Thoughts on the evolving Evolver? (EDITED)

Hi Kasey,

1) You wrote, “There's been a recent blog post by Daniel Pinchbeck talking about plans for a $5 per month membership fee for Evolver so you can keep your profile and access most parts of the site…Pinchbeck also discusses Evolver as a sort of political movement and wants to gain more publicity. How do you guys feel about this? Is it ‘selling-out’?...I've often felt that Evolver should pay regional coordinators for their time and energy, but... my intuition is telling me that something about this is just not worth it.”

Aside acknowledging Daniel Pinchbeck as one of the people who helped to set Evolver in motion, I don’t think that it’s necessary to have any opinions about him one way or the other. Some people love him and some people are critical; Pinchbeck’s career and the future of Evolver are two very different things. To my mind, straight talk about money is not “selling out,” but rather one part of an attempt to ground a vision in the complexities of the day to day world.

2) I don’t know if you have followed the controversy on RS surrounding the cancellation of the Peruvian Ayahuasca retreat, but one thing that came out was that RS and Evolver are in bad financial shape; it is even possible that Evolver may not have the resources to continue. The issue of the 5.00 per month membership fee seems a purely practical one, and I don’t believe that it should be viewed through the lens of ideological purity. That said, I tend to think that the 5.00 fee would backfire.

Some successful sites—such as “Conscious Media Network” and “Red Ice Creations”—have a two-level access system; much of the site is free, but participants can pay for a higher level of access. So long as members are no more than observers, this would not present a problem—but it would not tend to encourage the widest possible participation.

3) As to Evolver being a “social movement”—it is way too early to tell, and it is hard to even figure out what this would mean. Even the simplest of its goals—to bring people and overlapping groups together in actual as opposed to virtual time and space is not nearly as easy to achieve as one would think. Most “social movements” depend on a simplification of agreed upon big issues, on an emotionally-charged escalation of momentum, and on the creation of a certain kind of “critical mass.” I don’t see this happening any time soon, and I am not sure that it would be a good thing if it did.

One drawback to the creation of “critical mass” is that it often goes hand in hand with some type of collective possession by an archetype—the idea of Obama as the second coming of Jesus—which is almost automatically followed by disillusionment, if not worse. A more “sustainable” model of social action is in order, and it is not at all clear what this would be.

4) A big part of the problem is perhaps the very nature of the Internet—as great a tool as it is, it also fosters the illusion of connectedness and social action, when a person is doing no more than posting his/her opinions on a blog. Even as links are formed and patterns are established, there is an underlying tendency to centrifugal fragmentation; each group is broken into sub-groups and each sub-group into ever smaller units.

While I would be happy to attend events at your house, and have also thought of hosting a number of events myself, I believe that these would be best used to supplement rather than as a substitute for Evolver. My preference would be to not contribute to this state of centrifugal fragmentation. True, the elements of the framework that you mention—"2012, consciousness raising, nature, and shamanism"—may be somewhat limiting; but they are only that, a “framework”—an armature that is waiting for its sculpture, or a dress-maker’s manikin that is waiting for its clothes.

To my mind, the problem is not that the elements of this framework are “repetitive,” but rather that they are not repetitive enough; it is very difficult to maintain continuity from one meeting to the next, or to build upon the enthusiasm that has been generated by a subject.

5) What is “Evolver”? My own sense is that Evolver is a contemporary version of the “Omphalos”—the “navel of the world” or “world center”—of which there were many in the Ancient World. Another comparison would be to the 19th Century New England town hall meeting. Is it really necessary to agree on anything? Perhaps “Evolver” is no more than a space in which anything can happen; a meeting of the virtual and the actual, in which people, ideas and forces intersect. Defined in this way, perhaps the key factor is that we should each make a commitment to be “present.”

As a portable “Omphalos,” perhaps “Evolver” is, quite simply, a “place” where things can “begin.”

Evolver and Reality Sandwich are going to be free for everyone without a tiered system that Kasey talks about. We are asking that people contribute to the Evolver Social Movement to help keep our sites running (we are in a bit of financial straights at the moment). This project has always been about social change and helping foster communities based on cooperation over competition, sharing our gifts and resources, and creating a more beautiful, equitable world.

If being a part of this movement interests you, we are looking for inspired folks to re-spark the Spore in Boston. Just send me an email at jonathan((at))evolver((dot))net if you'd like to start something up.

Cheers,

Jonathan

I love evolver/realitysandwich and I wish you would stay on board as bostons regional manager because we need your help and i have attended most of the evolver meetings and their awesome

Kasey,
The FBI would be giving you a gold star, my friend! I grew up in Cambridge but am now spending most of my time in San Francisco. However, I'm disappointed to see that the Boston spore is being disassembled because of a superficial and narrow idea of "sovereignty." Indeed, we each have our own individual connection to the divine but outside of that we are all part of a social body that expresses defines itself in dialogue, conversation, agreements. I think Evolver has done us all good in creating a platform for this dialogue to "evolve" and thrive. If we value this service, shouldn't we provide it with the resources it needs to survive? I think all Evolver is doing is creating modalities for people to engage in giving back to the medium that transcribes the message. You don't have to pay the monthly 5 dollars to participate. Its just necessary to maintain the work. If you disagree with something that Evolver is doing, that is more reason to get more involved. Perhaps to get more involved is to get more evolved. Not to disengage right as the party is getting started. You can't grow a seed by digging it up and replanting it over and over again.