Locating the whole

Continuing directly onward from understanding sourceship. No editing, raw thoughts. In order to give that post a name, I looked over what I'd written. Reflecting on that emergent name, it's evident that I'm trying to understand my portfolio of source roles, where am I called to play that role, and what do the spaces/things need in terms of sourceship.

Intentional Society, even saying that name, I need to clarify between "the (Sunday) community" and "the whole thing". That distinction has been with me for quite a while, and calling the former "core" and "core community" is an indicator that the core is not equal to the whole. But what is "the whole" and where is that known outside my head? And where does that leave the community space as a place, in relation to the whole?

Right now there's just one "IS mission" which does conflate the two. Hmm... a mission is analogous to a domain, and becoming (independent? autonomous? relational and-? meshed? allied?) "autonomously allied in a relational mesh" from the lens of source and ownership, that requires something clear enough at the domain/mission boundary definition.

Aside: Maybe "delegation" leads us astray as a word? It has a connotation of the delegator retaining power, IMHO.

I have a sense that it's "the whole" and bringing that vision out, that's the thing that's been calling to me as more pieces come into existence. That probably implies and requires a similar reification of the IS community also, but that does seem in response to the bigger picture. Maybe the ambiguity around ISC (abbreviating core/community) is a "what are we doing" that points at "in service of what".

What is it all in service to? My life, my love and devotion, in all forms and expressions, is in service to this thing. To embodying a way of being, of aliveness and connectedness, and to spreading-and-deepening that way (by living it) into the future. Spreading it to more people, which allows deepening and stabilizing that way in the future world by spreading it into more organizations, more institutions, more norms - unfolding the flowering of that what-is-it thing. I kind of want to say "The way of universal love", how corny-cringy is that?

Hmm, there's one element aside from love - love maps to acceptance and integrity, for example, but not noticing. It's growth, isn't it - developing, responding, seeing, expanding.

The unfolding way? The way of life and love? I wish I had a pointer useful for pointing at the ultimate thing, that moon of the more beautiful world. Unfolding (hat tip to Alethia among others) has such a nice shape. Or maybe my term needs to be a personal term, could just call it "the intentional way" if it doesn't need to be a term that others (across the mesh) use.

I mean, there's a nice symmetry if Intentional Society is in service to the intentional way. Self-referential but it least it's obvious that it's a pointer. (Doh, there's a least one branding conflict with someone's podcast.) Lower-case it, I guess. Or there's an implicit "(society)" in there. The IS Way?

This is of course all sounding a bit grandiose and culty, too. Brand X with "The X Way" can mean the culty things of overwrite your beliefs, distrust yourself, come be in this bubble cut off from outsiders, fit in by becoming identical follower of this ideology. But it's not "having a worldview" or "having values" that are culty. Take EA, or your favorite cause, and it's obvious that values, moral philosophy, and coordination are all not-bad things, and cultiness is in the relating to those things. Unavoidable that any compelling cause flirts with inspiring people to be culty in service of that cause. Gotta be self-aware and on guard for that, in part via building anti-cult values into the values set of the worldview.

Anyway, so "what is my live in service to?" I can say "the intentional way of unfolding life and love". Hmm... but the "personal psychospiritual path" of it doesn't self-evidently connect to the stack-onion-mesh of the future world of that same way. The inner-individual and the external-collective are on the same Integral quadrant, but they look pretty different in their expressions.

Ah so that means "the way" (whatever words) is part (half?) of "the whole thing", and the systemic (stack/onion/mesh) is the other part? But then we're 2/3 of the way to I/we/world - inner/inter/exterior. Almost, ironically, a trinity, almost corresponding to the Christian Trinity even: God external of justice, Christ internal of heart, Spirit relational of intercessing. Ha ha ha, that's either a bit schizo (by which I mean, seeing connections where none exist) or something profound. Really, evangelicals promoting "personal" "relationship" to "I am that I am" maps to I/we/world and maybe there's some underlying "structure to completeness" by which we recognize the "whole thing"ness of those lenses? Even so, not every trilogy is the trinity.

Losing steam here, but what have I seen - what is this one called? "Locating the whole" presents itself. The whole is bigger than the "whole of IS" though - I notice I went up one more level. There's the outer whole, the level of IS as a thing, and the space of the IS community. That sets the stage, I think, for some fruitful exploration of how both of the IS layers relate to the universal whole.