Open + Curious

How do you end?

July 6

How do you end? (preview)

How can you effectively and gracefully end a conversation while maintaining its value and mutual appreciation?

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

July 1

Once awakened (preview)

What role does dialogue play in fostering a sense of connection and transformation within individuals and communities?

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

June 20

Depth versus aliveness (preview)

What defines a deep conversation, and how can one recognize or evaluate its depth?

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.

(Written with help from Chat-GPT.)

ɕ

Why do we keep talking?

June 15

Why do we keep talking? (preview)

Why do we keep talking, and when should we stop?

Join Craig and Jesse as they challenge the urge to keep talking and explore the value of silence.

I find that when I can’t shut up, it’s usually because […] I’m trying to provide more and more and more and more and more and more context. […] it’s really a lot about hiding— So I find when I can’t shut up, It’s because I’m uncomfortable, or I’m afraid.

~ Craig Constantine (0:55)

Craig Constantine and Jesse Danger explore the reasons behind why people keep talking.

I also wonder how much of that is individual and how much of that is culturally emergent. Because I think about the space that conversation takes up. And I think that there is, for some people, an idea of taking turns. And for some people an idea of sounding really smart, or even just holding the control of the space. And I hear something there in the just putting yourself out there and letting it go. It’s kind of like pushing, pushing the ship out to water.

~ Jesse Danger (2:17)

They also discuss the value of listening and the impact it has on learning and understanding. Craig expresses a desire to talk less to maximize his learning opportunities. He believes that by not speaking, he can better engage with others and gain more insights.

Jesse shares his experience of being deeply fixated on Parkour and how it shaped his conversations, often limiting his understanding of others. Both highlight the importance of being aware of the urge to speak and the potential benefits of embracing silence to truly understand and connect with others.

Takeaways

Reasons for excessive talking — Fear and discomfort can lead to talking more to provide context and seek validation.

Cultural influences on conversation — Different cultural norms influence whether people take turns or dominate conversations.

Value of listening — Speaking less can create opportunities for learning and understanding others better.

Fixation on specific topics — An intense focus on a particular subject can limit the breadth of conversations and connections with others.

Awareness of speaking urges — Noticing the impulse to speak and understanding its motivations can enhance conversational quality.

Silent participation — Listening without speaking still contributes to the conversation and holds value.

Thinking out loud — Some people need to talk to organize their thoughts and clarify their thinking.

Circle process — Structured conversational methods like circle processes can help in exploring problems by listening to others’ interpretations and ideas.

Impact of engagement — Active engagement in a conversation from both parties enriches the interaction and learning experience.

Silence and understanding — Embracing silence can help in fully grasping and appreciating different perspectives in a conversation.

Resources

Circle process — A structured conversational method where participants take turns speaking and listening, allowing for deep reflection and shared understanding.

(Written with help from Chat-GPT.)

ɕ

Hearing multiple things

June 7

Hearing multiple things (preview)

How can we effectively handle conversations where multiple topics or threads are presented simultaneously, ensuring a balance between active listening, addressing key points, and maintaining conversational flow?

Craig Constantine and Jesse Danger explore navigating multiple topics gracefully, leveraging listening as a tool, and the nuanced dance of giving and receiving information.

Craig and Jesse discuss the intricacies of handling conversations that veer into multiple directions simultaneously. They ponder the challenges and strategies involved when participants in a conversation introduce several topics at once, emphasizing the importance of active listening as a critical response in such scenarios.

I often signpost. So Jesse says ‘a’ and ‘b’ and ‘c’ and throws all these things at me, and then I grab ‘b’ and I start talking about it. I often try to end with, “and I think I missed a lot of other things that you threw at me, Jesse.” I’ll at least raise a semaphore [that] I’m aware that I only did one, sorry. I think that may go a long way just because that’s the same type of behavior—or it comes from the same type of intention—as listening.

~ Craig Constantine (3:40)

Craig suggests that encountering multiple threads often signals a greater need for him to listen attentively, rather than attempting to contribute equally across all topics. This approach, he believes, allows for a deeper engagement with the conversation by prioritizing understanding over speaking.

The thing I do is latch on to either, whatever I’m most curious about, or more often, whatever kind of bothers me the most. If someone has a list of things that are bothering them then I’ll hop right into the one that’s not quite right. And I feel like that can really shut the conversation down.

~ Jesse Danger (2:00)

Jesse shares his tendency to focus on aspects of the conversation that either pique his curiosity or bother him the most, acknowledging that this approach might sometimes prematurely shut down the dialogue.

On the other hand, they discuss ways to acknowledge the multiple facets of a conversation without necessarily addressing each one immediately. This method involves explicitly recognizing the topics introduced by the other person, thereby validating their contributions and indicating a willingness to engage, albeit with a focused approach. Jesse and Craig explore the idea that effective conversation management requires a balance between guiding the dialogue gently and allowing the natural flow of topics, driven by the participants’ interests and passions.

Resources

Nonviolent Communication (NVC) — https://www.cnvc.org

Say What You Mean — by Oren Jay Sofer, https://www.orenjaysofer.com/

ɕ

(Written with help from Chat-GPT.)

Without purpose or agenda

May 30

Without purpose or agenda (preview)

Are you heading toward what you already understand or toward your unknown?

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​​.

(Written with help from Chat-GPT)

ɕ

Open + Curious

April 8

I’m excited to share that Jesse Danger and I have begun a new podcast show, Open + Curious. I’ve been writing up my thoughts around conversation, and this podcast is a new part of the Open + Curious project. Please consider subscribing to support our efforts.

Are you looking for ways to bring conversation alive? Then you are in the right place.

In each 15-minute episode we begin with a question, and work our way to a challenge. Some questions we explore have clear answers, and some lead to more questions and further unknowns. The challenge we seek to find, at the end of each episode, is meant to help you explore each question on your own.

https://openandcurious.org/podcast-supercast/

Adversity and challenge

April 4

Adversity and challenge (preview)

What is the difference between adversity and challenge in the context of conversations, and how can one navigate these dynamics to foster curiosity and deeper understanding?

Exploring the fine line between adversity and challenge can transform the nature of our conversations.

In the dialogue between Craig Constantine and Jesse Danger, the conversation kicks off with a contemplative inquiry into the nature of conversations themselves, particularly the nuanced differences between adversity and challenge. Craig introduces this theme by reflecting on a quote from documentary filmmaker Errol Morris, sparking a discussion on the dynamics of adversarial interviews versus those driven by genuine curiosity. The duo delves into the observation that adversarial interactions, often characterized by a gladiatorial theater, tend not to be fruitful in learning or uncovering new insights. This discussion underscores a mutual agreement on the importance of fostering conversations that are alive with exploration and inquiry rather than contention.

I agree with everything you’re saying. I think from Errol’s quote, my first reading, I was like: Well, of course, there are adversarial interviews. But as soon as I thought about it more, then I came to this idea of adversity versus challenge. [The next] thought I had was, you know, alright, what’s the opposite of adversity? […] And I feel like the opposite of adversity should be challenge.

~ Craig Constantine 2:30

As the conversation unfolds, Jesse shares personal reflections on the moments within dialogues when he finds himself opposing someone else’s thoughts or statements. He notes the standstill that arises from such opposition and shares his strategy for softening the moment to realign on common ground, emphasizing the importance of maintaining curiosity over the need to be right. This introspective sharing leads to a broader conversation about the potential for growth in challenging conversations and the difference between encountering adversity and engaging in a challenge with a mindset geared towards understanding and respect.

What I’m noticing is that adversity—maybe by definition, at least in a lot of cases—it’s a zero-sum game. “Yes, I’m right, and you’re wrong.” And, it doesn’t hold the space. I mean, this is what [Errol was] saying in the quote, it doesn’t hold the space for both of us to come to a deeper, richer conclusion or understanding about what it is that we’re saying. I think creating this as more of the Infinite game of learning… and I think that conversation is an infinite game. At the very least the conversation is, or often is, a game of trying to uncover something new and co-created together.

~ Jesse Danger 9:50

Craig and Jesse both ponder the role of the conversationalist’s stance—how one’s openness or perceived openness to challenge and adversity can significantly influence the depth and quality of the dialogue. Through their exchange, they touch upon the idea that avoiding adversity might also mean missing out on meaningful challenges, suggesting a delicate balance in aiming for conversations that are both engaging and profound.

Takeaways

Exploring conversation dynamics — the dialogue opens with a focus on transforming conversations from adversarial encounters to inquiries driven by curiosity.

Adversity vs. challenge — a central theme is the differentiation between these concepts within the context of conversations, suggesting that while both can be present, their impacts and outcomes can vastly differ.

Personal growth through dialogue — the discussion reveals a belief that challenging conversations, approached with curiosity and respect, can lead to significant personal development and deeper understanding.

The impact of adversarial approaches — there is a consensus that adversarial interviews or interactions, while potentially entertaining, are less effective for learning or gaining new insights.
Strategies for realignment in conversation — one speaker shares personal strategies for softening moments of opposition to find common ground, highlighting the importance of flexibility and adaptability in discussions.

The value of curiosity over correctness — the conversation underlines the idea that maintaining curiosity, rather than striving to be right, fosters a more open and productive dialogue environment.

Navigating difficult conversations — the talk touches on the challenge of engaging in difficult conversations, suggesting that avoiding adversity can also mean missing out on meaningful challenges.

Signaling openness to challenge — it discusses how one’s perceived stance in a conversation can greatly influence its depth, suggesting that being open to challenge can enrich dialogues.

The role of mutual respect — emphasizing the need for dignity and respect for all parties in a conversation, especially when navigating challenging topics or disagreements.

Infinite game of conversation — one theme posits that conversation is an “infinite game” aimed at uncovering new insights and co-creating understanding, rather than a “zero-sum game” where one party must be right and the other wrong.

Resources

Errol Morris — A documentary filmmaker referenced for his views on adversarial interviews versus those aimed at genuine learning. Morris is known for his in-depth explorations of complex subjects through his films. His work challenges viewers to think critically about the nature of truth and the complexities of human stories.

(Written with help from Chat-GPT.)

ɕ

Creating something

September 6, 2023

I’m the obsessive type. I’m ordered and process driven to a fault, but not quite (or at least, only rarely) to the point where this affects my ability to function. I’m continuously thinking about things like can I carry something else if I’m going in a certain direction— which is fine when heading out to run errands with the car, but which can stop me in my tracks, and cause me to turn in circles in place, before moving from room to room. I’m also obsessive about doing things. I’m the guy you want physically setting up your complex computer systems and networks—physically arranging everything. I’m the guy who got really into roller skating, bicycling, skiing, Aikido, scratch-building radio-controlled gliders, sailing… there’s a much longer list.

I learned one lesson on my own over the years and many obsessions: Do or do not. I am unable to “spend less time” on an obsession. I have to lean into it, or let go of it. Many of my obsessions paid off either as income or simply being useful to my personal growth. Being able to assess when continuing an obsession is not going to do either of those things for me is a hard-won skill.

But there are some heuristics you can use to guess whether an obsession might be one that matters. For example, it’s more promising if you’re creating something, rather than just consuming something someone else creates. It’s more promising if something you’re interested in is difficult, especially if it’s more difficult for other people than it is for you. And the obsessions of talented people are more likely to be promising. When talented people become interested in random things, they’re not truly random.

But you can never be sure. In fact, here’s an interesting idea that’s also rather alarming if it’s true: it may be that to do great work, you also have to waste a lot of time.

~ Paul Graham from, http://paulgraham.com/genius.html

slip:4upage2.

Graham’s point about creation is a second lesson about obsession. I agree, and I think an obsession’s being about creation is critical. I stumbled really near this lesson a few months ago when I wrote Being Genuine for Open + Curious where I wrote…

A great conversation is one where we (and our partners) feel the joy of creation, even if that’s while discussing a contentious topic. We have little chance of being creative if we know, or think we know, where things are headed.

Creation is critical. I need to imagine the world differently, and then try to go and create that new world.

ɕ

Open + Curious Salon today

July 26, 2023

In the tradition of the literary and philosophical movements, each Open + Curious Salon is an opportunity to gather in real-time. It is a space where the exchange of ideas flourishes, where minds come together in spirited discussion, and where conversation skills are honed and practiced. Within the walls of the salon, the spirit of intellectual curiosity reigns supreme.

Details at https://openandcurious.org/

Fragmentation

July 26, 2023

What if I don’t know how to take something apart? One option is to apply excessive force and break the thing open. That works, but obviously sacrifices the thing; this is particularly useless if I wanted to take something apart because I need to fix it, or understand it. Generally, the smash method always works, but is almost never useful.

Yet thought also goes wrong somehow, and produces destruction. This arises from a certain way of thinking, i.e., fragmentation. This is to break things up into bits, as if they were independent. It’s not merely making divisions, but it is breaking things up which are not really spearate. It’s like taking a watch and smashing it into fragments, rather than taking it apart and finding its parts. The parts are parts of a whole, but the fragments are just arbitrarily broken off from each other. Things which really fit, and belong together, are treated as if they do not. That’s one of the features of thought that’s going wrong.

~ David Bohm from, On Dialogue p56

I’m perpetually on a journey of self-awareness. I’m quite often applying my mind to understand things. This idea from Bohm about fragmentation, and in particular fragmentation being bad because it misses out on the relationships and inherent properties of the natural parts (in the sense of disassembled-watch parts versus smashed-watch bits). This idea of fragmentation is a warning against my running with the first way I manage to understand something; just because I’ve found one way to understand (smash) something into understandable pieces, doesn’t mean that’s the best way.

ɕ

Maybe try a map?

June 12, 2023

First a hat tip to Austin Kleon. His most-recent post, Do you have a nemesis? included a mind map, which is the most-recent of the countless times I’ve encountered mind mapping. I’m a fan of Kleon for many reasons, not least of which is that he, like me, flouts the usual guidelines for the capitalization of one’s titles.

I’ve tried mind mapping a few times. (What’s that? Did I overdo it with software and processes? …yes, of course!) Today, I was feeling unmotivated to write for Open + Curious. I thought, “Just start. JUST START!” But I simply didn’t want to face the blank screen of the digital document.

Instead, I opened my idea garden wherein I capture interesting nuggets to be seeds for future writing. In my garden, I rarely (I first wrote “never,” but I don’t want to jinx myself) have trouble finding a nugget to write about. I grabbed my favorite pen, and flipped to a blank sheet in the little binder I keep. So much action! I felt like I was already writing. /s

On that mind map I wrote the “something new” at the center. It’s not a meaningless bit of meta; it’s the central idea from a captured nugget. At this point, staring at the paper with my pen in hand felt great, versus facing a digital document which always feels too structured for me to think in. (ref. Sönke Ahrens.) In just a few minutes of thinking and scribbling I had all those bubbles. Then I had a title. …then a route. …an outline. And from there the writing felt doable.

ɕ

Thank you I. Asimov

May 28, 2023

Over in my Open + Curious project, I’ve been working intentionally to improve my writing. For Open + Curious the more recent articles all begin with a clear posit (a statement which is made on the assumption that it will prove to be true) and then go on to explain why I believe that to be true; that’s their finished form. I was generally writing each piece, editing it to find and hone a single line of thinking, and then finishing up by crafting the leading posit. Yes, I know, “Craig discovers the essay.”

I’m reading I. Asimov and this advice leapt off the page:

What I do now is think up a problem and a resolution to that problem. I then begin the story, making it up as I go along, having all the excitement of finding out what will happen to the characters and how they will get out of their scrapes, but working steadily toward the known resolution so that I don’t get lost en route.

When asked for advice by beginners, I always stress that. Know your ending, I say, or the river of your story may finally sink into the desert sands and never reach the sea.

~ Isaac Asimov

slip:4a1193.

I’ve now written thousands of posts where I’ve led with a quotation from something. I’m forever writing some observation about what I’ve quoted, and then trying to pivot to what I actually want to say. Unfortunately, this style has begun to feel constraining.

Going forward, I’m going to see what happens if I think of what I’m quoting as giving me a direction. This piece starts with my thoughts about my writing for Open + Curious, and then looking “in the direction” of Asimov’s quoted contribution, beyond that I “see” this gibberish about my writing process. Sorry, maybe that’s all too meta? It’s noisy in my head.

ɕ