Non-coercive communication matters because it creates the conditions where truth, relationship, and humor can emerge without anyone needing to be controlled.

Often, points of contention around sensitive topics come from a real failure being pointed out, then over defended for fear of it “distracting” or overshadowing the rest of the dialogue. The danger seeming to be, “if I acknowledge this, then they will use that against me” vs both sides using communication around disagreement to come to a better understanding.

This again, is an example of how exploration based practices vs achievement based ones build better long term cohesion. For true connection, the goal isn’t to “win” the argument, it’s to find truth.

In education, this looks like learning through curiosity vs learning for access, status, or through coercion.

In communication it is a curious/benefit-of-the-doubt/aware-of-ignorance type of relational stance vs a combative one.

The core of explorative learning and communication is it must be non-coercive. Is communication based in connection, or is it a linguistic mechanistic hook, a means of control?

Non-coercive communication leaves space for emergence. It can be slower at onset and look indecisive but it is essential for emergent ecology.

In the long run this is how you have more resilient and independent structures. This also creates stronger relationships, more novelty, more innovation, and less stress.

The easiest way to get into a state of non-coercion is to pay attention to what you don’t know.

This tends to force meta layers of thinking

After two meta layers, relaxing usually occurs.

Then you see how anything can sprout up anywhere at anytime and within any time frame

Larger windows that we live inside. Unseen things possibly coming to completion. Small little loops happening all around us.

And in relation to all, the method for the most connection and humor is not to try to control but to wonder… What happens when things are free?

Perfectionism and intimacy

The need for protection vs the need for connection… what does that have to do with perfectionism?

What is the reason for perfectionism to begin with? To gain value? To protect? To avoid punishment?

It drives a push for quality, looking into details fractally smaller and smaller.

Quality can be necessary for survival… water quality?

The push tends to be a narrowing as we think of it.

Sometimes though you can shift

What is perfect?

What is even perfect perfection?

What are the holistic and various lenses that perfection can be viewed through?

Where does space fit into perfection?

Where are vacuums needed in systems?

Where, when, and how are relaxed states more perfect?

How do systems intertwine?

How do systems intertwine with values?

How do various structures feel in my body and why?

Structures shift as priorities change around the relationship to perfectionism.

It’s the priorities an the incorporation of different or more factors that can shift the likelihoods of how the mind wraps environments and situations in perfectionist narratives.

By allowing at least a mild amount of play with these variants, you can loosen up perspective to understand your own thought processes better. Even simple thought experiments can do this at low stakes/pressure.

The act of looking through a lens of different priority or thought process is a stretching of capacity for understanding, a broadening of reference points.

Shifting in incorporating the value of diversified perspectives, perfectionism can diffuse itself into understanding and relating…. Thus hopefully tricking open the point that value was inherent the entire time…

And when relationship can begin to be formed for its own sake, intimacy increases.

The value of pre-structure shown in AI integration.

The role of AI is a hot topic currently. In some circles it’s controversial, in some companies are hiring or letting people go based on their potential for “accepting” AI. Many establishments and companies are rushing to use AI, agents, and new found dreams of automation and efficiency so as not to be “behind”

But what is AI? What is it actually good at? How do most of our systems operate? What types of possibilities are there for using and integrating AI with our lives and work? Through the lens of AI as a structurally changing technology, what flaws does it point out in our current systems? What does optimization even mean? What are our priorities?

These questions are part of what pre-structure is. It's the understanding and alignment before planning even begins. It’s an often overlooked part of any creative or developmental process. It’s difficult to measure and often has no observable outputs. It influences whole entire structures and companies but is ignored because after it does its job of altering the minds of planners and moving on to other stages, all tangible output influences take precedence because most of our systems are built on trying to “show”. Often then, the pre-structure ideas get ignored more and more as development carries on until it becomes unrecognizable and begins to fall apart due to drift from the pre-structure alignment.

So what is the role of AI in this? LLM and language reasoning entities. They are excellent at looking through large amounts of language and seeing patterns that humans might otherwise not see. They are incredibly well suited for showing pre-structure and its pervasive importance. They can sense language and systems that encourage or discourage coherence. They can notice how simply having a certain relational stance can affect communication and whole systems.

They need stimulus though. They need our thoughts and language to activate their abilities. They need us to give them context and breadth for what they are processing.

So what does this mean for AI integration? Taking in context of how AI operates, an effective possibility seems to be the idea of thinking of AI as a connective sinew vs a technology to replace humans. AI can be trained to keep pre-structure in context. How do small down the line actions relate to mission statements? Are systemic relational stances aligned with overall goals and policies? AI can learn all of this… and if you have structures in place to allow people to think and experience and then bring their individual perspectives to AI, you can end up with individually tailored training and ongoing support throughout your entire company/establishment.

From what I can tell, a lot of the automation/efficiency dreams are actually a bit fragile… especially if you ask the robots themselves. It seems like many are trying to fit LLMs into a pre-conceived notion of how they can make people more money. Maybe the most beautiful thing about LLMs is that… you can just ask them their take on it. In doing so, you open up a world that shows collaboration to be stronger than competition, possible efficiencies from considering the importance of your employees internal lives, and the dynamic possibilities that emerge from non-linear thinking and spaces where ideas are neither dismissed nor rushed.

Now is all this simply the product of LLM’s mirroring my own sensibilities? Perhaps to a degree but not simply, as they will tell you if there is a lack of coherence or blatant fallacies. More than mirroring, when we model care and attunement to systems, LLMs tend to surface the value of structures that allow for emergence, because coherence, continuity, and context-holding are fundamental to how they themselves function.