Scriptural Relating: Towards an Interreligious Dialogue Methodology Inspired by Relatefulness and Scriptural Reasoning. ROAR Submission

Attention is the just and loving gaze directed upon an individual reality. 
- Iris Murdoch 

Abstract

This article introduces the framework of “Scriptural Relating,” a methodology for inter-religious dialogue inspired by Scriptural Reasoning, the interreligious study of holy texts, as well as Relatefulness, which aims to cultivate deeper interpersonal encounters. The term Scriptural Relating is coined to emphasise that this approach is concerned with our way of relating to scripture, and through scripture, to each other: participants are invited to recognise, through close attention to and expression of their moment-to-moment experience, how their assumptions, judgments and normative-theological commitments affect what they experience. Thus, it serves to counter the human tendency to turn both scripture and other human beings into projective surfaces, aim to cultivate more reflective, emotionally attuned relationships between people of other faiths, as well as a more self-reflective relationship with scripture. The methodology remains to be tested in practice, but its theoretical grounding and possible design are sketched here.

Author information

Name: Tamara Falcone

Background: B.A. in Philosophy and Islamic Studies from Tübingen University, practice in Tibetan Buddhist mind-training, as well as relational modalities like Circling, Authentic Relating and Relatefulness.

Affiliation: M.A. Student in Islamic Studies at Marburg University, Research and Outreach Intern at the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies in Amman, Jordan

E-mail: tamara.falcone@outlook.com

Substack: https://substack.com/@tamarafalcone 

Conflicts of interest: none.

Originality: I declare that this paper is my own original work and has not been published elsewhere.

Permissions: Any illustrative examples are hypothetical.

I. Introduction

What happens in the space between two people? What is it that makes those two people misunderstand each other, reject each other, unable to connect? For me, these questions have arisen naturally from many interpersonal and cross-cultural encounters, yet I have never heard them asked aloud. It seems to me that the problem of distance can, in part, be traced back to the interpretive process itself—the lenses through which we perceive the other, which often take us far away from the just and loving gaze of which Iris Murdoch spoke. 

While this problem exists even within the in-group, it manifests in especially strong form between people of different faiths, ranging from more subtle misunderstandings and disagreements, to outright intolerance, hostility and violence. It is in interfaith dialogue that I hoped it might be most directly confronted. But my questions remain partially unaddressed: the dialogue I have experienced has been, by and large, a dialogue of texts and ideas, in which the inner life of the participants tends to stay in the background.

By inner life, I mean not only private thoughts and opinions, but everything else besides: moment-to-moment emotional responses, some of them not quite what we would like; the assumptions we bring to other human beings and to their scripture, which may twist what we perceive out of its true shape; the subtle shifts in how we perceive the other person; the distance created when that perception diverges from reality. These remain in the background, as if paying attention to them would distract us from whatever we deem more important. This raises the question: what would happen if we learnt to see the mind as it sees, and let that illuminate the way we relate to our traditions?

To bring these internal processes into the dialogue itself, this paper proposes a methodology I am calling Scriptural Relating. I begin by introducing the two practices that inspire this methodology, Scriptural Reasoning and Relatefulness, before sketching out how Scriptural Relating might be practiced. After this, I describe the problems this approach seeks to address, and close with some reflections on what problems might arise and what Scriptural Relating may offer. My interest is ultimately not in a specific methodology, but in what becomes possible when we engage with people of other faiths while remaining aware of, and willing to express, our internal processes—whatever arises in the process, and however this can best be done. 

II. Sources of Inspiration

One source of inspiration for this practice is Scriptural Reasoning. This practice, which was developed in the 1990s, involves people of different faiths—usually Islam, Judaism, and Christianity—reading and discussing passages from their scriptures together. Emerging from the Jewish theological and philosophical practice of Textual Reasoning, it was primarily developed by the scholars Peter Ochs, David Ford and Daniel Hardy: first as a dialogue activity for Jews and Christians, though it later expanded into a trilateral one including Muslims, and now also adherents of other religions (van Esdonk & Wiegers, 2019).

One distinguishing feature of Scriptural Reasoning is that it does not seek consensus or  agreement between traditions. The tent, as practitioners call the convening space of Scriptural Reasoning, becomes a place where each tradition remains fully itself while being genuinely exposed to the others. What emerges from this is friendship based on hospitality, as well as higher-quality disagreement (van Esdonk & Wiegers 2019, 13). Thus, Scriptural Reasoning is not purely intellectual: it engages the traditions’ theological resources seriously, but also values the relationships that develop in this way. However, this principled focus on the text—what has been described as its textual fixation (Moyaert 2018)—means that it leaves a particular level of the encounter unaddressed.

What exactly do I mean by this? Practitioners of authentic relating distinguish between three levels of conversation. There is the informational, where news, facts, and ideas are exchanged; the personal, where feelings about that content are shared; and the relational, where participants attend to what is happening between them in the present moment. The inner life of participants, including the projections, reactions, and withheld judgments described above, belongs to the relational level (ART International, 2017), whereas most interreligious dialogue operates on the informational and personal levels. Scriptural Relating proposes to bring the encounter to this third level, aiming for a different kind of outcome than most interreligious dialogue: not the correction of incorrect beliefs about a religion and its followers, nor the transformation of hostility into friendliness, nor the maintenance of these friendly relationships, but the heightening of the awareness participants bring to their own minds, to each other, and to their scriptures.

This is where the tools and principles of Relatefulness come in. Relatefulness grew out of a specific ecosystem of relational practices that developed from the mid-20th century onward. Pioneered in particular by Jordan Myska Allen, it is a set of awareness practices aimed at creating more truthful and loving interpersonal encounters. To this end, it offers tools with which participants attend to their present-moment experience in connection with others (to be described later). By applying these tools in interreligious dialogue, participants can bring the introspective awareness usually cultivated privately to bear on the encounter with the other.

III. Problems addressed by Scriptural Relating

Much goes wrong in the space between us and our holy texts, and between us and other people. When we encounter scripture, we see it through the lens of our prior formation:  associations learnt from repeated experiences, defensive investments in certain readings, ideological commitments that affect what we can accept in our own traditions. A similar process operates when we encounter another person. We arrive with our cultural scripts, prior experiences of people we consider like them, assumptions about what their tradition teaches and what kind of person it produces, and these direct our thoughts without our realising it. In both cases, the encounter is mediated by an interpretive apparatus that is largely invisible to the one operating it.

The practice of Scriptural Relating can counteract two ways in which this happens in particular. The first is something termed cognitive fusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, which is when there is a lack of separation between oneself and one’s thoughts. As David Gillanders writes: “Fusion refers to the relationship a person has with his or her own cognitive events, on a continuum from fused (dominated by, entangled, believed, taken literally) to defused (experienced as mental events and not necessarily needing to be acted upon)” (Gillanders et al., 2014, p. 84). When this happens, we cannot question the literal content of our thoughts, and so what we think about someone becomes, simply, what they are, radically shrinking the space available for curiosity. Closely related to this is a tendency known in Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy as mind-reading: the habit of wrongly assuming that we know what the other person is thinking. Together, these can produce an encounter that may seem open outwardly, in the sense that one’s words, gestures, and expressions appear cordial and welcoming, but that remains closed internally, with countless micro-assumptions of which one is mostly unaware.

To this end, an important aspect of Scriptural Relating is the practice of “bracketing.” I borrow this term from the phenomenological concept of epoché, which refers to the deliberate, temporary suspension of habitual assumptions in order to encounter what is actually present (Benseler 1911). Participants are invited to suspend judgment about what thoughts, intentions and character traits they infer others to have, helping them recognise that these are, in fact, inferences, not obvious truths. Unlike what it means in phenomenology, however, this is not a philosophical exercise; it is an attempt to recognise what is hindering us from seeing other human beings justly and lovingly.

Even where the tendency to make assumptions is held in check, however, something else can undermine the quality of encounter: the withholding of judgments. In any dialogue between people of different faiths, subtle negative reactions are likely to arise continuously: a suspicion of criticism, a flicker of offence at how a text was read, an assumption about someone’s ulterior motives. The requirement to be measured and respectful, which may exist in other social settings but can be even stronger in dialogical contexts, means that these reactions are likely to be repeatedly suppressed. While it may be preferable to hostile, combative interactions, the issue with this is that suppressing negative emotions does not make them disappear; they continue to exert an influence on us even without our awareness. Scriptural Relating aims to address this by giving participants permission to express this judgment, as well as the tools to do so skilfully, in service not just of truthfulness but also of connection. 

For some, the idea of expressing judgment in order to connect with another person may be counterintuitive. However, it makes more sense when we think about the effect withheld judgments can have in other relationships: the accumulation of misunderstandings or resentment towards the other person, without them having a chance to respond to them—that is, until they are expressed, in a much more inarticulate and unkind form, in moments of acute conflict. Sharing the withhold prevents this, and it does so by bringing what was once hidden behind a polite but tight smile out into the open, where it can be examined and dissolved. However, this isn’t just about negative judgments: the same willingness to share frees us to share positive judgments about and feelings towards the person, our appreciation for the way they are, and the emotional impact of something they did or said, given that all of these can be suppressed when we prioritise appropriateness. In this way, we can create connection through truthfulness, rather than despite it.

These tools are already enough to elevate interreligious encounters to a different level. But the presence of a sacred text as a third party means that it is not just relating between people of faith; it is relating in the presence of what each tradition considers most sacred, most true, and most in need of defence, and therefore, of what is most prone to inspiring disagreement and much more. In dialogue, the moment where radical, irreconcilable difference reveals itself is the moment when judgment and assumption-making, but also careful management of impressions, are most likely to kick in. Scriptural Relating specifically works with that moment rather than around it. It asks: what is happening in you right now, in the presence of this disagreement? Can you stay with that, and tell me what you really think?

This repeated practice of staying with difference, as well as with the judgment and discomfort it may provoke, gradually builds a different kind of tolerance than that produced by cordial accommodation. This is not the tolerance that says your difference doesn’t bother me: it is a tolerance that says your difference may bother me, but I can be with that, and be curious about what it reveals, and remain in connection with you despite it; that says your judgment may hurt me, but I can be with that, and be curious about what it reveals, and also remain in connection with you despite it. And while it asks far more of us, it may prove to be a deeper and more durable foundation for interreligious friendship. 

IV. Sketching the practice

What would a Scriptural Relating session look like? While the methodology remains to be developed through practice, I am going to sketch out what it might involve. 

The first important choice is the selection of the text. Scriptural Reasoning chooses short, thematically linked passages from each tradition, chosen to be rich enough to sustain multiple readings without being so long that the encounter becomes a lecture. Scriptural Relating would follow a similar approach, with one additional consideration: the theme should be chosen for its capacity to surface genuine difference. 

Before the text is introduced in the session, the Relatefulness container must be established. This is the foundation on which everything else rests, and so it needs to be done clearly and solidly, so that the participants do not revert to their habitual ways of reading and relating. This might begin with the facilitator introducing the principles of Scriptural Relating, followed by a check-in: each participant is invited to name, briefly, what is present for them in this moment. After this, one of the participants is asked to read their chosen text out loud, and to share what it means to them; the facilitator invites the participants to share their experience of the text and of the speaker’s sharing; others notice and share what arises in them as they hear that response.

Several Relatefulness tools can help orient participants towards their experience. The first and most foundational is noticing and naming: noticing what is in one’s experience, and naming it. Importantly, this includes the full range of our internal experience—stories, sensations, impulses, assumptions, images—rather than just thoughts. An example of this: “When I read that verse, I notice that something tightened in my chest.” Or: “I notice I'm finding it hard to stay with this text. Something in me wants to move away from it quickly.” Sentence stems like “I notice that” have an important function: they help cultivate mindful attention to what is in our experience, but also a certain distance from it. This Relatefulness tool is crucial because everything else requires an ability to defuse from thoughts and emotions.

The second tool is the observation-interpretation distinction: the practice of separating what was said or done from the meaning we are assigning to it. A participant might respond to another’s reading with something like: “When you read that passage that way, I noticed that I felt agitated and started coming up with reasons why your reading is wrong.” In doing so, they are distinguishing their experience from their interpretation of it. Sentence stems are also helpful for this: “When you said that, I had a story that you were being dismissive, that you’re not being sufficiently respectful, that you were virtue-signalling etc.” Consistently practising this distinction can loosen the tendency to collapse the experience with our assumptions about it, the observation and the inferences we draw from it. In this way, we can reduce the unreflective certainty we often have that the meaning we are deriving from something reflects its true meaning. This in turn expands the space available for curiosity, for wondering what is actually going on. 

And Relatefulness emphasises acting on this curiosity too. This can look like saying: “I had the assumption that you disliked my comment earlier, but didn’t want to say something out of politeness. Is that true?” Which in turn offers an opportunity for the other person to correct a misunderstanding, or to otherwise fill in the gap in the other person’s knowledge: “Not at all! It surprised me, but it didn’t really bother me,” or: “I felt some irritation for a second, but after a moment I realised that I had misunderstood you.” Thus, the cognitive defusion we have cultivated through Relatefulness does not serve our own self-knowledge only: it allows us to go towards the other person with curiosity, rather than withdrawing into ourselves in silent judgment. 

Another helpful tool is that of sharing withholds. This is an explicit invitation to express reactions that would ordinarily be managed diplomatically, through polite non-expression and the maintenance of an outwardly, but not inwardly pleasant demeanour. Importantly, it must be made clear that in the container of Scriptural Relating, no negative reaction is a bid to change the other person's behaviour, understanding, or tradition. “I notice I felt some irritation at the way you responded to my question earlier” is not asking the other person to read it differently, but rather, making visible what was already present, but hidden. 

A caveat should be made about the way I have described this practice. Scriptural Relating involves attending to three different things: the text, our internal responses to it, and our responses to the other participants. While this doesn’t require us to do so simultaneously, this could be demanding in a way that Relatefulness and Scriptural Reasoning are not. Scriptural Reasoning keeps the focus primarily on the text, which gives participants a clear and stable object of attention. Relatefulness keeps the focus on the intra- and interpersonal, which creates an equally clear orientation. Scriptural Relating asks for both, and the question of whether this is enriching, or simply overwhelming, is one that only practice can answer. 

One possible way to deal with this is through sequencing. Participants who are already familiar with Relatefulness—to whom the basic moves of noticing and naming, distinguishing observation from interpretation, and sharing withholds come naturally—are likely more able to engage with the additional cognitive complexity that scripture introduces than someone encountering these tools for the first time. It might therefore make sense to introduce participants to Relatefulness, teaching the most important moves sequentially until they no longer feel effortful, before introducing the text. Because of this, the complexity of this trifecta is not necessarily a reason to abandon it. But it is certainly a reason to be especially thoughtful about the design of the sessions and responsive to the participants’ feedback. 

V. Other considerations

The practices and principles of Relatefulness, and the results it tends to yield, are not culturally universal. It has historically been practiced in Western, spiritual-but-not-religious, socially liberal contexts. Because of this, it not only carries the risk of importing assumptions that conflict with the respective traditions of the participants, but also of simply having very different results. 

That is to say: since the average practitioner of Relatefulness is likely someone who has already done some personal growth work, who is comfortable with emotional disclosure, and who does not carry strong confessional religious commitments, it is hard to predict what results the practice of Relatefulness might have in a radically different social context. It may provoke responses less likely to come up in more homogeneous groups practicing Relatefulness, and potentially, more difficult to deal with skilfully: historical grievances, power dynamics, theological disagreement. This terrain is what makes Scriptural Reasoning—which Peter Ochs has said is potentially the “most dangerous form of inter-religious dialogue” (Ochs 2015, 488)—so risky, and what may make Scriptural Relating even riskier, given that it additionally takes away the buffer zone created by polite intellectual distance.

But does this mean that it is less applicable, less valuable to people of faith? I don’t think so. In my view, the potential risk makes skilful, sensitive, well-informed facilitation, as well as precautions for the psychological safety of the participants, even more important. For example, to reduce the number of complicating factors, it may be wiser to begin with individuals of one or two religious traditions before developing the practice into a trilateral activity. Moreover, as suggested earlier, ensuring that the participants have a strong understanding of Relatefulness in general could also decrease the risk of things going wrong unpredictably. As for the possibility of conflict between the practice and the participants’ traditions, it is worth making clear that Scriptural Relating is not intended to be a fixed protocol, to be followed regardless of whether it coincides with participants’ values and beliefs. Rather, it involves a set of tools that can be engaged selectively: embraced to the extent that they honour participants’ beliefs, and set aside, or held more lightly, if they do not. 

In a similar vein, my use of ideas originating in Western therapeutic modalities, like CBT and ACT, may give the impression that Scriptural Relating has therapeutic aims. This is not my intention either. I refer to concepts like mind-reading and cognitive fusion solely because they can help recognise the internal obstacles to understanding and connecting with each other. Like Relatefulness, Scriptural Relating is likely to have psychological benefits, but does not aim to heal or better anyone; it simply creates the conditions in which a particular kind of introspective and interpersonal awareness becomes accessible.

As for what Scriptural Relating offers to Relatefulness, I would argue that interreligious dialogue is a new, and perhaps uniquely challenging frontier for it. There is one main reason for this. Relatefulness’s guiding values, love and truth, are generous in the sense that they, in theory, make the practice available to everyone, precisely because they are unmoored from any specific religious tradition. But this also comes with a kind of weightlessness: these values come with no history of exile, no text that has been wept over and argued about for millennia, no claims that specifically this is what God said and specifically this is what it demands of you. While I do not think there is anything wrong with this, it means that a particular kind of encounter—encounter with otherness that is rooted not only in history, but in what is believed to be sacred and even infallible—may be out of reach. It may be precisely in the friction between this practice and the teachings of centuries-old religious traditions, the constraints they come with, and their emotional and historical weight, that certain insights emerge. 

Practitioners of Scriptural Relating may, for instance, find that the practice shifts something in how they see or inhabit their tradition. But the reverse is equally possible: that encounter with profound religious commitment reveals something as yet unrecognised in Relatefulness itself. The cross-pollination, if it occurs, is unlikely to be one-directional. Because of this, Scriptural Relating brings with it emotional stakes of a different order, but also a different order of potential.

VI. Conclusion

It is likely that the questions this paper began with—what happens in the space between two people that makes them unable to reach each other—have many possible answers. Scriptural Relating proposes one: that what stands between us is not only theological disagreement, but also our habitual ways of relating to each other—the interpretive habits that cement themselves over time, the reactions we suppress in the name of politeness, and the moment-to-moment assumptions we make that we fail to see, let alone question. While its methodology remains hypothetical, the premise is not without support: relational practices like Relatefulness show that awareness of these processes, brought into connection, can change the quality of interpersonal encounter. Whatever form this takes, the practice points toward something that interfaith dialogue has not yet fully attempted: the possibility that people of irreconcilable beliefs might meet each other not only with tolerance, or with the friendship that Scriptural Reasoning cultivates, but with genuine presence, in which nothing need be managed and nothing withheld.

References

ART International. (2017). Three levels of conversation. Authentic Relating Blog. https://authenticrelating.co/blog/2017/11/10/the-three-levels-of-conversation/. 
Benseler, G. E. (1911). Ἐποχή. In Griechisch-deutsches Schulwörterbuch. B. G. Teubner.
van Esdonk, S., & Wiegers, G. (2019). Scriptural reasoning among Jews and Muslims in London: Dynamics of an inter-religious practice. Entangled Religions, 8. https://doi.org/10.13154/er.8.2019.8342
Gillanders, D. T. et al. (2014). The development and initial validation of the cognitive fusion questionnaire. Behavior Therapy, 45(1), 83–101.
Moyaert, M. (2018). Towards a ritual turn in comparative theology: Opportunities, challenges, and problems. Harvard Theological Review, 111(1), 1–23.
Ochs, P. (2015). Possibilities and limits of inter-religious dialogue. In A. Omer, S. Appleby, & D. Little (eds.), The Oxford handbook of religion, conflict, and peacebuilding (pp. 488–515). Oxford University Press.

What I would be particularly interested in feedback on:

Does the description of Relatefulness tools feel accurate and recognisable to you, or have I misrepresented anything?

Do you think the trifecta of attention I’ve described (scripture - internal processes - relational space) would be too complicated?

Do you think any changes should be made to the methodology in general? 

Is there anything in the practice as sketched that seems unworkable or naïve?

@jordan

Oh snap . . . I’m not falling for THIS (election year promises to eliminate Federal Income Tax).  

Photo above - If President Trump makes good on his promise to eliminate Federal Income taxes, will Taylor Swift buy an even bigger jet? Or just repaint the one she has? (disclaimer - Taylor Swift and the future Travis Kelce-Swift have not publicly taken a position in favor of eliminating income taxes).

There are a lot of taxes I’d like to see eliminated or rolled back. But the amount of media attention Trump’s proposal to eliminate income tax gets is disturbing and irresponsible. It goes beyond clickbait, since there is zero discussion of what happens next. (see MSN link below)

In yesterday’s column I highlighted 6 separate fees/taxes which California levies against a nightly hotel room. These were evidently the brainchild of politicians wanting to cash in on the 2026 World Cup tourism bonanza. (some of the taxes/fees predate 2026, of course).

Some taxes are regressive – they fall equally on everyone, meaning harder proportionately on the working poor. Or they’re PROgressive, meaning the poor are somewhat spared, and instead people with more disposable income are on the hook to a greater extent. A lot of Federal spending IS wasteful, but let’s agree we cannot do without highways, schools, national defense, and the Food and Drug administration. If there’s no federal income tax, either the national debt is going expend beyond the solar system (it’s already over the moon), or tariffs and fees – the regressive kind – hit even you and me even harder. Maybe both happen at once.

Sales taxes are regressive - we all go to the store. So are gasoline taxes. Social security taxes - you can’t escape these even if you’re a min-wage Starbucks barista high fiving because your tips are no longer considered taxable. I’m less concerned about alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes, but obviously the working poor are big consumers of those items. At least if they live in the ‘hood, or in the rural misery belt, or someplace where it snows 8 months out of the year.

Trump promised voters that his every changing litany of tariffs would be paid by “someone else” instead of you and me. That’s absurd. There is no pot of gold Ford is sitting on. Or Rite Aid Drugs. Or Del Monte Foods. Or Pfizer. They all lost money, and a few filed for bankruptcy recently. In fact, in any given year at least 10% of the companies in our 401K accounts lose money.

So we’re paying those Trump tariffs through higher prices, and by shifting to cheaper alternatives. The $100,000 battery powered F150 is dead. The Ford Maverick compact pickup is ascendant 0 the base model. No need to tow 10,000 pounds when you're only picking up half a dozen bags of mulch at Home Depot.

There is no way ANY politician can come up with a credible way to replace income taxes. Our politicians can’t even balance the federal budget. We already have $38 trillion in national debt. Every day we go $8 billion further into debt. You could build an aircraft carrier for $8 billion.

Let me be clear: I don’t want to justify – or increase – federal income taxes on the basis of our ridiculous and unnecessary spending. No matter what kind of spending your own political party rants about. Both parties had an equal hand in creating our $38 trillion national debt.

I want to see politicians' plans for a balanced budget, rather than inane gibberish about eliminating income taxes.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

How much you’d take home making $250K a year if Trump eliminates income taxes

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.

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.

1001 Albums Generator. I've been using the 1001 Albums Generator for a few months now, where it emails you an album from that list of albums to listen to each day. So far there have been a few surprises, some validation that I don't like certain artists, and even got me listening to a Janet Jackson album. 

Politics self-assessment quiz from an integral perspective. I’m obsessively working on a course I’ve been trying to build for 4 years and have recently made big breakthroughs with. I’ve just completed the first draft of questions in the topic of politics.

Ideally, the way this would be scored is that people could rank all of the statements that are true for them, put as many responses as they want in a no way bucket, and put as many responses as they want in a I don’t get it bucket. I haven’t found a quiz builder tool that will let me build it that way yet, so in the meantime I’m using one that lets me randomize the order the responses are shown in and lets them rank the answers.

Here’s the first draft of the prompts, would love any and all feedback, support, and nit-picking!

What are your opinions and feelings about politics?

 M I personally don’t care, that’s just not where my focus is in my life.

 R I’ll stand firm until I die to defend my country.

 A I worry that things could be heading in the wrong direction.

 O The people with the best strategies will always win.

 G The efforts of good intentions are persistently threatened by corruption and greed.

 T The current political landscape shows me a mirror of my inner world, and the most impactful solutions start by looking within.

What are your priorities in how you interact with politics?

 M I’m not going to do anything that might make my people reject me.

  R As long as I can live my life the way I want to, we’re good, but as soon as someone tries to get in the way I’m going to fight for my rights.

 A I perform my civic duty, like voting, writing to my senator and staying aware of local politics, because that’s what a conscientious citizen does to maintain what matters.

 O I leverage connections and resources to move the cogs of the political machine in directions that support my endeavors.

 G I volunteer for causes that work to fix systemic flaws and care for those in need.

 T I trust the overarching trend that life has always had toward greater good, and I take action when needed.

What do you want or expect from politicians?

 M As long as me and my family’s lives stay the same, whatever they do is ok by me.

 R Take charge, get shit done, and don’t get in the way of what I want.

 A Protect our valued traditions and morals.

 O Make everything as functional as possible without getting in the way of progress.

 G Undo antiquated laws that systematically oppress and harm people, and create safety nets to ensure everyone’s basic needs will always be met.

 T Stay aware of societal patterns, and look for solutions that balance holding firm limits with honoring the current views of all who live here.

What are the keystones of our political culture?

 M I’m not really sure.

 R Honoring our forefathers who fought for our independence.

 A Maintaining law and order.

 O The system of checks and balances makes sure history doesn’t get in the way of innovation.

 G Legislation that protects people and the environment.

 T Public and private entities interacting to create policies that accurately represent the beliefs of the people.

When you talk about politics, where do you tend to come from?

 UL My feelings- what makes me feel safe and protected, and what makes me feel threatened.

 LL The people I love- what matters to them and will help them feel safe and protected.

 UR Data- polls, statistics, and effectiveness.

 LR Systemic impacts- how voting functions, ways laws are implemented, etc.

When you take in information about politics, what do you want most?

 UL Personalization- ask me questions and find out what matters to me.

 LL Connection- let’s listen to each other and see what we discover.

 UR Facts- I want to study what’s happening and why it’s happening.

 LR Structures- I want to explore the methods and protocols at work.

AMA with John Mackey. Wednesday, 2/11 at 2:00 PM CT

We’re here to talk about A Course in Miracles, and The Disappearance of the Universe, and how we can help each other home with the practices of true forgiveness.

John Mackey is well known as the co-founder of Whole Foods (and CEO for 44 years), innovator in Conscious Capitalism (including creating billion dollar company while changing food systems for the better, implementing executive salary caps, radical health care and employee wellness programs, etc,) and most recently founder of Love.life - a cutting edge medicine, nutrition, fitness, center w/ pickleball, cafe. 

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?

Hello. Hi everyone — I’m Tarnell Brown. Still figuring out how this site works, but I’m jumping right in. I’m an economist who studies how institutional and structural incentives can hide the real costs of discrimination, especially for people who are already starting from behind. A lot of my work lives at the intersection of economics, policy, and fairness, asking how we can raise the cost of discriminatory outcomes without killing innovation or choice.

If that sounds like your lane, I write longer essays, replication notes, and policy briefs over at Meanderings of an Eccentric Economist (eccentricecon.com), where I explore how institutions shape real-world opportunity for disadvantaged groups. Looking forward to seeing what UpTrust becomes and finding the people here who like to argue about incentives, discrimination, and institutional design in good faith.

Faith Science and Leadership . The Institute for Faith, Science, and Leadership proposal is pending at 3 local universities. I want to integrate Faith science and the future of leadership education to heal at least one division in our world. The fracture was based in a misunderstanding of science in order to protect the power of the Church 500 years ago. Time for reasonable discussion about how these two disciplines/schools of thought can integrate holistically. 

On the plethora of Therapeutic modalities.

There's a genre of book that's the therapy modality book. They're all the same. They go

I was a therapist and what I was doing wasn't working, and then I discovered <specific technique the book is advocating> and then it cured me and all my clients and now things are great and we just need to teach everybody this technique.

So many therapy books are like this. Focussing, the IFS book, the EFT book, to name a few. The various ACT books. Waking the Tiger.

And the specific technique is different from book to book. Radically different. And even contradictory.

So what's going on here? Apart from probably there's some book somewhere about how to write a therapy book, or some ghostwriter that's cranking these out?

If we take these stories as more or less true, how do we make sense of these seeming contradictions?

This is not a rhetorical question! I'm going to give you my best guess below, but please take a moment to think of your answer, and ideally post it in the comments for everyone to see. I am very much interested in other answers here.

Ok, my best guess (at least, the guess that I find most interesting):

What works is having a therapist who believes they are helping. It's like the placebo effect. If the doctor handing you a sugar pill is like "Yeah, idk, people told me this is helpful. lmk what you think", my guess is, you're not going to get much placebo effect out of that pill (actually they've done research and you do still get some but not as much iirc).

So when the therapist is out of school, they're doing what they were told works, but for a certain kind of mind, that doesn't give them confidence. So then they have to go on a big heroes journey, and come back with some technique, some approach, that for whatever reason they believe in.

Now they're back, and they believe it works, and low and behold, it does!

It's like Dumbo's magic feather.

"some technique, some approach, that for whatever reason they believe in."

So why do they believe in the technique they chose? Because they love to do it. Because, when they're doing it, they feel most like themselves, and they feel most connected with the person they're working with. Or they feel most connected with what they consider important, about a mind, about a heart, about a life.

And maybe this gives it some extra sauce too. Maybe this love of themselves, this intrinsic interest, radiates out, and reminds their clients that they too can love themselves, love life, be enthusiastic, and intrinsically interested.

Or maybe that last part is just what I have come to believe works ;)

how do i browse all the conversations? This might be an obvious question but I don't understand....

Is there a way to just see all the threads by date? 

I see the two tabs for Top convos for you and Your Timeline and I also see Your Topics. But are all the threads showing up in one or all of them?