Day Eight

Sunday 2017-03-19

Participants: Janina Abels, Paul Free, Matthias Larisch, Bodhi Neiser, Douglas Webb, Philip Engelbutzeder, Rosina Klotz, fr4nk 0nf1r3, Lisa

Open questions

Paul collected some topics he didn't have the impression were sufficiently treated during the process, even though he deems them very important. We started discussing two of them again in the now bigger group:

• actions meant to maximize joy vs. minimize suffering
• actions orientated on law & norm vs. conviction & values

Some statements from the discussion:
(notes from the initial discussion can be found here)

Joy & suffering

Doug: This is a big question. If the focus is only on fighting suffering it could lead to such philosophical dilemmas like coming to the conclusion that killing every single living thing on the planet, if one had the chance, would be the right thing to do, because living always comes with a good amount of suffering.

Philip: Joy is the unintendable consequence of meaningful contribution and meaningful contribution is contribution to a group. Relationships are what make people happy, there are many studies showing that. Also, there is a lack of sense in the world, and that's why so many people are unhappy.

Law & conviction

Matthias: Norms and laws are the frame to my actions, because I think that having them in general them makes sense.

Philip: But it's not like that by default. Normally laws are like 10 years behind of what people actually find useful and do...

Janina: If you take norms and laws as a given it limits your thinking. Paul had this nice example of drawing: You either draw completely freely, doing all of your creativity full justice and really expressing yourself, or you just draw on a presized piece of paper that was given to you along with only one blue pencil. The results definitely won't be the same pictures... Still, I also appreciate some certainty and the feeling that we won't be evicted from our housing project due to unnecessary illegal actions.

Paul: But what is 'unnecessary'? For example, there are 40k empty houses in Germany, so there is more than enough living space, yet you go out and buy a house, because that's how one does it according to norms and law. When thinking freely, on the other hand, it doesn't make any sense.

Doug: I'm not at all against coordinated revolution, but for now I want a secure space. Maybe also to plan it. I know that it's partly selfish, but only because I think I need to help myself before I can help others.

Review of the questions on the pad

Did we answer some of the questions people came up with in preparation of these meetings? If yes, how? If not, why not?
(not all of the questions on the pad seemed relevant, also focus was low on this last day, so this review is done by Janina alone, after having attended the meetings, and it will only focus on the questions she found important)

Identity and public perception single person and group → whish to focus on single persons first
Think about ourselves:
Why am I?
What do I conclude from that?
Why am I in yunity (personal motivation and expectations)
What is the reason of me/us?

That's exactly what we started with! Not that we finished it, but still, that's what we did!

Revolutions vs transition (revolt)

That was a topic that came up again and again. In the group that was present a tendency for transition was observable, even though there was also sympathy for revolt. There was no single answer reached, because it's a very deep question and the self-realization that yunity could be a network makes it possible for us to follow both approaches at once, since every project or group of people can decide for themselves how they want to act.

Can one work on all worksites at the same time or does one have to?

When do I participate in yunity? (Is it just in some moments or always? Is 'participating in yunity' a lifestyle or a set of actions?)

We talked about this in the context of authenticity and 24/7 activism. We didn't reach consensus on this question.

What can we do so that Paul and Butze like Wurzen?

We don't need to make everyone like every project. Paul and Philip both said that they'd still come by the Wurzen house, even if they don't support the way it will have come into being. Not being open to that would be childish to them.

What is yunity? (project, community, movement, network, tribe, family... what do these words even mean and which one do I think fits best?)
Should yunity be more a project with a detailed mission/plan or more a loose network?

I think it's safe to say that we agreed on yunity being a network. (For a clarification of the above-mentioned terms a separate glossary page will follow.)

What is yunity aiming for?
Why is yunity?

We talked about this when discussing the vision and mission, and it was the underlying question of the whole week. The most vague - ad thus maybe most fitting - answer would be: "yunity wants to make the world a better place by promoting unconditional sharing and relationships of trust, which then lead to a much freer society of more self-determined people, who realize that taking care of their eco systems is extremely important" But maybe this is just Janina's answer after all and other people would put the emphasis differently...

Whom does yunity want to attract?

Now that we see yunity as a network, that totally depends on the project. In general, we're open to everyone interested in unconditional sharing and alternative ways of living and operating. Did you read the vision, the mission and the newly proposed group values and felt like this is what you want to see the world like, as well? Then we probably want to attract you!

Does yunity need a voice by itself, if yes, how does yunity get its voice?

We addressed this, but not in-depth. Matthias and Janina were sure that yunity shouldn't have a single voice anymore, because that wouldn't do justice to the great variety of people and (possible) projects under the yunity flag.

What is sharing?
What are trust, encouraging relationships, cooperation/collaboration, a sustainable way of living and self-determination? 
(questions, that arise from the vision and mission statements to which I didn't hear any resistance so far)

We didn't really talk about this, but Janina will put those on the glossary page as well. stay tuned!

How do we want the world to be?
How do we want to live? How do we want our society? What does that mean for yunity?

Not all of us gave this equally deep thought, so it's hard to answer if we have consensus here or not. On a superficial level we all want to have a world, like the one described in the yunity vision, but not everyone of us is able - or even willing - to come up with a thought-through model of how it could be.

How can we pass on values and visions?

We did not really talk about this, since we did not reach a point where we had the feeling that all of us are aligned in the same values and visions to a degree, that we could speak of passing it on to others.

How can we encourage each other in living our dreams?

Even though we did not specifically talk about this, I - Janina - have the feeling, that it already happened during the process...

What are all the different things that yunity might be right now? (i.e if you asked each person what yunity is, what would the answers be)
What are all the different things that yunity could be?

We did that. Read the answers here. But this, of course, is just a fraction of people. If you'd like to share your own perspective, please do!

Which organisations/groups do people take inspiration from when thinking about what yunity could be?

Good question! Sadly, we forgot to talk about it. The only other organizations that came up were Ouishare (we peeked at their values), Transition Town (they were our example for a loose network, that still is somehow connected) and Rainbow (for the culture).

Should there be such a concept as being a member of yunity?

You mean, like, with an ID card? ^^ Well, no, I guess not. In a loose network the people themselves decide if they're part of it or not and in the end the amount of contribution and involvedness always is the best measurement of who is part of something and who maybe is not (anymore).

How should yunity make decisions?

Will yunity still make decisions, if it's a loose network? Groups will make decisions for their projects, probably, but yunity itself? I doubt it... But to be honest, we didn't really speak about this.

Feedback on the process

The week was long - for some much longer than for others - and the process was meant to be self-organized. Time for a feedback round!

Matthias: I was demotivated a lot of the time, even though I really wanted to be motivated. I tried to give my best and I'm sorry if it didn't seem that way sometimes. The meetings seemed chaotic at times and were generally too long. Even though we spent so much time, I feel like the process is not nearly finished. Still, I'm quite happy with having gotten to know you better, as well as myself.

Lisa: I'm confused. I'm not so happy with the outcome, but the value thing was nice. And all this made us think about wh-y-unity, that's good.

Frank: I'm not sure how relevant these meeting are for me, that's also why I didn't participate so much, but I'll read the documentation. I'm looking forward to getting started with the Wurzen meetings, actually I've been mainly waiting for this the past week...

Bodhi: I was not really motivated to begin with, but since I thought it's useful to get more clarity I forced myself to participate. It mostly felt like a waste of time, but there were some interesting moments. It's not like "Wow, greatest insights of my life!", but that's okay, that's what I expected. And some insights have definitely been reached. The reverse process was much more useful for me, because I could see the relevance of the questions. I also know that it's useful to talk about the more abstract questions, it's just not what motivates me.

Rosina: I don't have feedback.

Janina: I have the feeling I was the only one actually motivated for this, after Laurina left. It's okay though, I'm happy you still pulled through, thank you! I'm pretty positive about the outcomes, even though I know that this is no finished process. The common understanding, that these questions are always relevant already is a success in my opinion. The meeting structure was a bit chaotic at times but mostly okay - we self-organized after all. I'm happy that I could get to know you all better, to me this was a pretty intimate process.

Doug: No one said it was gonna be easy...

Paul: I was motivated when the topic first arose, but lost almost all my interest, when the scheduling turned out to be so very difficult. I mainly came because Laurina said, that I could give useful input. I was in a bad situation coming out of unpleasant group talks and being sick. It felt like I had to put in lots of energy to make things happening; like I had to fight to continue the process. I don't know about the outcome, since I missed the last two days, but I think that the process itself is more important than the outcome anyways. And it's not finished.

Philip: I guess it was a good experience. A lot of abstract work has been done, now it needs to get concrete. I also see it more like the start of a process, than the end.I liked the values, but I also see them as part of a dynamic process. This leaves me curious. Where will it lead?