Someone asked, in the context of doing things you love, how do we get remunerated:
“What additional work is required to maximize the RoI of time and energy?”
There is no need to maximise the time you spent to produce what you love — it was its own gift, and it is over now.
Think about it across different people: say a farmer digs out the carrots, his work is done; the distributor accepts the carrots and takes them somewhere, and his job is done. By having a system that imbalances the equality of this, ‘maximising roi’ or ‘marketing’ or ‘advertising’ or ‘selling’ is simply eating into the efforts of the distributor. Or another way of thinking about it, the farmer is happy to pass on the carrots and the distributor is thankful for the carrots so they can distribute them, and the people who eat the carrots are thankful to the distributors; the number of thanks increases. Or a third way that comes to mind, the farmer doesn’t need to worry about RoI because the distributors are taking care of that — their act of distribution is the RoI. And this is clearer when the distributor gives the carrot to the thankful person at the end, both parties know exactly what their RoI will be — the eating of the carrot.
(I don’t know if that makes sense, or whether the meaning comes across. It is a bit terse, but I think valid.)
A more important question:
“What is the most efficient way to translate your work of love into income?”
My answer is, pay the person before they do what they love, so they are free from the burden of ‘getting a result’. And this is scalable in time, so they end up doing more that they love, especially as it changes over time.
Co-designing the ha-ha’s is a good experience, there are plenty of lessons to be learned. Even in the ‘negative’ spaces of what is missed, what is omitted, what doesn’t happen.
I saw this post on a FB group, Campathos, run by Cynthia La Grou.
My comment was this:
I am finding in our current co-design, people look to one another for perspective. That is, they are focussing on each other rather than the objective. I’d rather look at one another for value, which is inspiring, and keep my attention on the objective, which will enable us to achieve it collectively. Tricky to enable. The basis of human ‘flocking’ I think.
Does this make sense?
hard co-design versus soft co-creation
Co-designing is slightly different than softer, more open-ended creative collaboration. Co-design brings a certain specificity. It’s more like engineering. There are specific settings, parameters, that are demanding. We must obey the laws of physics when building our bridge. We must play with the tools we have. This goes for engineering a bridge, or coding, and — I propose — certain psycho-social dynamics.
The ha-ha’s are not a ‘get together’, a soft social gathering, a ‘feel-good’ event. The objective of the ha-ha is to create consensus with upto 1,000 or more — in an hour! That’s… like… crazy! Impossible, or at least very very demanding if we want to control, force, coerce, argue, etc. However, if we use Trust and we self-organise, I believe we can do it relatively easily — if we get the ‘social tech’ right. It has to be right from the get-go. Hence the emphasis on the Invitational-Protocol, an implementation of the ecosquared financial protocols, the methodology. We are reversing the current economic system. We are practicing aikido, we need to touch just the right pressure points for it to work. ‘Light-touch’ collaboration on a collective objective.
Are we going to co-design this social tech by being soft, looking at one another for instructions, or building community within our own group? I never pretended that we are ‘building community’ between us as co-designers. We see the lay of the land, we have an objective, and we make moves. We do what we can. We allow ourselves to think the impossible. We take courage in that our fellow co-designers are making moves. We see what they are missing and we fill in the gaps. We may support one another as we attempt the impossible! We are self-learning, co-dependent, incredible mutual beings. We are amazing!
the social feedback loop of ha-ha’s
Think about how the ha-ha’s will work, whether we get it right this iteration or not. In one hour, 1000 are not going to ‘befriend’ anyone. There is no time for ‘discussion’. It is not ‘community building’ as we know it. It is not reaching consensus by listening to each member. It is not about aggregating a network with 1,00o like-minded members. So what is the point of it?
That is, if something actually happens in the following week — this is why we come back together. We managed to do something socially miraculous. We trusted one another enough with our £10 and our 1 hour to enable something amazing to happen in the world.
That’s enough for me. I will die happy if ha-ha’s are working in the world. I will look forward to doing ha-ha’s. I will start to recognise names, I will note quality contributions, I will pursue off-shoots, I will get to know other participants, I will take part more actively in the decided social action and work in more intense teams. All because there is social impact. It is social impact that defines my engagement with others. I exist relative to the social impact. Everyone who is playing ha-ha’s, and learning to humanly flock, is relative to our collective flocking.
Intelligent flocking. Self-herding cats. Heart-connected future-orientated collaboration. Courage and love! Courage to go forward not-knowing, and love as the bond between us.