  And echo back and repeat the cycle of questions.  When you feel complete with the emotion, you put the trophy back. (The second trophy is for a second person's need while a first person is using the first trophy)   The trophy is also for making a request of the group.

4 The bell is for strong resonance with something someone has said, or for artistic expression/nonverbal expression; the ringer/stick is for silence (hold it up to pause the speech).

5 Lastly, the mirror sits in the middle of the instrument, a constant and visceral reminder that the outside is a reflection of the inside, and that the other is a reflection of the self and vice versa.  The bases for the other elements--the flat rocks--should ideally touch the mirror.

Again, this is by no means a definitive explanation.  Like F. M. Alexander's discoveries, this is more of an oral transmission thing, and Saras Cee has acknowledged, like Alexander, that written expression is not her forte.  This makes transmission of the instrument challenging.  And it points to the fact that the value of the experience may be far beyond what has been put in words, or entered the blogosphere.

The description is meaningless without the experience; I would love to see people try it out and have tried to get groups together.



If you want me to run you through it I'm happy to take my time to do so, please purple moosage me!

I believe this can be life-changing.  The idea is that you can substitute getting actual needs me for using money (or power, petroleum) to seem to get needs met.

I'm hearing you feel really excited about how this device has affected you and your community.  Because of your experience using it, "negative" or "problematic" situations seem less common/significant because you're better able to notice what's happening and consciously choose how to respond.  Did I get that right?

Thanks for posting this Joshua!  Reading your posts thoroughly refreshed my memory of experiencing the instrument.

I'm feeling pretty happy that my duckduckgo search for:
drl saras unasked offering echo
lead me to your post.

I like the term "voice ball" for the tossable fluffy.
Reading your description, the thing that most stood out for me was when you said the purpose for tissues was to "wipe away" tears.  I thought about what wording might fit better with welcoming all emotions.  I imagined that tears might want to be ceremonially collected or perhaps gently polished/massaged into the skin.

I'm excited about finding a way to orchestrate a drling group - probably via zoom for now.

Hey other Joshua!  Thanks for that post,  I love your point about tears, ting!  That's spot on.  The Dagara shed tears to the ancestors, they are the most powerful medicine.  I actually forgot to include the tissues/handkerchief just now  when I introduced the instrument to someone, so this was a great reminder.  

Joshua Younkin wrote:I'm hearing you feel really excited about how this device has affected you and your community.  Because of your experience using it, "negative" or "problematic" situations seem less common/significant because you're better able to notice what's happening and consciously choose how to respond.  Did I get that right?

Thanks for posting this Joshua!  Reading your posts thoroughly refreshed my memory of experiencing the instrument.

I'm feeling pretty happy that my duckduckgo search for:
drl saras unasked offering echo
lead me to your post.

I like the term "voice ball" for the tossable fluffy.
Reading your description, the thing that most stood out for me was when you said the purpose for tissues was to "wipe away" tears.  I thought about what wording might fit better with welcoming all emotions.  I imagined that tears might want to be ceremonially collected or perhaps gently polished/massaged into the skin.

I'm excited about finding a way to orchestrate a drling group - probably via zoom for now.

I’m enjoying the Joshua to Joshua interchange, getting an idea how speech is patterned through drL.  

I believe it is best learned person to person, and would need a group.

I am reminded of a time when I had a weekly NVC practice group, and it was transformative for me.  We played a “game” called NVC poker.  One person would talk about an issue in their life.  The others would “guess” what the speaker was telling.

NVC distinguishes between feelings and thoughts, which often disguise as feelings.  There is a deck of cards which name feelings, and these cards are dealt to the listeners.

The listeners try to guess what the speaker is feeling in relation to the issue.  They looked at their cards, and tried to connect the feelings they were holding to how a person might be feeling:  “ are you feeling angry because…. “

The speaker would say yes or no, the next listener would play their card:  “Are you feeling confused because…..”. And so on.

The other members of the group did not like being the speaker, lucky me!  I was employed in a challenging work place, and I had a complicated child custody negotiations going on with one who was more interested in power and control, and I always had something to explore.  Most amazing of all was what it felt like inside to have someone suggest a feeling and connection.  The relief was visceral, no mistaking a yes!  Sometimes multiple yesses for one issue.  And when someone guessed something that didn’t fit for me, again, I was sure.

I actually learned a lot about my own feelings, what feelings feel like, and having had people to listen and understand me, I was free to consider what to do in relation to the current situation.

That’s another NVC. thing:  feelings before solutions.

The patterned speech between the two Joshuas reminded me of my NVC experiences.

Our speech is patterned by our culture, and often times aggression is patterned in.  New patterns change so much!
I would love to find a teacher and then a practice group!

Please, help me understand a point.

Are these practices intended for any kind of communication or is it some kind of group therapy? I'm asking because in a recent meeting someone insisted in using the nonviolent methodology, which I didn't see any improvement over our usual meeting. The lady in question interrupted several times when we were in the middle of a productive debate, asking for some reflective time, then for some silence, then she wanted to hear the same thing twice, but slowly. The outcome wasn't different from any other previous meeting, except that some of us were bothered by so many interruptions.
Now, if this kind of communication is used for therapy, then I completely see how it can work.

As a therapy, a speaker is going to open the self to the audience, supposedly to a friendly and supportive community. That will help the audience to understand the speaker better, making interactions easier next time. And also helps the speaker to self-understanding. What I think this technique pretends to do is to speed up the process by going through a guessing game, designed for revealing hidden feelings and thougts. The other artifacts are common tools for group talk management: who gets to speak, how to show agreement, how to ask for a break, etc.
But here you don't talk about what species we are going to grow in the recently made garden bed. You talk about your fears of not being able to pay the rent this month, or about the problems with your sick mama.

Currently I am in no need for therapy, but some of my colleages might. I could suggest to them that this exists and check if there is some interest.

I wonder if my reminiscing of “NVC poker” brought confusion as to what NVC is.  Looks like I was off topic.  My apologies.  And I don’t want to hijack the thread, but very briefly, IMO NVC isn’t therapy.  I think it aims to establish a communication style that is free of coercion and or aggression.  It’s appropriate where organizations have a stake in the outcomes of group communications.  Agreement can be reached where none appeared possible, and all participants satisfied.  It can be used in business and personal relationships and communications.

There may be a thread on permies about it already.  Let’s take any more NVC there.  Sorry for the veer!

That's an important angle on things, Abraham, and at the same time the answer is "it depends."  There is a more complex set of factors at play in many meetings.  Sometimes someone in the group needs a therapy; sometimes it's all fine and business can get done.  There's also the question of "if business gets done, but the cumulative impact on future generations is destructive, is it really good that business gets done?"  Often the person who feels the need to ask that question can be viewed as a gadfly, as a problem rather than a valid part of the conversation.  Often the hidden tension in the room could be better addressed by "facilitating consciousness" rather than by more business getting done.  The position of planting of a vegetable may be less important than an elephant in the room.

So, when do you use one instrument and when another?  It is a group decision, and one individual doesn't get to dictate that any more than a gardener gets to rule nature with an iron fist.  You can try, of course, but there's a longterm cost.

I have recognized I wasn't being heard in my attempts to get cooperation with others at house meetings, but even more I wasn't actually hearing myself.  The drL instrument has helped with that--without which I couldn't expect anyone else really to hear me.

It's not like therapy even, though it is therapeutic.

As I understand it, Non-Violent Communication at its essence is communication minus the violence--sort of like gardening minus the poisons.  It does not need to be a format.

The drL is a rehearsal of how to relate in life outside the rehearsal.  It can also be a good framework in which to hold a tense meeting, and in some cases may be a better use of time than a meeting.  But it isn't a thing to impose on a normal business meeting.

To that I would also add that words are a tool, and a great invention, but we humans need to invent listening as well as talking to have talking really work as it ought.

That's the most coherent I have time to be at the moment, may have confused some things more than I clarified, I don't know.