Bev Haskins and I were scheduled to offer an Introduction to Circle Process on the afternoon of Saturday, May 28. Three people signed up. We decided that it would be healthy to keep the energy of the event alive by running it. We also feel that circle process is vital as a way of being and interacting in these times in our culture. The two of us plus the three attendees would have made five people having an enriching conversation about the principles and practices of circle and how we might apply it in our unique ways. Sounds like an engaging afternoon to me!
Two of the potential participants were going to attend together. When they heard from us what the size of the group would be, they bailed out, saying that at least six participants would be more interesting. Needless to say, the Intro to Circle is postponed. I’m curious about what these folks meant by “interesting”. The practice of circle takes any configuration of people — whether two or twenty — and weaves their sense of depth and connection. Authentic engagement takes place. That, for me, is far more important than how “interesting” a larger group would be. This obsession with bigger-must-be-better is so ingrained in our culture. How might we return to quality rather then quantity?
If I want “interesting”, I can read a good article, watch a documentary, or go to the museum. If I want “authentic engagement”, I can invite some peers to gather around a central intention, pose an open-ended question, and listen through my heart to what emerges.
Who will join me in authentic engagement? What is the conversation we need to have? What vision might guide that conversation? What is our intention for our time with one another?
I really hope that the work I bring to the world is more than interesting. May Life grant that it’s authentic.