Timothy Wilken
A number of readers have written with concerns about the terminology I chose to describe the “Gift Tensegrity” (GT). Some have suggested changes. First, I want to state that all of the suggestions I have received have been valid, and pointed out some problem with my original explanation.
As preamble to discussing this in more depth, I think that the problem of terminology for the GT is really a problem that every shifting paradigm faces. The words that were defined and developed to describe the old paradigm, don’t work easily in the new paradigm.
I suppose the cleanest way to explain something new would be to develop totally new words. However, that said, I think using totally new terms would be just as confusing and put off more people that they would attract. And, you would still find that your definitions were full of old words from the prevailing paradigm.
So I have stuck with using old terms, but in a new way. I have come to my choice of terms after lots of thinking and I would like to share my thinking with you. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for improvement, but rather that changes need to be made carefully and only for good reasons. Let me begin by quoting some of the suggested changes and then respond to them point by point.
James North wrote: “Timothy, I would drop use of the word “help” and “helping” and adopt instead the word “assist” and “assisting”. This stems from the basis of personal power, and empowerment, where “I can do it….” AND your assistance I could use, rather than “I’m broken, useless, need fixing……” please help me.
James, I think that the word “help” is fundamental to understanding INTERdependence. I believe that your concern reveals a mistaken belief that is presently held by most of humanity. That is the belief that we humans are independent. Most of humanity is presently unaware that we are members of an INTERdependent life form. Since they mistakenly believe they are INdependent, they look upon needing help as a sign of weakness or deficiency.
We are not independent of each other. All humans need help. I think we must be quick to explain how the terms “help” and “helping” are natural and appropriate to use for an INTERdependent species. So I think we should continue using the terms “help” and “helping”, but carefully. We should expect some of our readers to misunderstand and use their misunderstanding as an opportunity to teach about INTERdependence.
On a similar vein, Chris Lucas writes: “James’ point about ‘help’ implying ‘something wrong’, i.e. a ‘failure’ is also valid, all these words are tricky and have inherent values of which we need to be aware, we need perhaps metaphors that emphasize webs rather than linear chains of control or action. Spiral Dynamics uses the term ‘meshworks’ which mimics tensegrity. Their Don Beck describes it thus: “The term “mesh” in MeshWORKs suggests a different way to connect entities, be they individuals, or structures, or interests, or functions, or people groupings of virtually any size.” “
Wayne Perg writes: “I believe that the word “gifting” raises an image of giving material goods in the minds of most people. My belief regarding the popular perception of gifting has been reinforced by the words that I have been reading in this dialogue. “Therefore, I suggest a name change. Possibilities that occur to me include “Giving Tensegrity” and “Sharing Tensegrity.” I have no energy on the choice of the name, but I do believe that, based on my reading of the dialogue to date, a change in name would be desirable.”
Again, I would suggest that our real problem here is not so much one of terminology. All of our terms are going to be flawed. All of our terms were defined in the old paradigm. I think we need to assume that the disclosure of this new idea is going to encounter much misunderstanding. Rather than dance around trying to find better terms. I think we simply need to take the time to explain what we mean by the terms we are choosing to use.
Wayne continues: “I also have another problem with the word gift and that is that it means poison in German. Because this will be an international network, I believe that it is important to consider the meanings that the name will take on when seen through the eyes of those who speak other languages.”
Chris Lucas raises a slightly different point when he writes: ” ‘Sharing Tensegrity’ would be better, after all ‘sharing’ implies a two way process, as does ‘synergy’ whereas ‘giving’ tends to be seen as one-directional, not what we intend here I think. Sharing also tends to do away with the other connotation of ‘gift’ which is ownership, and that is also a negative concept that implies division and the opposite of what I assume we intend. The word that comes closest to my mind is perhaps ‘participatory’, but it is a clumsy word compared to ‘gift’. “
Chris, I would have to say yes and no. I agree that in our present paradigm, “sharing” implies shared control and shared ownership. Conditional gifting is an important feature of the GT. When I gift the use of a tool to another member of the GT, I am sharing control, but not ownership. So “sharing” is the case when I conditionally gift. But, much of the gifting within the GT is not conditional. This unconditional gifting is part of the GT’s strength and magic. When I unconditionally gift, I am transferring ownership to the giftee.
I would suggest we make broad use of term “sharing” when describing the GT, and especially the conditional gifting part of the GT. But, I don’t think the term “share” works better than the term “gift”. Again, I would suggest that all of our terms are flawed. I think we need to choose the best we can and then take the time to explain what we mean when we use these terms. All terms carry semantic garbage from the old paradigm. Ask any child what they like better “sharing” or “gifting” and I think their answer will make my point.
The creation of a new system for the exchange of goods and services is an enormous challenge. The design of the Gift Tensegrity must therefore be a work in progress. As I present ideas of how it might work, my readers are letting me know when they think I am missing some of their concerns. This is the very essence of co-Laboration—working together.
If you have opinions, comments, or questions, please write me.