Starting from a place of presence. Be centered. Any unresolved distractions and to-do’s are removed or parked in a satisfying will-get-done-later pile.
I’ve just gotten back from burning man and am (relatively) aligned. There is something alive (but perceptibly dying) in the culture of Burning Man which I would call Agreement Culture. Essentially, agreement culture is about openness to (and consciousness of) honest, mutual agreements.
Facing the fear of slipping back into the world of “what’s next” and getting lost in the sauce of busy-ness, I am determined to keep Agreement Culture alive in myself, and the space around me in order to help maintain this quality of presence and joy.
I draw largely on The Four Agreements, a book I have read several times and would recommend strongly to everybody on earth. In the book, Don Miguel Ruiz sets the scene of the human condition. We grow up, entering into all sorts of subconscious agreements to judge ourselves and others. The author emphasizes how important being impeccable with our word is. That is: let us not go against ourselves with agreements we make.
I think Success equals the strength of one’s word. The definition of success has eluded many thinkers. We look to the richest among us and wonder what common quality attributes to their success. I imagine what unites them is the power of their word. A man is only as good as his word, after all. If you say what you will achieve and then do so, you have succeeded. Full stop.
It is hard to emphasize the value of the word enough. Plus, Don Miguel Ruiz does so better than I could in his book, so go read that. Beyond this, let us learn how to establish a culture of consciousness to share with others when using our word to make agreements.
To elicit what I mean by Agreement culture, I will list some exemplary questions. Can we agree to ask questions for the sake of obtaining information? In this approach, getting a “Yes” is a good outcome because you get what you want, and getting a “No” is a good outcome because you gain information. When answering such a question, can we agree to be thoughtful and honest? Can we agree to be open-minded and to give others the benefit of the doubt? Can we agree to own our “No”? If a question truly comes from the place of truth-seeking without manipulative intent, can we allow even the stupidest of questions without taking offense or creating distance? Can we agree to engage only in consensual relations and try to make sure everybody involved has the information they need to assent?
Before I bring more context to these questions, I want to go on a brief tangent about sex and attention.
We don’t often think of consent outside of sex. Sexual relationships involve delicate and complicated agreements, so the concepts developed in that space can be useful. We make plenty of delicate and complicated agreements outside of sex without even knowing it, and we don’t talk about it. The nuance often seems impossible to navigate. To communicate the nuances often simply does take more time than a single-sentence question. And as our attention-spans become more-and-more accustomed to the concise-maxxing and distillation of short-form content, I fear that the space for nuanced conversations is shrinking. Big problems can only be solved with nuanced communication. If we are limited to 240 characters or 60 second videos, then our differences are sure to seem unsurmountable and a clash of violence is inevitable.
Back to the questions I listed earlier. These are questions that we can ask the people around us. Establishing agreements like these is a common starting-point to some of the most powerful workshops I’ve participated in. We can ask these questions to anyone at any time. Very few people will look you in the eye and give a dishonest answer. And generally I think we all want to participate in spaces with more open communication. That is unless you subscribe to the machiavellian ethos like that in the 48 Laws of Power, a book which is a great indicator of which friends to keep at arms length (those that swear by it, of course). I digress. The problem is that it can be so hard to establish these kinds of agreements. How can we not be met with “why are you saying this?” unless there’s a clear social cue to ask this type of question? And often it’s hard to even get the relevant group of people in one room at attention.
Now I want to come back to the question of persuasion. Under this line of thinking, it seems like there is no room for persuasion. But, the truth is more nuanced than that. Perhaps we only need to be clear about when and how we persuade.
Let’s play out an example. If I ask you to go to Waterworld and you say no,
I can say “I feel very passionately that we should go to Waterworld and I’d like to paint you a picture of how fun it will be, may I try to persuade you?”.
If you then say “I don’t want to be persuaded to go to Waterworld”, well, then we are in a tricky situation.
It’s tricky because I am now tempted to persuade you to be more open-minded about being persuaded. After all, if I did get you to a place where you wanted to go to the water park, wouldn’t you like to do that? But, if you are afraid that you won’t be able to hold a “no” against persuasion and enter into an agreement only to appease me, that is a problem.
At this point it can be interesting to investigate the energies at play, rather than simply letting us go our separate ways. We are more interconnected than our culture would have us believe. I think our antennas can pick up on vibes about each other, and we can learn more about ourselves with respectful conversation. It’s important not to get lost in the details. Upon realizing a tension like the water-park example, it is more helpful (and safe) to discuss on the meta-level of “why do you feel so strongly about me coming with you?” and “why don’t you feel comfortable with persuasion?” In these situations it’s very important to listen. Listen to what’s alive in your opponent, and in yourself. Don’t get caught up on the words; the real meaning is often (re: almost always) subtextual. We have two ears and one mouth, after all.
The biggest barrier to living being impeccable with one’s word may be the fear of not getting what you want. If we never make assumptions then we might lose some opportunities by over-asking. We fear over-asking will create awkwardness and prevent us from getting the outcome we want if we had just assumed the answer was “yes”. This is “ask for forgiveness, not permission”. And it is a valid concern. This mindset does not mean that we should relinquish all forms of subtle communication. Some things are too subtle and nuanced to be communicated well with language (depending on one’s level of linguistic mastery). This takes us back to the importance of real Listening. Making an assumption is to project your own story onto someone else. But if you truly listen to the vibe of another person, it is possible to communicate on that level of vibration. Miscommunications are inevitable, but with willingness to find common ground and enough patience we can resolve them.
Stepping back. Derek Sivers has a famous criterion for decision making: “hell yes or no”. At first, it just sounded close-minded to me. But in the context of the Agreement mindset, it makes sense. It’s crucial to hawkishly filter your commitments so that you don’t enter into agreements that you only half agree with. Otherwise you will degrade the power of your word. If you can’t find the passion in your body, then don’t agree. Time spent by yourself is time well spent. And holding the bar high reminds you of that. On the flip-side, don’t be afraid to be sold. If a friend wants to do something with you and you’re not immediately passionate, try asking them to sell you on it and see if you can find the passion. Or, sell yourself. Not from a place of guilt but from a place of joy.
It remains a question of how to establish Agreement culture in the first place. Broaching the concept that you want to communicate more openly with the people around you is awkward. Take advantage of the opportunities that do come, like special events, holidays, and gatherings.
In our case, if you are reading this, let it serve as a personal invitation. Communicate openly with me, and don’t be afraid of getting close. We are social creatures, but distance has been created between us so that our needs can be digitized and monetized. Fuck that.
With love, Miles