In the Work That Reconnects,
we have a dialogue exercise
in which Person A asks Person B
“Who are you?”
several times over a few minutes,
as it feels right to reprime this exploratory pump;
then person B does the same for person A.

The person hosting,
listening,
facilitating,
enabling this reiterative question’s redundant possibilities
remains an echo-present listener,
noticing diversity within these multiple evolving responses,
without judging good,
bad,
ugly,
or even indifferent,
quietly hearing rhythms of longing for love
between crippling cracks of anger and fear,
compelling and compiling self with other hatred,
pathology.

The question,
Do all these diverse self-descriptions truly fit
this same love v anger/fear polyculturing elephant?
does not usually arise.

Rather,
we accept these scrabbling voices
and creolizing hats
and complex feelings
and chaotic ideas
and multiculturing beliefs
co-occurring within one bilateral
positive-health v. negative-pathology mindbody
ecosystem,
seeking Alpha/Omega Point zeroistic fullness
holistic richness,
poly-empathic
polymorphic communication,
design,
development,
co-empathic investment,
and cooperative-integrative implementation outcomes
at the end of this elephant’s rhetorical event,
if not sooner.

Why is this not always the case
when we ask our friends and families,
our public sector leaders
and financial sector investors,
“Who do you hope we are becoming?”

What loves are we preparing to invest in
and which past angers
and future fears
to divest of?

What indicators can I give
that I already invest in cooperatively regenerate
health agendas,
nutritional wealth platforms,
designs and win/win intentions,
co-mentoring therapeutic diapraxis,
active multicultural listening
of which I preach so positively to others?

I know you support restoring regenerative health
to our soil,
and preserving clean water,
as I do.

So does it bother you
as it does me,
that growing Earth pathology
is bicamerally euphemized
eulogized
as inevitable climate “change”?

We say we support cooperatively vibrant
healthy local economies
cultures
good humors
and empowering political vitality,
so does it bother you,
as it does me,
to so often hear “either-or” deductive
left-brain dominant reductivism
and wonder why not first cooperatively consider
ecofeminist “both-and?”

I appreciate what you just said,
and I wonder if adding X,
and even Y,
and maybe even YY=XY,
might make your idea even better.
Do you agree,
or maybe you see concerns
for yourself and/or others
new to me,
of which we might more curiously learn together?

Could a cooperative election,
a vacation from judging and blaming and shaming,
a social-neurological peace revolution campaign,
begin with compiling interdependent win/win hopes
and wishes
and loves of Who Are You?
and Me?
as We?

Thereby more smoothly avoiding win/lose stuckness-traps
of fear and anger
and dissonant
pathological constipation
non-outcomes.

Could investing both-and cooperative listening norms
better lead toward co-investing in healthy wealth,
politically co-empowering policies,
procedural and dialogical compassion transparency,
polyculturally healthy design
and development
and wealthy discernment
of poli-eco-logical therapy
v. multi-morphic climate pathology?

Could deep cooperative listening
co-arise local
through global
health outcome networks,
climax ecstasy as mere everyday eco-normativity,
embracing each and every sacred Person A
and B response
to Who are We?