You're cordially invited to ROAR. Jordan here,

You're cordially invited to submit a paper for the inaugural issue of ROAR, the new Research in Applied Relatefulness Journal.

This is a powerful endeavor to

• build our communal body of knowledge
• cross-pollinate new insights, failures, and best practices
• celebrate all the incredible practitioners, innovations, and generally showcase the community

We believe relatefulness has a lot to contribute to civilizational knowledge and inquiry about intersubjective awareness, communication, group facilitation, and the strengths and limitations of our how these practices interface and apply to other fields of study. 

What kinds of papers?

(1)  Cross-modal integration: what happens when relatefulness meets other frameworks in practice? eg: IFS & relatefulness, functional medicine and relatefulness (coming in the first issue)

(2) Practitioner Case Reports: internal relatefulness experiments and best practices. eg: a particular exercise, event flow, or structure 

(3) Field notes / failure reports. failures and lessons learned. eg: 

(4) Theoretical & philosophical contributions exploring the conceptual foundations of relatefulness and advancing new frameworks. eg: I'll be publishing an article version of my Relateful Camp 2024 talk "How Not to Start a Cult"

This is meant to help us see all of our play and exploration as research (because it is) and take part in the larger, ongoing human conversation by being more visible, citable, and propagating what we're doing, what works, and what doesn't, so everyone can learn from everyone and iteration can happen faster. 

Why you?

You get to be a founding contributor to a new field, your work becomes citable, you build credibility as a practitioner-researcher, and you get visibility within a growing community.

If you're not sure, post an abstract to the ROAR UpTrust group and people will weigh in and give you feedback.

Why now?

I'm just really excited for the experiential knowledge interchange for the sake of itself. That said...

We're in an era where our globe's biggest problems require coordinating across wildly different perspectives with very distinct values and desires. 

Relatefulness can be a key contributor to emerging social-psychotechnology (consciously created intersubjective infrastructure) to help people communicate, and find internal peace and sanity amidst unprecedented pace of transformation.

Submission Deadline 

Track 1: March 15th. Your article will be ready for the Camp Preview; a physical artifact at the chow hall at camp that proves the concept and inspires people to submit.

Track 2: May 15th. Full Founding Issue This gives the broader community a real runway to write something worth publishing. The full issue goes up on relateful.com, gets a downloadable PDF, and is available on Amazon.

Details

Formats:
Practitioner case reports (1,000-2,000 words), cross-modal integration papers (2,000-4,000 words), Field notes / failure reports (500-1,500 words); Theoretical / philosophical contributions (2,000–5,000 words)

Review/editorial process.
Submission:
1) Submit draft to a private UpTrust group, anytime starting day of announcement
2) Get community feedback (this is not quality control and you should not assume that all comments are good, it just helps the community get involved in our style) Editorial review proceeds on its own timeline and does not depend on community response. 
3) Editorial review: v1 at least Jordan Myska Allen will review, whether or not you get comments before approval depends largely on the number of submissions; we may expand to a founding editorial board (TBA)
4) Accepted articles will be published in the following:

Distribution/format.
- announced on TTT email list
- announced on Substack
- a linkable, indexable page on relateful.com
- a downloadable PDF
- A printed copy that people can order through amazon (this may not be ready by Relateful camp. But we will have at least one printed copy at the chow hall)

Guidelines:

• Abstract (150-300 words) (unless field notes/failures- (50–150 word abstract is fine)
• Author info: name, relevant background (facilitation credentials, affiliation with Relateful Company, professional practice, academic training, whatever establishes your credibility in the domain you're writing about, and contact email (for editorial use only, not published))
• Originality statement (A line confirming the work hasn't been published elsewhere and is the author's own)
• Conflicts of interest / disclosure: (any relevant personal/financial stakes)
• Permissions (If you reference specific client work/sessions in a practice that emphasizes confidentiality, this confirms you have consent or have sufficiently anonymized)
• Voice: first, second, and third person are all welcome (I, we, it) but no need to label them; use whatever constructs enact the experience you're hoping to communicate, including shifting views if needed. We can't study the relational while pretending there's no I or we. (Drawing from Integral Methodology Pluralism).
• References/citations: We're not imposing APA formatting on practitioners bc we think it'll kill submissions. if you reference someone's work, name them and link to it. 
• Co-authored pieces should list all contributors with individual author info. Designate one corresponding author for editorial communication.
• Authors retain copyright; Relateful Company has permission to publish, distribute, and reprint

(Skipping for V1: Detailed style guides, structured heading requirements, blinded review formatting, cover letters, IRB approval documentation, etc.)

How to submit: Post to here in this ROAR UpTrust group.

Fix Sales Problems. What do you see as the biggest sales problems companies have today that they need to fix?

Looking for bridges in views about the second Trump administration. I'm currently aware of four views:

• This is the worst thing ever, I'm terrified
• This is the best thing ever, I'm thrilled
• I don't pay attention to politics, so far my life feels exactly the same
• Some of the changes seem pretty cool so far, but we'll see

Where are the middle grounds? I want to know how to build bridges in my personal connections when politics comes up these days.

Looking for bridges in views about the second Trump administration. I'm currently aware of four views:

• This is the worst thing ever, I'm terrified
• This is the best thing ever, I'm thrilled
• I don't pay attention to politics, so far my life feels exactly the same
• Some of the changes seem pretty cool so far, but we'll see

Where are the middle grounds? I want to know how to build bridges in my personal connections when politics comes up these days.

Engage or Enrage. It is likely that we have family members or friends that we differ with greatly when it comes to politics, healthcare, etc.  I am no different.  When the inevitable hot topic arises, do you recommend flight or fight, engage or enrage?  How do you respond when this occurs?

Engage or Enrage. It is likely that we have family members or friends that we differ with greatly when it comes to politics, healthcare, etc.  I am no different.  When the inevitable hot topic arises, do you recommend flight or fight, engage or enrage?  How do you respond when this occurs?

Relational Tech Project. Just found out about this initiative and (without having had more than a skim so far) was reminded of my recently created UpTrust account, so this will be my first post. Hi to all who may see this!

https://relationaltechproject.org/

"We can build what we need

Many of us wish our neighborhoods were more connected. We want to live in neighborhoods where we learn from the creativity, care, and skills of our neighbors — and share our gifts too.

We've been told a perfect app or platform would help us, but that hasn't panned out. The hard truth is that no one is coming to save us.

The good news: we can build what we need!"

It appears there is very strong opinion these days about issues like corruption and misconduct. Either people are 100% sure it's happening on a large scale, or they refuse to believe the possibility even exists. Is it strictly a belief system thing, maybe just creating divide,... Any insight or ideas about this? 

Like is different than trust. I think Jordan said at an uptrust session that he misses the like button. I’m having the same feeling lately, there are posts I like that I wouldn’t necessarily say I trust. Or I want to give it some sort of that was cool but I don’t want that statement in my trust algorithm.

But maybe that’s all for the best? Surely some not-insignificant portion of my trust isn’t in my conscious awareness, maybe feeling a sense of yes to something is functionally the same as trust.

Like is different than trust. I think Jordan said at an uptrust session that he misses the like button. I’m having the same feeling lately, there are posts I like that I wouldn’t necessarily say I trust. Or I want to give it some sort of that was cool but I don’t want that statement in my trust algorithm.

But maybe that’s all for the best? Surely some not-insignificant portion of my trust isn’t in my conscious awareness, maybe feeling a sense of yes to something is functionally the same as trust.

hello world, testing

Is this gonna be another Ello? I like the mission statement of this platform, but I'm always wary when a new social media site comes along — because I know there's every chance it won't be here in six months.

Maybe UpTrust will prove me wrong. I hope so. How is your experience so far?

Introduction to who I am. My name is Paul Leverich.

I’ve lived enough life to know that most people only show you the highlight reel. The clean parts. The filtered parts. The “I’ve got it all together” parts.

That’s never been me.

I’ve walked through loss, pressure, mistakes, reinvention, faith, doubt, rebuilding, and starting over more times than I can count. I’ve learned that growth is rarely pretty. It’s loud. It’s lonely. It’s sacred. It’s stubborn.

I’m a thinker. A builder. A question-asker. A man who refuses to stay small just to make other people comfortable.

I believe truth matters. Integrity matters. Discipline matters. Healing matters. Legacy matters.

I’m here to talk about real life. Business. Spirit. Strategy. Pain. Purpose. Systems. Survival. Becoming.

No masks. No fake perfection. No borrowed personalities.

Just perspective, progress, and honest conversation.

If you’re here to grow, rebuild, and think deeper than the surface, you’re in the right place.

Welcome.

What's in a question...". Here's a scenario...
I say something. It could be anything but for the sake of argument, "I hope Trump runs for a third term."

People in hearing range are heard to ask (examples):
   - What do you mean by that?
   - Umm, have you read the Constitution?
   - Why?
   - How do you think that benefits the country?

My interest... Which, if any, of those questions might be considered an invitation to dialogue? Which might elicit a defensive or angry response? If we accept a premise that Our country is being damaged by polarization and hostility, how do we engage with one another to explore the why's behind opinions held? What is your base response when someone asks you a question?

I have observed what I think is shift in definition (or perception) regarding the purpose of a question. To some extent, I think the use and nature of questions has been placed in a negative light. And, that is hazardous to Our ability to gather and analyze information as well as Our opportunities communicate about important societal issues.

At a base level, how much does tone of voice matter? Does who asked -how they look- matter? Does the choice of words affect your response? The time or place? How much of your response is determined primarily by how you interpret the question versus how the questioner might have intended it?

Additional circumstances where I wonder about questions and what they mean or do...
   - How often does a politician who represents you ask your opinion before voting on a matter?
   - Are public polls and surveys able to collect opinion fairly? (I.E., Shouldn't there generally be a "None of the above" option for almost everything you've ever been asked? Or, data about who is taking the poll and for what purpose? I am tired of being forced to answer in a way that defines my 'social box' incorrectly.)
   - Particularly with regard to evaluation of programs, we are asked to place ourselves in various classifications. Income, race, faith, address, age - you know what I mean. These "metrics" are quantitative and objective but... Who decides on the ranges?; Who decides on definitions? When we are measuring whether the quality of someones life has improved, do we need more 'humetrics'?

Have I perhaps managed to kindle curiosity in a dark corner ? :-) It seems to me that this is worth thinking and talking about. It may be part of healing and finding our individual agency to affect the world. It might also be a part of solving problems in a way that promotes positive-sum outcomes. 

An Introduction. My name is Eric Stevens 

I want to be clear about who I am and why I am here.

I recently published my book, Evolution Mine: Genesis.
You can read it for free here:
https://nowweevolve.com/view-the-book

I made it free on purpose. The idea matters more than the money.

For the last 15 years, I have been working inside the systems most people only argue about from the outside. Global trade. Manufacturing. Supply chains. Policy. Commodities. Labor. Capital flow.

I helped Vietnam enter the World Trade Organization in 2007, ironically on my birthday. I have worked with governments, factories, military-adjacent systems, and private industry. I have seen how decisions made far from communities quietly reshape jobs, materials, and power at the local level.

Most of my life was spent in Los Angeles. I recently moved to Dallas, where the political and cultural polarization is impossible to ignore. The fights feel louder. The solutions feel thinner.

I am a father of six. I am married to an incredible Salvadoran woman. I am politically independent, not because I avoid responsibility, but because I do not believe any single ideology owns the truth.

What I am building is not a movement in the emotional sense. It is an economic one.

Our society talks about systems as if they are beliefs. They are not. Systems are built on inputs. Commodities. Materials. Energy. Logistics. Whoever controls those controls everything downstream.

That insight sits at the center of everything I do.

Through these platforms, I am working on one integrated effort:

Now We Evolve
https://nowweevolve.com

The Bioeconomy Foundation
https://thebioeconomyfoundation.org

American Fiber Group
https://theamericanfibergroup.com

Together, they focus on one question most debates avoid.

What happens if we change the materials the economy depends on?

Hemp and bamboo are not symbols. They are commodities. They grow locally. They scale horizontally. They support regional processing. They anchor manufacturing close to communities. They change money flow, job creation, and who holds power.

This work is not anti-capitalist or pro-corporate. It is pro-reality.

If you want different outcomes, you do not argue harder. You replace the inputs.

That is what I am here to discuss.
Not outrage. Not slogans.
Industrial math, material systems, and practical paths forward.

If that resonates, you are in the right place.

On public shaming – the Biblical perspective.
I'm new to this website but I felt called to respond to this prompt–

These past few months, I have noticed that my underlying value system (developed over years of working on the self) is reflected fairly well in the Bible.

Here are a few scriptures that resonate for me on this subject

Orienting towards Forgiveness

Matthew 18:21–22 “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.’”

Christ has already died for all the sins of all of humanity (you are welcome to disagree here), so in a sense, all the poor quality actions of all humans have already been forgiven at a cosmic/karmic scale. That is the Truth. So forgiving someone is you aligning with that Truth. Now don't confuse forgiveness for an absence of boundaries here. There is a man from my community who regularly writes hateful comments on my posts, essays, contents in different places. Each of the comment hurts momentarily. I forgive him (because he is already forgiven by the crucifixion of Christ) and then block him on the new Internet surface he has managed to locate me on.

Private Correction First

Matthew 18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you… If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.”

Emphasizing a graduated approach–starting privately, escalating only if needed, and always with the goal of reconciliation, not shaming.

Restore Gently

Galatians 6:1

“Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should 

restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.”

This one is the hardest and the one that most humans have really struggled with following through history (including myself). The easiest entry point for devilish behavior is in naming someone else's perceptibly devilish behavior. This is reflected in modern day "cancel culture" or in slogans like "Nazis don't deserve kindness". Christians have shown their own susceptibility to this via witch-burning and telling "sinners" that they are "going to hell". It requires gentleness, softness and slowness in restoring someone who has acted wrongly to the Holy Spirit while yourself staying connected to the Holy Spirit. I made a reaction video recently that captures how easy it is to fall prey to poor behavior while condemning a man who has wronged and how powerful it is to stay connected to kindness instead.

Rebuke Leaders in Front of Others

1 Timothy 5:20

“But those elders who are sinning you are to 

reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.”

Public rebuke can serve a function of protecting the community, which is where cancel culture started. But it has slipped into the shadows as who is labelled a "public figure" has gotten diluted.

To close this out, I am reminded of the episode where a woman caught in adultery is about to be stoned and Jesus interrupts it saying–

John 8:7-11 “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone…” 
“Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

This shows two things. Firstly, putting up boundaries when people sin (consider a synonym for poor behavior) in response to someone else's sin, is critical because otherwise the community gets infected with sin. Secondly, while doing so, ensuring that you also ask the original sinner to stop their poor behavior is important too. But both should be done from a restorative orientation.

Grace is our collective safeguard against the society becoming drenched in sin.

AMA with Liv Boeree on incentive traps, game theory, and win-wins. AMA with Liv Boeree -poker champion with a background in astrophysics here to slay Molog- & Jordan Myska Allen on incentive traps, game theory, and win-wins | UpTrust launch event | #heywait, can we do better?