Will 2021 be the 21st century’s year of the love-in? Possibly that’s exactly what we need right now.
As we prepare to emerge from the covid-19 pandemic, wearied by years of increasingly polarized politics and staggered by the enormity of exponentially-increasing climate change, it’s hard to avoid the sober assessment that this has been mere previews of dark times to come. If we are to avert deeper disasters and violent conflict or, failing that, if we are to weather those storms, we must rapidly enact collective healing on a grand scale. I propose love-ins as one of the many interventions that we must undertake in order to achieve that radical healing.
The term love-in has been floating in the air since the 1960s. By the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic tore through the gay community and Reagan-style conservatism dominated the mainstream, the notion of a love-in felt like a quaint and toothless affectation from the 1960s, a brief moment where young, naive, predominantly white baby boomers rode a wave of American affluence in the aftermath of WWII. This retroactive dismissal of love-ins glosses over the pain and polarized conflict that dominated american life in the 1960s, conflict that especially focused around the civil rights movement and the vietnam war. Love-ins were a radical intervention, an act of collective healing and transformative future-crafting. They arose in response to a gaping wound, invoking love, connectedness, creativity, and open imagination into a cultural space that was dominated by strife and pain. If there was any time that called for this kind of intervention, 2021 is that time.
We all know the taste of our own tears
And your tears taste very much like mine
She held my hand so tightly that my fingers slept
Or maybe it was him, sitting on the other side
Who squeezed so hard
up, down, left, right, me, you, him, her, them
Somebody was singing Ave Maria
And in the echoes all those distinctions blurred with rainbow light
I stood at the podium and butchered a poem
While looking only at the coffin
My sobs rendered most words incoherent
But funerals are for grieving, not performances
To grieve forcefully, incoherently, is a potent invitation
Join me with your tears.
Two years earlier, when the spectre of death already loomed large
One composer’s contemplation of silence punctured me
With its persistent bell and an endless descent
One composer mourning a meeting that never happened
And in that moment I wondered if we ever truly meet
When all we ever hear are echoes.
[This was originally published on Medium April 12th 2016]
The internet has been stolen from you. Scooped out of your hands without much of a fuss. A small number of corporations are locked in a zero-sum game of land grabs. Your ideas, experiences and social connections, expressed digitally, are the land they grab. They have made billions of dollars by stealing your magic, and they steal it fresh every day. We’re going to put a stop to that. We’re going to reclaim the internet using the techniques that Gandhi used to defeat the British Empire. Let me explain how.
The value of a network increases exponentially based on the number of people connected to it. This fact is what fueled the explosion of creativity, enthusiasm and optimism around the world wide web in the 1990s. A revolution was happening. Anyone with a computer and gumption could create their own piece of real estate on that network. We were creating this amazing, powerful thing and everyone had a chance to be part of it. Then the “dot-com bubble” burst in 2000 and the story changed. While the rhetoric of silicon valley continued to talk about the web as something that benefits everyone, technology companies switched to creating closed, captive networks.
If the value of a network increases exponentially based on the number of people connected to it, then owning a network with a lot of people connected to it will make your company extremely valuable. The goal was no longer to create an inclusive, open, distributed global network. It was to create closed global networks that could be controlled and monetized centrally.
It’s investors paying young idealists to trap networks and turn them into profit engines, just like the Victorians trapped wild animals to put them in zoos.
After 2000 or 2001, with the rise of web 2.0, the dominant business model in Silicon Valley has been to accumulate large networks of users, hold their data captive, and then find ways to make money off that captive web of data. It’s a game of thrones — aristocracy vying for control of real estate. It’s investors paying young idealists to trap networks and turn them into profit engines, just like the Victorians trapped wild animals to put them in zoos. We, in aggregate, the networks of us, are the wild things that they captured. What happened to the explosive optimism of the www? It got wrangled when we allowed the web of data to become trapped in centralized servers.
We’re going to let the beasts out of their cages. You, me, all of us. We’re going to change the world by putting the power of networks back in the hands of everyone. The tide of technology has turned away from centralization. It’s picking up momentum in the opposite direction, towards decentralization. We’re going to ensure that tide makes the second world wide web — the web of data — truly decentralized. We’re reclaiming our data and by doing that we’re reclaiming the technological, social and economic power that comes from controlling those data. The data monopolies won’t be able to stop us.
The lesson of the 1990s was that an open, distributed, uncontrolled, global network is profoundly transformational. The lesson of the 2000s was that companies can make a lot of money by cultivating captive networks. The lesson of the 2010s will be that the bonds of digital captivity can be broken.
Learning from past efforts
This has been tried before. Notably, the diaspora* project set out with similar goals in 2010. A group of NYU students raised $200k on kickstarterto create diaspora*, a decentralized alternative to Facebook, saying “When you have a Diaspora seed of your own, you own your social graph, you have access to your information however you want, whenever you want, and you have full control of your online identity.” They proposed creating “the privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network”. They received immediate accolades and thousands of interested participants.
Two years later, in 2012, the project had failed to get traction. One of the founders had died in 2011. The remaining founders walked away, joining Y-Combinator and leaving the Free Software Support Network to steward the project. The number of code contributors plummeted to one fifth of 2011’s peak participation. Today, in 2016, community members continue to contribute improvements but the project has lost nearly all of its momentum.
The diaspora* project was a dry-run. Their missteps show us how to succeed.
It didn’t work out, but have hope. They got a few key things wrong, the most important one being a mistake of arriving too early. The diaspora* project was a dry-run. Their missteps show us how to succeed. They stumbled on mistakes of language, timing, and architecture. We can do better. We should try again. This time it will work.
Language: Swadeshi, not Diaspora
Language is important, especially when you want to build something that touches many people from many cultures. Diaspora is the wrong word for what we’re talking about here. It hobbles the project from the moment that people hear its name.
I recently had a conversation with an old friend from high school who’s now a Rabbi in San Francisco. He gave me a very funny look when I asked “Have you heard of diaspora?”. The notion of diaspora has, after all, been at the center of the Jewish experience for nearly 3000 years. “Not that diaspora.” I clarified “The open source software project.” “No. Haven’t heard of it.” he replied, clearly skeptical about what he was about to hear. I felt a bit embarrassed that I was using the word diaspora in such a misaligned way.
Facebook is not anyone’s homeland, nor is Gmail, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Yelp. We are not talking about creating a diaspora. We’re talking about self rule.
A diaspora is a population that has migrated away from its homeland. The term is used almost exclusively to describe people who were driven out or taken from their homeland by force, usually referring either to the Jewish diaspora (Jews driven out of Israel) or the African diaspora (People taken from Africa by the North Atlantic slavery industry).
We don’t need a diaspora. We need a swadeshi movement.
Facebook is not anyone’s homeland, nor is Gmail, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Yelp. We are not talking about creating a diaspora. We’re talking about self rule. Specifically, we’re talking about something that Mahatma Gandhi calledswadeshi. Swadeshi is a sanskrit word that has come to mean “self-sufficiency”. It played a central role in Gandhi’s successful nonviolent campaign against British imperial rule in India. According to the Metta Center for Nonviolence:
swadeshi is the focus on acting within and from ones own community, both politically and economically. In other words, it is the interdependence of community and self-sufficiency. Gandhi believed this would lead to independence (swaraj), as British control of India was rooted in control of her indigenous industries. Swadeshi was the key to the independence of India, and was represented by the charkha or the spinning wheel, the “center of the solar system” of Gandhi’s constructive program.”
The Indian people reclaimed control of their nation by claiming control over their economic productivity. The iconic example of this was the hand-driven spinning wheels (charkha) that they used to spin their own cloth, allowing them to clothe themselves without dependence on the British industrial system.
We don’t need a diaspora. We need a swadeshi movement. The first step is to create this movement’s spinning wheel, the charkha, the tool that allows us to spin the threads of our lives and communities locally while sharing them, shaping them, exchanging them, and creating value without relying on the machinery of far-away, centralized imperial rulers.
Timing: Both People and Technology Needed Time to Catch Up
The diaspora* project arrived too early. In 2010, the people weren’t there yet. The technology wasn’t there yet either. It took time for people to see the value of these data, and for the tides of technology to turn towards decentralization.
When the diaspora* project began in 2010 it was not clear to mainstream society how important or influential these technologies were. When commenting about social media, baby boomers and Gen-Xers alike would often say things like “I don’t care what you had for breakfast.” implying that platforms like Facebook and Twitter were mainly forums for meaningless, worthless chatter. Little did they know that they would become Facebook’s largest user base by 2016.
People see the patterns now. They’re talking about it and they don’t like it, but they don’t see an alternative.
In 2010 neither Facebook, LinkedIn nor Twitter was publicly traded. Facebook had 400 million users (6% of the world’s population), LinkedIn had 90 million users and Twitter had 26 million. Snapchat didn’t even exist yet. Now Facebook has 1.23 billion users (17% of the world’s population) and LinkedIn has 414 million. Facebook reaps roughly $12.76 in advertising revenue per user every year and works steadily to consolidate media traffic onto its platform. Meanwhile, it openly experiments with techniques for manipulating users’ emotional states. When disasters strike, people now turn to Facebook’s Safety Check to find out about friends and loved ones rather than turning to relief organizations like the Red Cross, who provide similar services.
In other words, Facebook has managed to monetize almost every aspect of our lives, even death and disasters. In the process it has eroded our social infrastructure, undermined our psychological health and threatened the sustainability of organizations & social patterns that exist to inform us, heal us, and help us survive disasters. People see the patterns now, and they don’t like it.
Mainstream internet users now see the economic and social value of these data, but they experience the data as something they don’t control. They experience data as something corporations and governments use for profit or power. They don’t see an alternative where individuals and communities can own the data about their lives. We need to create that alternative.
They set out to create something decentralized, but the tide of the tech industry pushed them towards the tools, techniques, and patterns of centralization.
The technology wasn’t ready yet either. In 2010 the tide of technology innovation was rushing gleefully in the direction of centralization — centralizing computation and storage into server farms that use virtualization to run massively scalable systems (a.k.a “the cloud”).
When those NYU students set out to create diaspora* they reached for the leading tools and techniques of the day, which are all optimized to run on cloud architecture, so it’s no surprise that the resulting software begs to be deployed as a cloud service. They set out to create something decentralized, but the tide of the tech industry pushed them towards the tools, techniques, and patterns of centralization.
Now the tide has turned away from the cloud and towards decentralization.
Now, thankfully, the tide has turned away from the cloud and towards decentralization. This might sound like a strange thing to say at the peak of cloud computing enthusiasm, but remember that if you’re swimming in an ocean at high tide, you’re surrounded by water. You have to watch the edges and the shallow spots to see the change. In those places you’ll see the water change direction or start to recede. We’re at the high tide of server farms and cloud computing. We’re drowning in it and the water will take a long time to recede, but the tide has turned.
The innovators of tech have turned their attention to technologies like filesystem containers (i.e. docker), hash trees (ie. git, bitcoin), and peer-to-peer replication patterns (ie. cassandra, bit torrent) — the building blocks of this new decentralized system. Most of this work was initially motivated by needs within cloud infrastructure (management of virtualized operating systems, large-scale software development/deployment, and high availability of databases), but the technologies have burst out of the boxes in which they grew.
Now the technology is ready. We’re ready too.
Architecture: Think Email and BitTorrent, not Web Servers
The diaspora* kickstarter campaign describes the intended product as “a personal web server that stores all of your information and shares it with your friends.”, a “seed” that “knows how to securely share (using GPG) your pictures, videos, and more.”
Personal web servers are not the solution. Running a web server is like owning a horse. It’s expensive, labor intensive and requires dedicated space (barns, server space).
The idea was that everyone would have their own diaspora* seed, and those seeds would be personal web servers.
Personal web servers are not the solution. Running a web server is like owning a horse. It’s expensive, labor intensive and requires dedicated space (barns, server space). When things go wrong, you need to hire specialists to diagnose the problems and try to fix them, and things always go wrong.Owning horses and running web servers are activities that only make sense as commercial undertakings or as expensive hobbies. We don’t need personal web servers. We need something that anyone can run on their phones, their laptops, or whatever other devices they cobble together, and we need those devices to communicate with each other in a decentralized, infinitely scalable, repeatable way. We need a peer-to-peer architecture, like email (SMTP) and BitTorrent (BEP).
We need a peer-to-peer architecture, like email (SMTP) and BitTorrent (BEP).
The solution is to decentralize further, relying on a peer-to-peer model. This is where the world wide web of the 1990s stops being a good example because it relies on HTTP, a client-server architecture. A better example is the email system, which pre-dates HTTP by a decade and relies on a peer-to-peer architecture. Everyone can run an email client and that email client is part of the giant peer-to-peer network that makes the global email system work. We still use servers in this setup (aka “mail servers”), but those servers function as peers, not central authorities, and no single email provider controls the whole network, nor can they gain control of it.
The other parallel to email becomes clear when you look at who holds the data. When I send an email to my friend Bess, once Bess receives that email, there are three copies of the email and its attachments — 1) the original email in my “sent mail”, 2) the copy on the server, and 3) the copy in Bess’ inbox. Any of us can walk away with all of our emails, maybe moving them into a new system that suits our needs better. Contrast this with a centralized model like Facebook. When I post something on Bess’ Facebook wall, only Facebook has a copy of that post. If Bess wants to see it, she has to go to Facebook and ask for it. If I want to see it again I have to do the same. They hold the data. We don’t. That’s the wrong way around.
We should each, as individuals, be able to hold the data we’ve created and the data that has been shared with us. Any constraints on how we use the data should be based on the arrangements between us and the people who created the data, just as Gmail doesn’t have any say in what Bess does with my email after she’s downloaded it from their mail server but I do have some say in what she does with it, both socially and in the eyes of the law.
Each person can create feeds of their “social” posts, a bit like RSS feeds, and allow the updates to replicate across the network of peers.
A Rough Sketch: Replicating Feeds of Social Data
How will it work? In short, create an app, one that you run on your computer or phone, that writes social data (aka “posts”) into local databases and then replicates those databases to peers using a peer-to-peer protocol like BitTorrent. You can think of these databases as “feeds” of data that you control. Each time you create a new post in a feed, edit an existing post, or delete an existing post, those changes in your feed will automatically replicate across the network to all the peers who have copies of the feed. This bypasses the need for a central server to house our data. it allows us to communicate directly with each other without losing the expressiveness and worldwide networked-ness of today’s social media platforms.
The technologies we will use to make this work are already coming together. The dat project’s hypercore module lets you put arbitrary content into Merkle DAGs (the same technique used by bitCoin and git to track the integrity of data) and replicate those DAGs across a network of peers using BitTorrent. The dat jawn team are working on the particulars of putting tabular data into that system. Once those two pieces are working, the MVP will be to 1) establish a first-blush data model for social posts, possibly based on the diaspora* data models, 2) create tools to index incoming feeds into local databases (leveldb, postgres, elasticsearch, etc.), and 3) start building applications that let you browse timelines, search through your network, create posts, comment on posts, etc.
Two weeks ago I wrote about bypassing cultural barriers in tech and said I wanted to start an open source project here in Philadelphia that will create a module for the dat project. Response has been unanimously positive. The coordinators of Code for Philly encouraged me to set the project up under their umbrella while the dat team have been enthusiastically supportive and encouraging. Tonight we had our first meeting of the project. Seven people showed up and it went really well. I’m feeling very optimistic right now.
The dat jawn project page on Code for Philly’s website has a formal writeup about the project, its goals, and how to join the first cohort of participants.
I’ve given myself about 6 weeks to recruit people before calling the cohort “closed”. After only two weeks of recruiting, I didn’t know how many people to expect at the first meeting. A group of students from the New York Code and Design Academy of Philly (yeah, a mouthful) said they planned to come and a smattering of other people had expressed interest over the week.
At first it appeared that only two people had shown up – two guys from the code academy. That’s a good start, especially since they’re coming off a 12-week boot camp in Rails development. About 20 minutes later, Ben Novack from Code for Philly called all of the first-timers to get a “Civic Hacking 101” talk. Of the thirty people in the room, about twelve sauntered over. We joined in. At one point Ben prompted me to pitch the project and many faces lit up. When Ben finished his intro, we had gained five more participants, bringing our total number of participants up to eight! Quite an impressive showing for the first meeting.
After confirming that “jawn” is a comically Philly name for the project and “dat jawn” is “beyond perfect”, we spent an hour covering ground level business – intentions for the project, structure of the project, relevant code bases, the initial github tickets, my outline of the habits & practices of great engineers, the technologies involved, etc. We then dove into the fundamentally important topic: how will we communicate? First we got everyone onto irc and said hello in the #dat channel on freenode. We then set up a google group but promptly became embroiled in a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of Slack. In the end, we resolved to create a dat-jawn channel within the Code for Philly slack team. To join the Slack channel, create an account on the Code for Philly website then go to the channel and log in using your Code for Philly username & password.
I’m starting up a new open source software project and thinking of structuring it like an ongoing free seminar on how to be a great software engineer. I’ve seen a similar structure work really well in the Hydra Project and now I want to do it again. I think it might be a potent way to help a broader range of people to become empowered, successful, satisfied software developers.
In Spring of 2014 I ran a RailsBridge workshop as part of the Libraries Technology and Gender Summit in Austin, Texas. Almost all of the participants were women who have jobs at libraries around the country. Many of them had technical roles at their libraries but did not work as software developers. Most of them were interested in transitioning into software development roles. At the end of the workshop we had a lengthy discussion about “what next”. If you want to be employed as a software developer the first step is to learn how to code but then you need to get real experience. This creates a Catch 22 – in order to get onto a software development team you need experience, but in order to get experience you need to get onto a team.
Training experiences like a RailsBridge workshop are great, but when you walk out of that workshop you face a different set of barriers.
One woman told us about the dilemma her boss faces – should he give assignments to the two experienced software developers (both men) or should he go out on a limb and give those assignments to a young librarian whose only coding experience was a weekend training and a couple of online tutorials. Her boss was always under pressure to turn around work really quickly so he kept giving the assignments to the experienced developers. She understood her boss’s decision, but she wanted to get “software development” into her job description so she could build those skills in earnest. What was she to do?
Heads nodded around the room in response to this woman’s account. Training experiences like a RailsBridge workshop are great, but when you walk out of that workshop you face a different set of barriers.
One common suggestion for getting experience and establishing a portfolio as a coder is to contribute to open source projects. In theory that’s a great idea — most open source projects are willing to accept pull requests from newcomers. In practice, contributing to an open source project can be an intimidating or outright hostile experience and it takes a lot of up-front communication to work on really juicy features that will look good on a resume.
In practice, self-taught engineers, myself included, and fresh CS graduates have often found their way onto the meritocracy ladder by practicing the age-old art of “fake it til you make it”. Whether it’s by bluffing their way through a job interview or submitting pull requests to a stranger’s github project, they get past their lack of experience by relying on pure chutzpah. This approach favors people who are bold and brash, who have less to lose, and who have been encouraged to take risks. It also falls back on the existing biases of the surrounding culture — I’m more likely to trust you if you look like me, talk like me, and write code like me. As a result, it’s biased against women, people of color, people who have families to support and people whose cultural background feels foreign to the average geek.
What’s the alternative? I propose that it’s not enough to teach people how to write code. We have to teach them how to be great coders. I think that will make a real difference, and I have an idea about how to do it.
In some contexts, meritocracy really does rule among software developers.
Employers don’t just want to hire developers, they want to hire good developers. Open source projects don’t want more Pull Requests, they want good contributors. In some contexts, meritocracy really does rule among software developers. In some places, working code wins and Pull Requests are welcome as long as your tests pass and your code is commented properly.
There are objective, teachable ways to become a great engineer, and the best way to learn those skills is to practice them in a community of peers.
Working in an environment of mutual assistance and mutual respect is incredibly empowering.
A prominent part of my role at MediaShelf was to run HydraCamp workshops. These events, which range from 4 hours to 4 days in length, are focused on teaching software developers how to contribute code to the many components and applications under the Hydra Project’s umbrella. The formal content of the workshops was focused on learning how to use specific technologies like Ruby on Rails, ActiveFedora and Blacklight but the built-in learning goals were focused on the important nitty gritty of contributing and collaborating. We practiced writing different kinds of tests for your code, we practiced submitting pull requests and commenting on them, we talked through the process of planning features and, most importantly, we practiced asking for help.
I think that teaching people how to participate in the collaborative process has made them better, more productive engineers. It has also helped to make Hydra a distinctively positive, supportive, robust and dynamic open source project.
Working in an environment of mutual assistance and mutual respect is incredibly empowering. I helped to create and sustain an environment like that in the Hydra Project and I learned countless things from my peers along the way. Now I want to do it again and this time I want to document the process so others can crib notes and try their own approaches.
I’m interested in gathering a team to contribute a new module to the Dat project. This new module will be immediately interesting to a global community of software engineers and data-wielding researchers. I could write the module myself, or I could hire experienced freelancers to write it, but I propose a different approach. I propose gathering a team of software developers who want to “up their game” and bolster their resumes by designing, building and maintaining this module together with me. Together, we’ll cover all of the stuff that makes great teams of engineers. We’ll work on designing features, managing work with agile process, writing unit tests and integration tests, using Continuous Integration, submitting pull requests, doing code reviews, and documenting code. Surrounding all of this, most importantly, we will practice creating and holding a culture of mutual assistance and mutual respect.
It might make sense to approach this as a long free seminar with weekly installments.
Along the way, in addition to learning the skills of collaborative software development, participants will also hone their skills with NodeJS and get exposure to the cutting edge of technologies that will define the next generation of the world wide web such as blockchains and the new breed of wire protocols inspired by bit torrent. They will also get exposure to topics related to data science, open data, and reproducibility of research. We will tackle those topics together, pulling them apart in a safe, unassuming, respectful environment. We’ll also be able to tap some of the brightest engineers in the industry for answers when we have questions.
In an ideal world, I would like to build this team locally in Philadelphia, my new home. If we’re all in the same city we can meet face to face, which makes a big difference. I would like to draw heavily from the communities of people who have received training from projects like Girl Develop It. I hear there’s an active chapter in Philly. I don’t know if this is reasonable, or even possible, but it seems worth trying.
“anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”
This is terrible, harmful, destructive, wrong-headed advice. No wonder Christians have caused so much damage to themselves and others in the 1500 years since their rise to power in Europe. Even the most gracious excerpt from their Good Book teach you to hate your mind and to harm yourself both physically and psychically when natural processes happen.
And then along came some of the language that strips women of agency in their relationships:
“anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”
At which point I gave up, for the thousandth time, on finding ways to appreciate more than a few discrete verses from the Bible.
I’ve been going to gay pride festivals for almost 20 years. In principle, these festivals are about celebrating community, rejoicing in all our true colors, and shining bright in the face of a society that wants us to feel ashamed. After all, it’s all the same love. We’re all connected by our differences, right? We’re not just in this boat together, we’re a community. Right?
Well, in principle that’s what’s supposed to happen. To some extent it does, but I’ve got a confession. For most of those 20 years, I’ve walked the grounds of those festivals feeling disconnected and isolated.
This year I went back to Minneapolis for the gay pride festivities. At about 4:00pm on Saturday afternoon I stood at an intersection of two pathways in the middle of Loring Park, waiting while my friend Scotty chatted with a couple friends. A woman walked past with the distinctive demeanor of a transgender woman who is only beginning to explore the experience of presenting as a woman in public. She was middle-aged, tall, slightly awkward in pumps, holding her hands in a hesitant fashion that hovered just short of wringing. Her wig was not doing well in the sun. She wore big sunglasses, possibly to hide her identity. Though it was hot out, her clothes covered almost all of her body, shielding her.
I wondered if she felt welcome there in the park. Maybe this was one of the few places where she felt comfortable being herself in public. Maybe she was both terrified and ecstatic about being there. I imagined her walking among the vendor tents and wondered if she felt as disconnected as I do.
Scotty’s conversation took a while. By the time he finished chatting, that woman had passed us twice. As we turned to depart, she passed us again. In the time that we stood there, she had walked the circuit three times. No stopping, no conversations. The park had turned her into a daytime ghost. She didn’t have anywhere to land. She didn’t have a place where someone welcomed her, asked her to stay, and invited her to celebrate with them. So few of us have places like that.
When I first saw her, I saw a person in search of connection, safety and belonging. When I last saw her, I saw a vast rushing void growing between us, and that void was pouring forth from each of us who circled there in the park. What are the wounds that leave this void bleeding out of us?
This series of videos, mostly TED Talks, traces one of the mental trajectories that I keep criss-crossing through lately while drawing a constellation of intuitive connections. For me, the underlying topic is about recognizing goodness — recognizing your own goodness and recognizing the goodness of everyone you encounter. Without that recognition, all we have is fear and shame. With that recognition, we can achieve great things in the face of today’s challenges — inequality, disconnectedness, crises of authority, isolation, etc.
It started with a conversation about vulnerability, which prompted a friend of mine to send me a link to this talk from 2010.
Brown brings up a lot about shame, self-worthiness and their connection to vulnerability. That spurred a bunch of conversations about attachment theory and the role of self worth in one’s ability to recover from, or even risk, rejection or failure. Since attachment theory is rooted in studies about parental love, this led to Andrew Solomon’s talk about unconditional love:
From there, we can start talking about the hard stuff, like what prevents us from seeing other people’s goodness and worthiness of connection. Vernā Myers does a great job of opening the door to re-programming some of those habits.
Our comfort with Vulnerability is directly connected to the level of shame that we feel. Shame can be worded “I’m sorry I am that bad thing.” as opposed to guilt, which can be worded “I’m sorry I did that bad thing”. That means recognition of your own goodness — recognizing that you are not bad/unworthy — is the opposite of shame; to believe that you are good and worthy of connection is to be unfettered by shame. All of us stand to benefit profoundly from recognizing that goodness. Our ability (or inability) to recognize and relate with it is often tied to habits we learned from our parents, but it also comes from much broader social conditions. We all get countless signals from the world that label us as incomplete and not good enough, but (here’s the final leap) young men of color get it way worse than most. Hence, President Barack Obama’s Speech at the launch of My Brother’s Keeper Alliance.
I bet you’ll hear his words differently after listening to those other talks.
If you can’t get enough, here are two related playlists of TED talks.
I’m back in Kathmandu for another 3-month stint. Last time I was here my focus was just on studying and healing but I found that, in addition to all of the studying and healing, I got an impressive amount of coding done and worked with greater clarity than usual. This time I’ve returned with the explicit intention to work on DataBindery while living at Pullahari and taking classes at Rigpe Dorje Institute.
It took me a few days to get settled in. Today I ventured over to Thamel, the part of Kathmandu that trekkers are most familiar with. It turns out that Thamel is also where all of the gay-oriented restaurants and cafes are.
Near Asan Tole in Thamel, Kathmandu
Bicycle Rickshaw in Thamel
I took the bus over to Thamel for 25 rupees ($0.25), wandered the crowded streets, placed some markers on my mental map, and returned to Pullahari. I arrived at Pullahari just after sunset. The light was beautiful.
Rigpe Dorje Institute at Twilight
Later in the evening it became a bit windy, so the view of Boudha was clearer than usual.