Latest / Life In Flow Podcast / Individual vs Collective — Who Wins?

Transcript

Individual vs Collective — Who Wins? · Life In Flow Podcast

0:00
SPEAKER_01: Welcome to the Life in Flow podcast.
0:03
The three of us,
0:05
Yulia,
0:05
Polina,
0:06
and Irina,
0:07
are exploring what Life in Flow and Flow in Life is.
0:12
Join us as we experiment,
0:15
test our diverse hypotheses,
0:17
and have fun in the process.
0:19
SPEAKER_00: Will we find an answer?
0:23
SPEAKER_00: This isn't just an intellectual discussion.
0:26
SPEAKER_00: We're co-creating a shared field beyond words.
0:30
We're attuning to what emerges moment by moment so that the
0:35
conversation itself
0:36
SPEAKER_00: becomes a group flow experience.
0:39
SPEAKER_02: And we invite you to become an active participant in this experiment.
0:45
SPEAKER_02: There will be pauses and moments of silence.
0:48
SPEAKER_02: We leave them on purpose because this is where magic happens.
0:54
SPEAKER_01: Go beyond the intellectual information.
0:57
SPEAKER_01: Listen with your whole body.
1:00
SPEAKER_01: And notice how your somatic experience shifts in the process.
1:05
Share with us what reveals itself in the space where mind,
1:11
body,
1:12
and energy flow together.
1:16
SPEAKER_02: Welcome to the new episode of Life & Flow podcast.
1:20
Here we are again,
1:22
Yulia,
1:23
Polina,
1:24
and Irina,
1:25
experimenting with hearing...
1:29
the world and ourselves and learning to maintain a conversation
1:38
in flow for your life itself.
1:43
SPEAKER_02: I will be steering the flow today and the question we will be discussing,
1:51
SPEAKER_02: well,
1:52
SPEAKER_02: I'm proposing us to discuss
1:55
SPEAKER_02: I phrased it like the individual versus the collective.
2:00
SPEAKER_02: Who wins?
2:05
SPEAKER_02: As usual, let me explain a little bit why I have chosen this question.
2:13
It actually pursues me for quite a while already,
2:19
for several years in different forms.
2:24
SPEAKER_02: On one hand,
2:28
I hear everyone around complaining that our society has become
2:34
too individualistic
2:38
SPEAKER_02: and that we need to become more aware of the collective,
2:47
SPEAKER_02: that we are not just separated individuals,
2:50
SPEAKER_02: that we live together and we need to be more
2:54
SPEAKER_02: conscious of that.
2:57
SPEAKER_02: And I can't say anything per se against this idea,
3:08
SPEAKER_02: except that the three of us are coming from the Soviet Union,
3:13
SPEAKER_02: and we also know how the ideas of the
3:20
the collective that should prevail of the individual can lead
3:24
to not very good results.
3:29
SPEAKER_02: And at the same time, I personally feel that what we call the
3:42
individualistic mentality that we feel that prevails too much
3:48
in our society in
3:50
modern days is actually the other side of the same coin of the
3:58
society that pushes
4:01
SPEAKER_02: us into the same standard mould
4:08
making us to follow the same patterns,
4:12
the same steps,
4:14
to follow the same rules.
4:19
SPEAKER_02: And I do agree that things need to change.
4:31
SPEAKER_02: And as we see, they are changing, actually.
4:36
SPEAKER_02: And...
4:37
SPEAKER_02: As we go through these turbulent times of change at all levels,
4:42
SPEAKER_02: one can't help but wonder what future might look like.
4:53
I have been wondering quite a lot exactly what could be the
4:57
shape of society
5:04
SPEAKER_02: In terms of this,
5:05
where we will be putting ourselves on this case of the
5:10
individual versus the
5:11
SPEAKER_02: collective,
5:12
how these two notions of individuality and of each of us being
5:22
a part of the
5:24
complex interconnectedness can interplay together in a more
5:31
generative way.
5:35
Hence my question,
5:37
like,
5:37
who should win in our future,
5:39
the individual or the connective?
5:42
Or maybe the friendship,
5:45
as we,
5:46
the Soviet people,
5:47
know that friendship always wins.
5:52
So,
5:54
before we expand on this discussion,
5:59
as always,
6:00
let's start with a little game.
6:01
SPEAKER_02: And...
6:07
I want to play again the game that we played last time when we
6:14
talked about the ego.
6:17
Because in part,
6:19
today's conversation is the continuation of that conversation.
6:25
SPEAKER_02: So I will remind you the rules of the game.
6:31
SPEAKER_02: Each of us will have...
6:35
SPEAKER_02: certain amount of time to speak.
6:37
So I will give the word and I will define the order in which we
6:45
will speak.
6:46
SPEAKER_02: This time each will speak for two minutes and we will do two rounds.
6:52
So,
6:55
okay,
6:56
I will start,
6:57
then Yulia will follow and Polina will be the third one.
7:04
SPEAKER_02: So the main rules are, first, you can't pronounce the words I and you.
7:16
SPEAKER_02: And you need to employ the active listening,
7:21
meaning that when you are listening to the other number of
7:27
groups speaking,
7:28
SPEAKER_02: don't
7:29
SPEAKER_02: Play in your mind.
7:31
SPEAKER_02: You're like, what I will respond, what I think about it.
7:33
SPEAKER_02: Just be present what is being said.
7:37
SPEAKER_02: Pay attention to how your whole system, your whole body reacts to it.
7:41
SPEAKER_02: And when your turn to speak comes,
7:47
then just let express what is emerging for you in this moment
7:54
in continuation of
7:56
SPEAKER_02: what has been said.
8:00
before you so active listening and you can't pronounce the
8:04
words I and you and you
8:08
have two minutes to speak then you will hear the sound let's
8:14
check our minutes do
8:28
SPEAKER_02: you hear the sound
8:30
SPEAKER_01: Okay, good.
8:34
So this will be the sound that will mark the beginning or the
8:43
thing like your turn
8:45
SPEAKER_02: and the end of your turn.
8:48
SPEAKER_02: And we will do two rounds.
8:51
SPEAKER_02: And the word that we'll use as a prompt today is
9:01
SPEAKER_02: Okay.
9:23
SPEAKER_02: So, Utopia seems to speak or
9:30
the idealistic future that is too idealistic and that is why it
9:40
may never come.
9:46
SPEAKER_02: But can we make utopia real?
9:54
SPEAKER_02: Some people think that
9:58
SPEAKER_02: Nowadays,
10:00
SPEAKER_02: it is much easier to imagine the anti-utopia,
10:12
SPEAKER_02: the dystopian future rather than a better future,
10:19
SPEAKER_02: a utopian future.
10:20
SPEAKER_02: So what can be done
10:29
SPEAKER_02: for us to imagine,
10:34
to dare to imagine a utopian future and to believe that it is
10:43
possible that it can
10:47
SPEAKER_02: come true?
10:54
SPEAKER_02: Is it about dreaming?
10:57
SPEAKER_02: Is it about that
10:59
We are too rational to allow ourselves to believe that the
11:10
dream is possible.
11:35
SPEAKER_01: I'm actually wondering about the origin of the word utopia.
11:44
SPEAKER_01: And I'm just curious,
11:47
SPEAKER_01: I'm going to check this out,
11:49
but I'm sure it will reveal something about this word that's
11:56
probably been lost.
12:00
SPEAKER_01: Hmm.
12:04
SPEAKER_01: To me,
12:04
SPEAKER_01: though,
12:05
SPEAKER_01: as I hear the word utopia,
12:09
SPEAKER_01: oh,
12:10
SPEAKER_01: I,
12:10
SPEAKER_01: I said,
12:13
SPEAKER_01: utopia seems to be about you,
12:23
SPEAKER_01: you is a letter,
12:24
SPEAKER_01: and topia,
12:28
SPEAKER_01: in Russian,
12:29
SPEAKER_01: there is a word tapить,
12:32
SPEAKER_01: which means to
12:36
SPEAKER_01: put someone under the water.
12:37
SPEAKER_01: I'm forgetting the exact word.
12:41
SPEAKER_01: And I said the word I can't.
12:47
SPEAKER_01: Anyway, my mind is jumping from one thing to another.
12:58
SPEAKER_01: And now it's jumping to the word dream that Ira mentioned.
13:04
SPEAKER_01: And
13:06
The mind is wondering what dream is because dreams can be super
13:18
exciting and there
13:20
SPEAKER_01: can be nightmares and do we really know?
13:40
was curious to hear the breakdown of utopia into the letter U
13:49
and then the beat.
13:52
SPEAKER_00: Um, I wonder, wondering if, um, Utopia could in that sense be about
14:10
actually the drowning of the you in a way so the you is drowned
14:19
so then kind of the
14:20
collective is drowned so maybe it's actually more about the
14:25
individual this utopia
14:30
about each one of the individuals and that is a thread from
14:35
something that Ira said
14:37
SPEAKER_00: earlier that also made me
14:40
SPEAKER_00: Be like, wait, what?
14:46
If currently individuality is being packaged in the same
14:53
patterns and the same ways
14:55
SPEAKER_00: of being,
14:57
SPEAKER_00: then wouldn't utopia be actually the opposite of both individuality and
15:03
SPEAKER_00: collectiveness?
15:06
SPEAKER_00: And what would that look like?
15:10
SPEAKER_00: If we are to drown both the individuality and the collective, what then?
15:25
SPEAKER_02: Utopian...
15:35
So,
15:37
can our shared utopia take the form of this life complex
15:54
interconnectivity?
16:01
SPEAKER_02: The human blockchain
16:05
where each note has the possibility and the freedom of
16:16
expressing to the maximum
16:21
SPEAKER_02: its individuality.
16:28
SPEAKER_02: But at the same time, as all the notes are connected to each other,
16:36
and the reason and the information about everything what is
16:44
going on in the whole
16:49
system one node can't express its individuality without the
16:59
awareness of how this
17:02
SPEAKER_02: expression affects
17:04
SPEAKER_02: the whole system because it affects the node as a feedback tool.
17:14
SPEAKER_02: Because each node is fully integrated into everything.
17:40
What was coming in front of my eyes as an image as Iro was
17:47
describing utopia and
17:51
SPEAKER_01: this innovative model of utopia is this spider web like sparkling
18:09
fluttering net that is so resilient but at the same time so
18:25
sensitive to every
18:29
SPEAKER_01: vibration of the node that every vibration sets this
18:41
wave,
18:42
flowy wave in motion that reconfigures the entire web and at
19:07
the same time
19:11
SPEAKER_01: It keeps me as a part and sharing the resonance of the field.
19:45
Maybe continuing on that thread of this highly attuned
19:53
vibrational field that
19:56
travels these very sensitive threads between the nose through
20:03
the nose also creates
20:06
SPEAKER_00: energetic fields.
20:09
SPEAKER_00: between the nodes,
20:10
SPEAKER_00: but not through the thread,
20:11
SPEAKER_00: but through even the energetic empty spaces between the threads.
20:18
SPEAKER_00: Maybe utopia would be
20:24
SPEAKER_00: a more coherent,
20:27
SPEAKER_00: integrative awareness of each node,
20:33
SPEAKER_00: each thread,
20:34
SPEAKER_00: and each empty space between the thread,
20:38
more of a conscious awareness within each node of the fact that
20:50
there is this
20:51
SPEAKER_00: network
20:55
more of a developed vibrational sensation of the network and
21:00
how each node affects the network.
21:08
SPEAKER_00: And when Ira stumbled on the word individuality,
21:15
SPEAKER_00: it was actually really cool because she broke the word down into indie,
21:20
SPEAKER_00: V,
21:20
SPEAKER_00: and then duality.
21:31
well thank you very much that was fun and they could be felt
21:48
these vibrations
21:52
SPEAKER_02: really like the vibrations the subtle waves in the field when
22:00
SPEAKER_02: These ideas were shared.
22:07
SPEAKER_02: The reason why I have...
22:12
SPEAKER_02: I wanted to avoid the word I. I will explain why.
22:17
So,
22:19
it could be noticed that,
22:22
first,
22:23
it's very easy for us to forget about these rules.
22:29
SPEAKER_02: like that you can't use I or you.
22:38
SPEAKER_02: But when it's remembered,
22:42
it obliges the speaker to reframe the expression of the idea
22:53
and it really
22:58
makes it less personal and more as like the expression of what
23:05
is emerging in the field.
23:07
SPEAKER_02: Not just for me, but really as a shared experience.
23:16
Probably it could be very interesting experience and experiment
23:23
to learn to talk
23:25
SPEAKER_02: this way and just
23:27
to pay attention at least to this requirement and to how it
23:33
changes and gives form
23:38
SPEAKER_02: to what we say and how we say it.
23:47
And it could be rather fitting to the conversation about the
23:52
individual and the collective.
23:55
SPEAKER_02: So
23:57
SPEAKER_02: As we are experimenting in our conversations today,
24:02
creative limitation of our conversation will be to avoid using
24:11
the words I and you
24:12
SPEAKER_02: in whatever is being said.
24:17
SPEAKER_00: Can we include we in that limiting?
24:20
SPEAKER_02: Yes, we can.
24:22
SPEAKER_02: You want to avoid to say we too?
24:26
SPEAKER_00: If we're excluding you,
24:28
then we probably should exclude we if we're trying to fully
24:32
disengage from the
24:33
SPEAKER_00: collective versus individual,
24:35
SPEAKER_00: no?
24:36
SPEAKER_00: What do you think about that?
24:39
SPEAKER_02: Okay, let's make it more difficult.
24:43
SPEAKER_02: So we were saying I, you, and we.
24:48
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
24:51
SPEAKER_02: It's a creative limitation.
24:56
SPEAKER_02: So the first question, first, a little bit of the background.
25:04
SPEAKER_02: There was a book by a very famous writer, Ursula Kale Guin.
25:13
SPEAKER_02: She is like one of the classics of fantasy and science fiction.
25:26
one of her books is called The Dispossessed and it describes a
25:33
world which many
25:39
reviews call utopian world and it is true that in the end it
25:51
can be noticed that
25:53
SPEAKER_02: the author
25:55
SPEAKER_02: sort of gives her own preference to this world.
26:01
SPEAKER_02: So it might be called utopian.
26:06
SPEAKER_02: So in this world, the society is very much collective.
26:15
SPEAKER_02: The expression of the individual needs
26:21
And individual desires,
26:23
any expression of individuality is very badly seen.
26:32
The whole functioning of the society is about satisfying the
26:41
need of the group.
26:44
And about the co-creation and co-existence and making this
26:48
co-existence of people
26:51
SPEAKER_02: together as good as they can.
27:03
SPEAKER_02: It is true that in that world, it's mainly about the collective survival.
27:09
SPEAKER_02: So, like, how could we help each other to survive?
27:13
Because they live in a world that is very harsh,
27:17
it's a very harsh environment.
27:20
But still,
27:21
any expression of the individual is seen as,
27:31
they have the term,
27:32
equalizing.
27:35
SPEAKER_02: So on the one hand,
27:38
SPEAKER_02: it is really like the anthem to the collective thinking,
27:46
SPEAKER_02: to be given the priority to the group before the individual.
27:52
The problem is that the whole plot is built around that the
27:56
main character,
28:00
SPEAKER_02: who is like the genius scientist,
28:06
SPEAKER_02: who have really very firm beliefs in this system as a whole,
28:13
and yet he finds himself too limited in this society where he
28:25
can't be himself and
28:28
SPEAKER_02: he can't explore his own freedom and his...
28:40
SPEAKER_02: his own personal creativity, let's put it this way.
28:44
SPEAKER_02: So he leaves his society,
28:49
SPEAKER_02: his planet,
28:50
and goes to the other planet that is considered to be the enemy
28:53
of the other one.
28:54
And it's like the perfect description of the Cold War and the
28:59
antagonism between
29:00
SPEAKER_02: the Soviet Union and the capitalist world.
29:04
SPEAKER_02: So he goes to the capitalists.
29:06
SPEAKER_02: because there they have the individual freedom.
29:09
SPEAKER_02: Of course, he doesn't find the freedom there.
29:14
SPEAKER_02: And that's why they call it the utopian,
29:21
SPEAKER_02: like that world,
29:22
SPEAKER_02: the collective world,
29:23
SPEAKER_02: because in the end,
29:25
SPEAKER_02: he wants to go back,
29:26
although there is the risk they will not accept him because he
29:31
dared to express his
29:33
SPEAKER_02: own needs.
29:36
SPEAKER_02: and to take steps against the rules to leave the vault.
29:40
And yet he believes that that vault is the best one and he
29:44
wants to go back there
29:46
SPEAKER_02: because that is his home.
29:49
So reading that book may make one wonder about how could it
29:58
work in real life?
30:05
SPEAKER_02: And could it work?
30:07
And that is one of the questions that couldn't be discussed at
30:18
the discussion about the ego.
30:23
SPEAKER_02: And the question is, how can an egoless society function?
30:36
SPEAKER_02: Can it function?
30:37
SPEAKER_02: And if it could, how could it be?
30:41
SPEAKER_02: What would, what form would an egolist society take?
31:00
SPEAKER_00: And for the purposes of this conversation, how do you define ego?
31:05
SPEAKER_00: in this context?
31:10
SPEAKER_02: For the purpose of this conversation,
31:15
SPEAKER_02: what was discussed in the conversation about ego was that the ego is the
31:35
operating system that allows the individual to express one's
31:47
individuality into the
31:50
SPEAKER_02: external world and to interact with the external world.
32:04
SPEAKER_02: individuality or the self.
32:06
It's the operating system that the self needs in order to
32:13
interact with the world.
32:17
SPEAKER_00: And it's not inherently negative then.
32:20
Because usually the word ego in our society a lot of times
32:26
carries a negative connotation.
32:29
SPEAKER_00: But in your definition,
32:30
it sounds like it's and actually I really like that you made a
32:33
mistake in how you
32:36
SPEAKER_00: said operating system.
32:37
SPEAKER_00: You actually said operating self.
32:39
SPEAKER_00: I like that so much more.
32:40
SPEAKER_00: The operating self.
32:45
SPEAKER_00: So,
32:46
SPEAKER_00: right,
32:46
there is no connotation of something negative about it in the
32:49
way you're presenting
32:50
SPEAKER_00: it right now.
32:51
SPEAKER_02: It's not necessarily should be negative.
32:56
SPEAKER_00: Mm hmm.
32:59
SPEAKER_00: And if we take into account how you broke down individuality earlier,
33:06
so if the individual is actually the operating self of the
33:11
duality that we all
33:13
SPEAKER_00: are...
33:20
SPEAKER_01: And also,
33:22
SPEAKER_01: may I remind you...
33:30
SPEAKER_02: So the operating self, the system that
33:58
SPEAKER_02: allows the expression of the duality of self.
34:10
SPEAKER_00: Yes.
34:11
SPEAKER_02: I'm lost.
34:12
Duality then gives place to non-duality just like that when the
34:21
ego is what if the ego is
34:27
SPEAKER_01: decimated, can duality then also transform into non-duality?
34:42
But you're still going to have an aspect of duality if we look
34:46
at it from the
34:47
SPEAKER_00: perspective of nodes in a mesh system of other nodes.
34:53
SPEAKER_00: We're still one node within a bunch of other nodes.
34:56
SPEAKER_00: That's still already, that's already a dual nature.
35:01
SPEAKER_00: You're not just a thing outside of all things.
35:03
You are a thing,
35:04
a node,
35:05
but you're also interconnected to all the other nodes.
35:09
SPEAKER_01: You are until you are not because you is the word that's not existing to
35:21
SPEAKER_00: Did I,
35:22
SPEAKER_00: wait,
35:22
SPEAKER_00: was I,
35:23
SPEAKER_00: did I keep saying it,
35:24
SPEAKER_00: you and I,
35:24
SPEAKER_00: and,
35:25
SPEAKER_00: did I,
35:26
SPEAKER_00: oh shit,
35:27
SPEAKER_00: you were making fun of me.
35:30
SPEAKER_00: You were trying to be the rule breaker.
35:32
SPEAKER_00: Oh, you were making fun of me.
35:34
SPEAKER_00: Oh, fuck.
35:35
SPEAKER_00: Okay.
35:36
SPEAKER_00: Okay.
35:38
SPEAKER_02: But still, still, you know, like, I, I, no.
35:43
SPEAKER_02: The, the notion of duality is,
35:52
SPEAKER_02: What is duality in this context?
35:57
SPEAKER_00: That you're not just one thing.
35:59
SPEAKER_00: That there isn't the existence of just one aspect and one thing.
36:05
SPEAKER_00: There's multiples.
36:11
SPEAKER_01: One condition that cannot...
36:21
SPEAKER_01: break the duality regardless of ego seems to be our bodily nature.
36:39
SPEAKER_01: Physicality and the physical sensation of separateness that
36:52
SPEAKER_01: even without ego,
36:55
SPEAKER_01: or with ego severely suppressed,
37:01
SPEAKER_01: would create a very strong voice and conflict,
37:11
SPEAKER_01: not possibly allowing this conversion into non-duality.
37:19
SPEAKER_01: Except for when...
37:21
SPEAKER_00: Shapeshifting takes place.
37:27
SPEAKER_01: And?
37:34
SPEAKER_01: What would be an example?
37:39
SPEAKER_00: If the physical is a limitation,
37:43
SPEAKER_00: then how could shapeshifting into an animal,
37:45
SPEAKER_00: a human into an animal,
37:47
SPEAKER_00: actually work then?
37:49
you wouldn't be able to work because it would be limited by the
37:53
physicality of the human.
37:57
SPEAKER_01: Physicality, it seems, is not as straightforward.
38:04
SPEAKER_01: Duality.
38:11
SPEAKER_02: So, can duality be defined as
38:18
You're like something that gives form to something and
38:24
separates it from the rest
38:27
SPEAKER_02: of the system.
38:29
SPEAKER_02: So there is like one thing and all the rest is not that thing.
38:40
SPEAKER_00: What if it's both?
38:43
SPEAKER_00: It's the individuality and the collective and neither one.
38:49
SPEAKER_00: And that's why it's a duality.
38:56
What if there's both the collective and the individual and at
38:59
the same time the
39:00
SPEAKER_00: individual is neither?
39:05
SPEAKER_01: The individual is neither individual nor collective.
39:12
SPEAKER_01: The individual we also know is porous.
39:16
In different senses of this word,
39:19
including physiological,
39:21
mental,
39:22
spiritual,
39:24
soulful.
39:30
SPEAKER_01: Energetic, yeah.
39:31
SPEAKER_01: Energetic.
39:34
SPEAKER_01: Where does this lead us?
39:39
SPEAKER_01: Or does it?
39:42
SPEAKER_00: It feels very trippy what is going on here.
39:47
SPEAKER_00: You started it by breaking down these words.
39:56
SPEAKER_02: So, if the question is, how can an equalist society function?
40:09
SPEAKER_02: What has been discussed?
40:12
SPEAKER_02: Wait, but... Point, yes?
40:14
SPEAKER_00: But...
40:15
The question of how can an egoless society function is already
40:20
a strange question
40:22
because why are we thinking of utopia as an egoless society if
40:29
ego is an operating
40:30
SPEAKER_00: self that gets to express its duality?
40:37
SPEAKER_00: Wouldn't utopia welcome that expression?
40:45
maybe that is what i want us to discuss and to understand no
40:50
you're like that would
40:52
be the ideal outcome of our discussion somehow arriving at
41:04
potentially sorry go
41:06
SPEAKER_00: ahead yeah finish your thoughts sorry
41:10
SPEAKER_02: Arriving at the picture of what could be our ideal,
41:16
SPEAKER_02: even not utopia,
41:17
SPEAKER_02: but ideal future would look like in terms of the relationship between the
41:23
SPEAKER_02: individual and the collective.
41:28
One of the potential issues on the table is that the words that
41:34
are being used
41:38
could be archaic and could also be a reflection of the
41:43
masculine that was one of
41:46
the driving forces to create the language and to describe the
41:50
world in his image.
41:55
One of the current movements in society is the feminine trying
42:02
to reclaim,
42:03
SPEAKER_00: not trying,
42:04
SPEAKER_00: but reclaiming their natural state.
42:08
SPEAKER_00: and who they actually are, outside of this description by the masculine.
42:16
SPEAKER_00: Taking that into account,
42:18
SPEAKER_00: these words may be the first point of problem and issue,
42:24
because these words are not necessarily the words in ways that
42:32
the feminine would
42:33
SPEAKER_00: describe things.
42:35
SPEAKER_00: And that would change the entire experience of utopia or individuality,
42:43
SPEAKER_00: collective,
42:44
SPEAKER_00: all those words.
42:45
SPEAKER_00: All those things that they are describing.
42:51
SPEAKER_02: How would the feminine describe things?
42:59
SPEAKER_00: The feminine potentially would really embrace...
43:04
SPEAKER_00: The duality of all of it.
43:08
There wouldn't be a separation between individual and
43:11
collective because both of
43:14
those concepts are held and weaved through what the feminine is
43:20
capable of.
43:21
SPEAKER_00: In a way, the masculine isn't.
43:24
SPEAKER_00: So in these...
43:35
SPEAKER_02: What would be the word?
43:39
SPEAKER_01: Configuration.
43:40
SPEAKER_02: In this configuration, again, thank you!
43:44
SPEAKER_02: In this worldview that is being presented,
43:50
the duality is actually holding space for both polarities at
43:58
the same time,
43:59
SPEAKER_02: correct?
44:02
SPEAKER_02: As opposed to the normal perception of duality as the opposition,
44:06
SPEAKER_02: there is one thing and the opposite.
44:11
SPEAKER_02: Here it is proposed to be like,
44:14
SPEAKER_02: okay,
44:14
we hold two polarities to the opposite at the same time in the
44:19
same space.
44:20
SPEAKER_00: It all exists together at the same time,
44:24
SPEAKER_00: and it could be perceived as oppositional,
44:28
SPEAKER_00: but it actually is not.
44:30
SPEAKER_00: Whereas the masculine is sort of like a yes,
44:34
SPEAKER_00: but because there is like this structured way,
44:38
SPEAKER_00: this need to have black and white.
44:41
Whereas I think the feminine in our true nature from my
44:46
understanding so far as I
44:48
SPEAKER_00: delve more deeply into this discussion is yes,
44:54
SPEAKER_00: and.
44:56
SPEAKER_02: Yes, and.
45:03
SPEAKER_01: Improv might just have been developed by women then.
45:13
SPEAKER_01: Say more?
45:16
SPEAKER_01: I said improv probably has been developed by women.
45:22
SPEAKER_01: In what way?
45:23
SPEAKER_00: Yes, and its ground rule.
45:29
SPEAKER_00: Ah, that's right.
45:33
SPEAKER_01: That's right.
45:34
What is coming up is curiosity about the division of feminine
45:50
and masculine and
45:54
SPEAKER_01: whether by embracing the feminine
46:03
SPEAKER_01: and pushing away the masculine.
46:07
SPEAKER_01: We are seeing and sensing everything that's out there.
46:14
SPEAKER_01: We are... What also comes to mind is elements.
46:29
SPEAKER_01: The fascination
46:32
SPEAKER_01: with water,
46:37
SPEAKER_01: which has been said on multiple podcast episodes,
46:48
SPEAKER_01: 99% of our molecules is water,
46:53
SPEAKER_01: which of course imparts a lot of water quality
47:02
SPEAKER_01: on us.
47:06
SPEAKER_01: And our fascination,
47:11
SPEAKER_01: our longing,
47:13
SPEAKER_01: our obsession with flow may come from this affinity,
47:22
SPEAKER_01: which is sensed now as something...
47:30
SPEAKER_01: Pauline said...
47:33
SPEAKER_01: Said by... Not you.
47:40
SPEAKER_01: Oh, this sounds crazy.
47:46
SPEAKER_01: Anyway,
47:47
SPEAKER_01: the other part that claims us is the Earth and terrestrial nature,
47:57
SPEAKER_01: which is about geometry.
48:00
SPEAKER_01: which allows us to inhabit,
48:04
SPEAKER_01: which allowed us deep,
48:07
SPEAKER_01: long time ago to leave the ocean and start inhabiting the earth.
48:17
SPEAKER_01: Which, I guess, the point of this is that it is everything.
48:29
SPEAKER_01: and maybe masculine and feminine also together,
48:35
SPEAKER_01: how we could hold it together,
48:41
SPEAKER_01: an example of that,
48:44
SPEAKER_01: I would be very curious about.
48:47
SPEAKER_01: Because my mind now seems lost.
48:56
SPEAKER_00: It's exactly yes and.
48:59
SPEAKER_00: The feminine I'm not proposing would reject the masculine.
49:03
SPEAKER_00: The feminine by its nature would say yes and.
49:07
SPEAKER_00: How do we connect both?
49:10
SPEAKER_00: How do we elevate both?
49:12
How do we support and nourish for both to develop to their full
49:18
potential in the
49:19
SPEAKER_00: yummiest,
49:20
SPEAKER_00: sexiest,
49:21
SPEAKER_00: most beautiful way?
49:30
Would you have maybe an example of what it would look like
49:34
embracing individuality
49:36
and collective at the same time in one being or experience or
49:43
moment or whatever?
49:45
SPEAKER_00: I propose it is happening in every moment.
49:50
We're not conscious of the fact that that's already the
49:55
operating system of how we
49:58
SPEAKER_00: operate a self.
50:02
SPEAKER_01: Would that then just be about awareness?
50:06
SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
50:08
SPEAKER_00: Awareness and embracing and asking the question of yes and even more and
50:18
SPEAKER_00: potentially coming up with new words,
50:21
SPEAKER_00: with a new vocabulary.
50:23
SPEAKER_00: I mean, I...
50:25
SPEAKER_01: In DB, duality.
50:28
SPEAKER_00: Yes.
50:33
It would be super cool to change all of the words that were
50:39
developed by men to
50:41
describe the world that is dual in its nature just from the
50:46
fact that there are men
50:47
SPEAKER_00: and women.
50:47
SPEAKER_00: There's the feminine and the masculine.
50:49
SPEAKER_00: There's XY and XX chromosomes.
50:53
How could we possibly continue to define our existence from the
50:57
perspective of just
50:59
SPEAKER_00: one instance in the duality?
51:11
SPEAKER_01: What is that one instance?
51:15
SPEAKER_00: A man.
51:16
SPEAKER_00: A man and a bunch of men that came together and wrote all these rules and
51:20
SPEAKER_00: regulations and created words.
51:22
SPEAKER_00: Ego is from Freud, right?
51:25
SPEAKER_00: That's a masculine word from a man's perspective.
51:30
SPEAKER_00: A man who was interested in other men.
51:32
SPEAKER_00: Women were not even considered as worthy of being studied.
51:37
That's why women's health and medicine is like 70 years behind
51:43
in research.
51:44
SPEAKER_00: We weren't even considered...
51:46
SPEAKER_00: as another fully functioning unit that should be studied separately.
51:55
SPEAKER_00: And medicine should be created for completely separately than for a man.
52:07
SPEAKER_01: Duality is one moment now.
52:13
SPEAKER_01: But it could be
52:16
two moments where its rightful shape would be an entanglement
52:27
between masculine and
52:29
SPEAKER_01: feminine and young and the whole...
52:37
SPEAKER_00: What about a flow?
52:38
SPEAKER_00: It's not an entanglement, but like a flow?
52:43
SPEAKER_00: you know,
52:44
SPEAKER_00: that,
52:44
SPEAKER_00: that is porous and can shift and change in terms of,
52:48
SPEAKER_00: uh,
52:49
SPEAKER_00: the amount of,
52:51
SPEAKER_00: of space each one takes,
52:53
SPEAKER_00: but it could shift and change.
52:55
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
52:58
SPEAKER_02: So, okay.
52:59
SPEAKER_02: Like one of the,
53:00
SPEAKER_02: um,
53:04
SPEAKER_02: main principle of the functioning of our utopia,
53:07
SPEAKER_02: which is actually reality is like,
53:13
SPEAKER_02: Yes,
53:14
SPEAKER_02: and whenever any opposition may be seemingly presenting itself,
53:25
everyone with awareness just holds space for the both and
53:32
become aware to what can
53:35
SPEAKER_02: emerge if we hold these two opposition together.
53:42
SPEAKER_02: if we give yes and space to to both what if how can it be uh taken
54:11
SPEAKER_02: to another practical level.
54:17
SPEAKER_02: For example, can anyone remember Occupy Wall Street movement?
54:27
SPEAKER_01: The name, certainly.
54:30
SPEAKER_02: It actually started in Spain.
54:36
SPEAKER_02: In that time, it was called Spanish Revolution.
54:39
SPEAKER_02: So at a certain point, people
54:44
became fed up with the idea of the false democracy that they
54:54
have been fed with for many years.
54:58
SPEAKER_02: And they said, okay, this is not democracy.
55:05
SPEAKER_02: The voice of everyone should be heard and we...
55:13
the space for each voice should be given and all the decisions
55:18
should be made
55:21
SPEAKER_02: considering all these voices.
55:23
SPEAKER_02: So they first occupied the central square in Madrid.
55:29
Then people went out to the squares and just started occupying
55:34
the squares and the
55:36
SPEAKER_02: all main cities in Spain.
55:40
SPEAKER_02: And the idea was very nice.
55:44
So they were sitting there and they were looking for the way of
55:50
how to make
55:54
SPEAKER_02: collective decisions by giving space to all voices,
56:06
SPEAKER_02: giving them equal weight,
56:10
SPEAKER_02: and hearing out all voices of the collective.
56:16
SPEAKER_02: So every evening they had this gathering of everyone at the square,
56:24
SPEAKER_02: and anyone could stand up and say whatever they were thinking,
56:29
SPEAKER_02: and then there was a word.
56:32
SPEAKER_02: And the voting was like they were just waving hands.
56:35
And until they came up with unanimous waving hands,
56:44
none decision was made.
56:48
SPEAKER_02: So in the end, of course, the evil governments took out all the...
56:59
people from the squares and it all got lost in the end in the
57:04
corridors of the high
57:07
politics because just the small activists from those movements
57:12
that then they ended
57:14
SPEAKER_02: up in the politics.
57:20
SPEAKER_02: From the practical point of view if we
57:30
SPEAKER_02: hear everything,
57:31
SPEAKER_02: if we all give space to everything and hear all voices,
57:39
SPEAKER_02: how can we make practical decisions and make things work?
57:53
SPEAKER_00: I'm thinking of tribes that actually have that system and they will sit
57:58
for as long as it is necessary in their tribal meetings or
58:04
whatever until it is a
58:06
SPEAKER_00: unanimous decision.
58:10
SPEAKER_00: And they just treat time differently.
58:12
SPEAKER_00: They will take the time to make sure everyone's on board.
58:19
SPEAKER_01: A couple of things that come to mind first about the tribes.
58:25
SPEAKER_01: The tribes...
58:33
the kind of like an expression of the place of the history
58:45
which would not in my
58:53
SPEAKER_01: opinion be available to the western civilization
58:59
that's just not the shape that we have been and also not the
59:08
size and the second
59:12
thing that was coming up about the collective and about the
59:19
voices that what are we
59:24
SPEAKER_01: including in the collective collective
59:29
SPEAKER_01: human,
59:30
SPEAKER_01: for example,
59:32
SPEAKER_01: would totally,
59:36
SPEAKER_01: would not totally,
59:38
SPEAKER_01: but would not hold all the individual and also its expression,
59:51
SPEAKER_01: it's kind of without the context then.
59:56
SPEAKER_01: In the tribal and indigenous,
1:00:00
SPEAKER_01: the history,
1:00:01
SPEAKER_01: culture,
1:00:03
SPEAKER_01: collective is always the world,
1:00:07
SPEAKER_01: including the humans,
1:00:09
SPEAKER_01: the place which is given agency.
1:00:18
And the expression of the individual collective,
1:00:23
including everything,
1:00:25
is a dance,
1:00:28
SPEAKER_01: which is shaped and contained by the place.
1:00:41
SPEAKER_01: It's not practical at all,
1:00:45
SPEAKER_01: because your question was about practicality,
1:00:50
SPEAKER_01: but that's what was coming up.
1:00:55
SPEAKER_00: Also, practicality
1:00:59
SPEAKER_00: Inherently feels like a masculine perspective.
1:01:04
SPEAKER_00: So what would the feminine perspective be?
1:01:12
SPEAKER_00: In order to come up with a utopia,
1:01:15
SPEAKER_00: conceptually come up with a utopia,
1:01:21
SPEAKER_00: wouldn't the shape and the shape of who we are
1:01:26
SPEAKER_00: have to be reconsidered first?
1:01:32
SPEAKER_02: It has to come from within, not just invented by the mind.
1:01:43
SPEAKER_02: What do you mean?
1:01:46
SPEAKER_02: I mean that the feminine gives form to anything by
1:01:57
SPEAKER_02: like bringing it from the wing,
1:02:00
SPEAKER_02: from the union with the essence of that other thing,
1:02:05
as opposed to the masculine that just cuts off the pieces and
1:02:12
imposes its will on
1:02:14
SPEAKER_02: the wall.
1:02:17
And the state we're in collectively and individually at this
1:02:21
moment in time
1:02:24
if the feminine does not take some measures to actually
1:02:27
extricate itself from the
1:02:31
status quo of the size and shape of the society we're living in
1:02:35
and doesn't start
1:02:36
to experience what am I actually if I am not subjugated to all
1:02:43
of this this way
1:02:47
SPEAKER_00: these words to describe me but not really me
1:02:54
And all of these structures that were built to contain the
1:02:58
feminine instead of
1:03:00
SPEAKER_00: support the feminine.
1:03:03
If there is an extrication process that is required before the
1:03:09
feminine can even
1:03:10
SPEAKER_00: fully start to breathe again,
1:03:13
SPEAKER_00: revive itself,
1:03:15
SPEAKER_00: in order to start asking the questions of what is utopia like for me?
1:03:21
SPEAKER_00: And I'm breaking all the rules.
1:03:22
SPEAKER_00: I'm sorry with the me and the you and the I.
1:03:26
SPEAKER_02: No, it's okay.
1:03:26
SPEAKER_02: It's okay.
1:03:27
SPEAKER_02: It's actually like we need to wrap up the conversation.
1:03:32
So I proposed for the last five minutes when we allowed to brew
1:03:44
our conclusions of
1:03:46
SPEAKER_02: these surreal conversations.
1:03:51
SPEAKER_01: Totally.
1:03:55
I propose that we take off these creative limitations and now
1:04:00
we can use many words.
1:04:03
SPEAKER_02: What are you taking from this?
1:04:18
We are exchanging of flowing of forms of ideas and words and
1:04:32
sentences and energies
1:04:38
that doesn't have any practicality because we allowed the
1:04:43
feminine to take
1:04:49
to take the rule the feminine just hijacked the conversation no
1:04:56
the feminine is
1:04:57
like hey you people I'm not even reflected in these effing
1:05:03
words these words were
1:05:06
not created for me they do not describe you know the operating
1:05:12
self of me these
1:05:16
SPEAKER_00: words don't resonate
1:05:21
SPEAKER_02: So, you like to set an example for the roping up session.
1:05:28
SPEAKER_02: Wrapping up or roping up?
1:05:31
SPEAKER_02: Are we roping it?
1:05:32
SPEAKER_01: No, we're roping it.
1:05:38
SPEAKER_01: Let's bind it up.
1:05:41
SPEAKER_01: Let's bind up the feminine.
1:05:44
SPEAKER_02: Well, first of all, this experiment...
1:05:51
SPEAKER_02: showed me the necessity of the words I and you,
1:05:57
because it exactly adds the vibrance to the system of the
1:06:04
connective to add the
1:06:06
SPEAKER_02: vibrance and the variety of the individuality.
1:06:15
SPEAKER_02: So...
1:06:17
Yes,
1:06:18
sometimes you need to limit yourself to start appreciating
1:06:24
something in the new light.
1:06:30
SPEAKER_02: And as for the topic, I personally do share totally with my whole heart
1:06:42
the concept and the idea of like holding space for for the
1:06:49
polarities and it's a
1:06:54
very important reminder to like to approach with the awareness
1:07:02
of yes and anything
1:07:06
SPEAKER_02: that is emerging and this idea of
1:07:14
Giving more space,
1:07:20
let's call it feminine mode of interacting with the world.
1:07:28
SPEAKER_02: Like, yes, hearing and sensing what the world actually is.
1:07:37
SPEAKER_02: is saying to me, to us at this moment, what is emerging?
1:07:41
SPEAKER_02: What we are, like, experimenting here.
1:07:44
SPEAKER_02: Like,
1:07:44
SPEAKER_02: okay,
1:07:45
SPEAKER_02: what is emerging for us,
1:07:47
SPEAKER_02: for my tribe,
1:07:49
SPEAKER_02: for,
1:07:49
SPEAKER_02: like,
1:07:49
SPEAKER_02: for this group,
1:07:50
SPEAKER_02: for me,
1:07:51
SPEAKER_02: for this place,
1:07:53
SPEAKER_02: for this space,
1:07:54
SPEAKER_02: for this emerging right now,
1:07:56
SPEAKER_02: what the world is trying to express?
1:08:03
SPEAKER_02: Hmm...
1:08:07
and learning to operate in this mode of not imposing my will
1:08:13
into the world but
1:08:15
SPEAKER_02: from the union,
1:08:17
SPEAKER_02: from giving birth from the being,
1:08:22
SPEAKER_02: I do celebrate these notions that we need to integrate more of this.
1:08:33
SPEAKER_02: My concerns of the practicalities that are still left unanswered,
1:08:42
I am concerned about the roads and who will build the roads and
1:08:47
the internet and
1:08:50
SPEAKER_02: all the other practical things.
1:08:53
Which I feel still requires the masculine approach to making
1:08:59
decisions and taking
1:09:01
SPEAKER_02: the reins sometimes of things.
1:09:10
SPEAKER_00: There's a season for everything.
1:09:14
SPEAKER_00: And the season, from my perspective, the season we're in right now as a
1:09:22
society i think that the feminine actually needs to become more
1:09:26
individualistic
1:09:28
like almost more than ever before to reclaim and extricate from
1:09:35
the system we've
1:09:36
SPEAKER_00: been you know
1:09:39
bound into so it needs to become even more individualistic in
1:09:43
in some ways and the
1:09:45
masculine needs to become way less individualistic and way more
1:09:50
collective and more
1:09:51
open in order to like unbind the energetics that we have
1:09:55
created and eventually in
1:09:58
the next season if this this is what we can do in the next
1:10:03
season we might all come
1:10:05
SPEAKER_00: back
1:10:06
towards somewhere in the middle that is going to be flowy and
1:10:10
porous uh but that's
1:10:14
that's how i see it already something happened to the internet
1:10:18
so i decided to for
1:10:20
the last five minutes to connect from the phone so like the yin
1:10:25
should take more of
1:10:26
SPEAKER_02: the yang the yang should take more of the yin yula what are you taking
1:10:34
from today's experiment I must say I've been observing myself
1:10:43
I've been observing
1:10:44
SPEAKER_01: some a little bit of skepticism maybe resistance to this division between
1:10:58
SPEAKER_01: masculinity and femininity and the question that
1:11:04
i have is are we now dividing masculinity and femininity by uh
1:11:12
just men versus
1:11:14
women because we are both at all times and to me everything
1:11:22
that kind of like from
1:11:24
SPEAKER_01: the start wants to be kind of like to go to the extreme which
1:11:32
I agree,
1:11:32
it ends up,
1:11:33
when we make a change,
1:11:35
it ends up going to another extreme,
1:11:40
usually.
1:11:42
SPEAKER_01: But I'm not sure if that's the intention that I would take.
1:11:47
SPEAKER_01: It takes me far from...
1:12:00
SPEAKER_01: our discussion and the topic of collective versus individual,
1:12:09
SPEAKER_01: which...
1:12:13
SPEAKER_01: Really hard for me now to say what even then...
1:12:18
I'm taking away that nothing is as straightforward or as...
1:12:24
or even shaped...
1:12:29
SPEAKER_01: As it appears, there is definitely something that wants to emerge.
1:12:38
SPEAKER_01: At this point, this hasn't yet emerged.
1:12:42
SPEAKER_01: So,
1:12:42
SPEAKER_01: you know,
1:12:45
SPEAKER_01: does this mean we need to kind of like burn bridges and,
1:12:49
SPEAKER_01: you know,
1:12:51
SPEAKER_01: like give up things and words?
1:12:58
SPEAKER_01: I don't know.
1:12:59
SPEAKER_01: Um,
1:13:00
SPEAKER_01: But I really, what I enjoyed was sensing into this without making sense.
1:13:14
SPEAKER_01: This is what it felt like.
1:13:16
Kind of like sensing and going in all weird direction and
1:13:23
without this obligation to
1:13:26
explain it now it makes sense and it would be practical in this
1:13:29
way because it's
1:13:32
probably a stage that has to be there yeah it's like more the
1:13:39
divergent exploration
1:13:40
of all possibilities so well thank you very much for playing
1:13:49
alone in this um
1:13:53
a little bit strange setup of the conversation and uh i want to
1:13:57
invite our
1:13:58
listeners please share what you would take out of this surreal
1:14:03
conversation and
1:14:05
what you've what are your thoughts and feelings and dancing on
1:14:11
the topic of both
1:14:13
SPEAKER_02: you like where we're heading to towards in terms of
1:14:19
SPEAKER_02: is giving space to both the individual and the collective.
1:14:25
SPEAKER_02: What is your utopia?
1:14:27
SPEAKER_02: What does it look like?
1:14:30
SPEAKER_02: And how can we build bridges and roads in the world of yes and?
1:14:40
SPEAKER_02: And we hope to seal or...
1:14:49
SPEAKER_02: Feel you more like.
1:14:51
SPEAKER_02: Feel you in the field.
1:14:54
SPEAKER_02: And our next experiments will take different forms.
1:15:03
SPEAKER_01: Until then.
1:15:03
SPEAKER_01: Thank you.
1:15:06
SPEAKER_01: Thanks for listening.
1:15:07
SPEAKER_01: How was it for you?
1:15:09
We believe that the more people experience cook flow together,
1:15:13
the better off we all are.
1:15:15
SPEAKER_01: More connected.
1:15:17
SPEAKER_01: More creative.
1:15:18
SPEAKER_01: More alive.
1:15:19
SPEAKER_01: So let's expand the field.
1:15:22
SPEAKER_02: If this episode resonated with you, help us spread the word.
1:15:28
SPEAKER_02: Share it with a friend, leave a comment, or give us a rating.
1:15:33
SPEAKER_00: We love you.
1:15:35
SPEAKER_00: Do subscribe so you'll know when the next experiment comes out.
1:15:39
SPEAKER_00: You can also connect with us on our Life & Flow group Substack.
1:15:43
SPEAKER_00: We'd love to hear from you.
1:15:45
SPEAKER_00: Let's keep flowing together.