Thank you @Alex Rodriguez for sharing these insights from Ken Wilber which I believe are directly related to our discussion and pondering on the role of money in this sacred work we have embarked upon. It seems to me that Wilber attempts to grapple with the role of money in a very pragmatic and practical way as part of the world we live in just like @Ronen Hirsch has done with his initial cards on Money. Yet I also think that Wilber does this by tying into the sacredness of everything through his discussion of non-duality, that the “I” can never really be separate or apart from any part of life. I love that he provides insights that the progressive liberation of society began to enable more to experience that non-duality as we returned to a more feminine-driven society. So thanks!

As I mentioned in our call, there is a HUGE grain of salt that any Ken Wilber essay needs to be taken with ... namely, his brusque misogyny tinged with an intellectual arrogance ... you point directly to those faults in your response @Jennifer Damashek and I agree completely. This is not what I was talking about when I mentioned our need to incorporate feminist economics into our conversation, haha!

Glad to hear that there was still something useful in there for you.

Ronen's request to all of us at the end:

-go over generative process again
-specifically, look deeply into the money section

question: is that whole enough to say "cycle 3 is complete enough for now"? Or do we want to spend more time now hashing out how money fits into the generative process?

I am sitting in my morning study session, ingesting and digesting Samkhya and thinking about something @Alex Rodriguez said yesterday regarding Buddhism and an attitude of "we are doing this now, in this lifetime" and I don't trust that attitude (and I feel I need to acknowledge I am currently biased towards seeing the shortcomings and failures of Buddhism!):

1. I sense hubris in it, I sense an attitude of dominance and control, in this case applied to ... of all things spirit nature! as if liberation of the soul is a task aking to servicing a machine.

2. I believe that somewhere in the Baghavad Gita (a text with which I am only superficially familiar) there is a teaching that says something like: not I, not by me, not for me.

3. As I read these Samkhya verses that state that "discerning knowledge (the metaphysical principles outlined in Samkhya)is the key to the liberation of Spirit" ... and I can feel the temptation to think "here I am, studying this text, I get it, I have acquired discerning knowledge, I must be going free, and boy would that be a relief because this round of life has been abundantly unpleasant" ... but I do not think that's how it works. I feel I don't get to liberate my Spirit any more than I get to grow a beautiful flower. I can plant a seed and tend to the soil, I can study and practice, but liberation and beautiful flowers are not of me, not by me, not for me!

4. I recently heard an Israeli/Jewish scholar of Judaism and how it applies to psychology, suggest that the systemic brokenness he sees in western psychological thinking is that it is "self centered" ... that it is missing a god ... missing a "something greater than I" ... and I wonder if this is also a pattern present in Buddhist thinking or a pattern that was injected into Buddhist thinking when the west got its hands on it?

5. I am also thinking of a theme I've heard Tyson Yunkaporta speak about: that in indigenous cultures you are systemically taught that you, as an individual, don't really matter, you are not special ... you may get to participate in something special ... but you yourself ... are not!

I am coming out of practice thinking: it is unbridled masculine dominance that is forever conquering.

It is everywhere. It is in Buddhism, it is in Yoga, it is in Decision Making, it is in Money and in Capitalism, in Nationalism, in Politics.

• When this energy is unbridled it leads to understanding and a delusional sense of control: "I am riding this horse and I will bend it to my will"

• When this energy is regulated it leads to a lifetime of practice and to a humble sense of mastery: "I don't know how this horse works, but we've been together long enough that she is able to carry me well, I can sit on her well, and we are able to move well together."

I believe it is not enough to practice the things we want to do well. We also have to closely examine our habits (our most established practices!) and stop investing in patterns and assumptions that work against us. If you practice Pranayama (breath practices) once a day for 15 minutes but spend another 1785 minutes a day living in stress and duress which constrains your breath ... which pattern do you think is going to dominate?

Thank you, Ronen for sharing your experience of what Alex said yesterday. I appreciated what Alex said and could relate to it. I have to admit I love Buddhism and resonate with Buddhist teachings, even though Buddhism did arise in a patriarchal context.

I can see how the words "we are doing this now, in this lifetime" can definitely seem like hubris and like there is an attitude of domination. It's possible someone who says those words may actually be coming from such a place.

However, I think it's also possible that a person who says those words could be coming from an authentic inner experience of being able to be liberated in this lifetime and in that case it might take a lot of courage to even say the words out loud. After all, if one believes that there is such a thing as liberation of a soul, it must happen in one lifetime or another, and if the soul were in a lifetime where it was possible, wouldn't that soul likely have the inner sense it was possible?

I think the key to knowing the difference inwardly is to realize that just because I may have the inner experience that I am going to accomplish something in this lifetime doesn't mean it will actually happen. What actually happens isn't something we can control. We might delude ourselves for a while, but reality always shows up, sooner or later.

My brief impressions from the gathering:

1. I felt that the diverse positions and attitudes with which we arrived were well expressed and that some kind of unspoken consolidation took place. I felt empowered by the soft capacity of the group to hold itself together. I feel recurring and sustained appreciation that we have traveled this far together.

2. Personally, the gathering was invigorating and nourishing for me and that echoed clearly in this morning's practice (the next day). I look forward to being able to have more (in quantity and quality) of these kinds of nourishing encounters, that we find a way to truly engage and come into service of this work.

3. The money-related friction guided us into a kind of re-orientation of where we are collectively and how we got here.

4. The re-orientation within the space allowed us to re-make a collective conscious choice about what it is we want to work on together (more on that in a coming proposal).

5. The sense of being "re-oriented together" awoke a sense that maybe this cycle has reached maturity and is nearing completion (more on that in another upcoming proposal).

6. I suggested that as a follow-up to the gathering that everyone revisits the GP as a whole (without getting hung-up on particulars) and gives special attention to the three money sequences.

7. I will be following up with two proposals (mentioned above).