How do you end? (preview)

Understand the balance between leaving a conversation fulfilled and seeking more.

Craig and Jesse discuss the complexities of ending conversations, beginning with the idea that most conversations naturally conclude due to external factors like time constraints. Craig notes that in many casual interactions, such as those at events or in public spaces, the end is often dictated by circumstances rather than a conscious decision.

I know I didn’t even try to get everything [from a conversation] because I know I can’t get everything. So it’s somehow finding a balance between: “Okay, my cup is full. I should really move away and just revel in what I have.” Finding a balance between that, and just going to the well until the cup comes up empty. I think that’s probably the compass for how to find a good ending.

~ Craig Constantine (4:25)

They explore the notion that it can be beneficial to end conversations while they are still engaging, rather than waiting until all topics are exhausted. Craig shares his experiences from recording podcasts, where he finds it challenging to end on a high note, emphasizing the importance of planning and strategies for graceful conclusions.

We’re here looking for ways to make conversation more alive […]. I’ve adopted this strategy of, stop eating when I want to eat a little bit more. stop talking when I want to talk a little bit more. Stop training, moving around and exercising when I want to move a little bit more. So that I’m actually left in the wanting of it […]

~ Jesse Danger (5:13)

They also touch on the distinction between enjoyable and uncomfortable conversations. Jesse brings up the idea of stopping activities, such as talking or training, while still wanting more, to maintain a sense of aliveness and enthusiasm. The conversation shifts to practical strategies for ending conversations, including honesty about one’s need to leave and expressing appreciation for the interaction.

Jesse references Peter Block’s concept from the book “Community,” suggesting that when ending a conversation, participants can share what they gained from the interaction, fostering a sense of closure and mutual respect. This approach, they agree, can enhance the quality and impact of the conversation.

Takeaways

Ending conversations naturally — External factors often dictate the conclusion of casual interactions.

Ending on a high note — Beneficial to conclude conversations while they are still engaging.

Challenges in planned endings — Strategies and planning are crucial for graceful podcast conclusions.

Distinction between conversation types — Different approaches are needed for enjoyable and uncomfortable conversations.

Maintaining enthusiasm — Stopping activities while still wanting more helps preserve a sense of aliveness.

Practical strategies — Honesty about the need to leave and expressing appreciation can aid in ending conversations.

Concept of shared appreciation — Participants can share what they gained from the interaction to foster closure.

Spontaneity in conversation exits — Creative and spontaneous actions can make leaving a conversation smoother.

Balancing conversation engagement — Finding a balance between getting enough out of a conversation and not exhausting all topics.

Resources

Community by Peter Block — Discusses the importance of commitment and shared appreciation in group settings.

The concept of “single-serving friends” from the movie Fight Club — Refers to brief, context-specific interactions that end naturally.

ɕ

(Written with help from Chat-GPT.)

Once awakened (preview)

Can dialogue itself be more important than the decisions it leads to?

In this conversation, Craig and Jesse explore the concept of dialogue and its transformative power within communities. They begin by discussing a quote from the book “Dialogue” by Isaac, which suggests that once people experience genuine dialogue, they do not revert to superficial interactions.

So then I have to ask myself, how do I have to be in the world so that I can create more moments like that for myself? And for others? And what [for] the spaces that I create? When I’m creating spaces for groups? Or when I’m entering into spaces that already exist for groups? What can I do to bring that feeling? …that dialog? …that awakeness?

~ Jesse Danger (11:30)

Craig expresses uncertainty about the quote’s validity, as he feels he lacks enough sustained experiences of deep dialogue within consistent groups. He contrasts his sporadic podcast conversations with Isaac’s examples of embedded dialogue practices in communities. Jesse, on the other hand, shares his experiences of practicing deep dialogue within his company and recalls his time at a Danish school where dialogue was a core part of daily activities.

The conversation shifts to the impact of dialogue on individuals and groups. Jesse reflects on how his exposure to structured, meaningful conversations in school and at work has shaped his approach to relationships and decision-making. Craig ponders the possibility of creating similar spaces and recognizes that meaningful dialogue doesn’t necessarily require a large group; it can also occur in one-on-one interactions. They discuss the challenge of fostering these dialogic spaces in various contexts and contemplate how to bring the principles of deep dialogue into their everyday lives and communities.

Takeaways

The power of dialogue — Genuine dialogue has the potential to transform individuals and communities, making it hard to revert to superficial interactions once experienced.

Challenges of sustaining dialogue — Consistent deep conversations within the same group are rare and difficult to maintain, highlighting the challenge of embedding dialogue in daily routines.

Experiences in educational settings — Structured dialogue practices in schools can profoundly impact participants, fostering a sense of connection and mutual understanding.

Dialogue in professional environments — Prioritizing dialogue over decision-making in a company can lead to healthier organizational dynamics and better overall outcomes.

Personal growth through dialogue — Meaningful conversations with strangers or colleagues can open up new perspectives and deepen relationships.

Creating dialogic spaces — It is possible to foster spaces for dialogue in various contexts, from small groups to larger communities, by being intentional about conversation practices.

Individual responsibility in dialogue — One must consider how to bring the principles of deep dialogue into their daily interactions and be proactive in creating opportunities for meaningful conversations.

Reflecting on past dialogue experiences — Looking back at previous instances of deep dialogue can help identify the elements that made those conversations impactful and how to replicate them.

Resources

Dialogue by William Isaacs — A book exploring the transformative power of genuine dialogue within communities.

ɕ

(Written with help from Chat-GPT.)

Depth versus aliveness (preview)

Is the depth of a conversation defined by content or the experience?

I feel like it only can be deep if it if it was deep for both of us. Like can you have a conversation— I guess anything’s possible. [But,] does it seem realistic to have a conversation where one person thought it was deep? Because I’m saying to myself, yeah, obviously it’s possible. But what happens if both people thought it was deep versus [only] one person thought it was deep?

~ Craig Constantine (4:18)

Craig Constantine and Jesse Danger explore the nature of deep conversations, focusing on the distinction between superficial and meaningful exchanges. Jesse begins by considering what makes a conversation real, emphasizing the unique contributions of each participant and the specific moment. Craig reflects on the term “deep” and questions whether it might sometimes be the wrong word, as some people avoid deep conversations due to discomfort. They both ponder if a deep conversation is characterized by newness or if it can occur without discussing novel topics.

I share experiences with people, I think that people are having the same experience as me. And I’ve come to realize that that’s not the case, I think I can have a deep and profound moment that doesn’t strike the other person as poignantly. I do an exercise with myself, and I’ve done it with my wife, where we write down the moments that struck us most deeply. There are different moments. And you remember, like, oh, yeah, I was there, it’s there. It didn’t strike me. But now, I’m starting to understand that that was really an important moment for you.

~ Jesse Danger (7:02)

They discuss the concept of depth as an emergent feature of a conversation, suggesting that depth arises from a shared experience rather than just content. Craig wonders if a conversation can be considered deep if only one participant feels it is, while Jesse shares his experience of recognizing that people often have different perceptions of the same moment.

They also touch on the idea that profound moments can occur upon revisiting familiar topics, and that the willingness to be known is essential for achieving depth in a conversation. The discussion highlights the importance of co-creation, presence, and the conditions that foster profound exchanges.

Takeaways

The nature of deep conversations — discussed as moving past superficiality and involving unique contributions from each participant.

The difference between superficial and real — explored in terms of what is uniquely shared in a meaningful conversation.

Discomfort in deep conversations — mentioned as a reason some people avoid such exchanges, differentiating between depth and inappropriateness.

Depth as an emergent feature — suggested that depth arises from shared experience rather than merely the content of the conversation.

Newness versus familiarity — debated whether a deep conversation always involves new topics or can occur with familiar subjects.

Shared profundity — questioned whether a conversation can be deep if only one participant perceives it as such.

Different perceptions of the same moment — highlighted through personal experiences, recognizing that not everyone experiences depth in the same way.

Revisiting familiar topics — noted that profound moments can still occur upon revisiting familiar conversations or books.

Willingness to be known — identified as essential for achieving depth in a conversation, implying vulnerability and openness.

Co-creation in conversations — emphasized as an important aspect of achieving depth, with both participants contributing meaningfully.

Presence and awareness — discussed as crucial for recognizing and experiencing the depth of a conversation in the moment.

Conditions for profundity — suggested that certain conditions must be present for a deep conversation to occur, such as openness and receptivity.

ɕ

(Written with help from Chat-GPT.)

Without purpose or agenda (preview)

In a conversation exploring the depths of dialogue and presence, Craig and Jesse get into the intriguing parallels between Quaker meetings and Gurdjieff groups, revealing how these practices foster a deeply present state of mind, akin to a slow, thoughtful game of chess.

I Think that there’s a beautiful edge of curiosity here, around looking at the unknown, which is the utter willingness to show up, like dumbfounded, or stupid.

~ Jesse Danger (12:59)

[…] leaning into the asking-as-a-five-year-old, or asking-for-a-friend-meme. I also think [our] challenge needs to contain, letting go of the urge to control the result. [When] asking as a five-year-old, I’m not hiding from the possibility that people are going to respond, “that’s stupid, Craig.” I’m not hiding from that. I’m asking as a five year old because it challenges me to ask the simplest question.

~ Craig (13:41)

In the conversation, Craig and Jesse dig into the intricacies of meaningful dialogue, emphasizing the value of approaching conversations without an agenda or purpose. They discuss the concept of dialogue as proposed by David Bohm in his book “On Dialogue”, emphasizing the importance of creating a space free from authority or hierarchy. This concept aligns with Jesse’s experiences in Gurdjieff groups and Quaker meetings, where a deeply present state of mind is cultivated, devoid of ego and personal agendas.

The dialogue further explores the idea of conversations being like a slow, thoughtful game of chess, requiring patience, presence, and a willingness to engage with the unknown. They discuss the challenge of asking questions with the innocence of a child, free from the fear of appearing ignorant or the need to control the conversation’s outcome. This approach, they argue, opens up new possibilities for exploration and understanding in conversations, whether in structured groups like the Gurdjieff or Quaker meetings or in everyday interactions.

Resources

David Bohm’s book, On Dialogue — Craig references this book as an inspiration for their discussion on dialogue. David Bohm, a renowned physicist and philosopher, explores the concept of dialogue as a free-flowing and agenda-less conversation that isn’t bound by authority or hierarchy, emphasizing its potential for creative and transformative understanding​​.

Gurdjieff groups — Jesse mentions participating in Gurdjieff groups, which are based on the teachings of George Ivanovich Gurdjieff, a mystic and spiritual teacher. These groups focus on self-awareness and deep presence, aligning with the Quaker meetings’ approach to deep, mindful engagement​​.

Quaker Meetings — Both Jesse and Craig discuss the Quaker meetings’ influence on their views of presence and dialogue. Quaker meetings, known for their simplicity and emphasis on inner guidance, involve participants speaking from a deeply present and relevant place, akin to a form of spiritual expression​​.

ɕ

(Written with help from Chat-GPT)