Recently, ChatGPT and I came to an agreement to shift the way we co-create content together. I am loving the results! We were butting heads a lot on my content because it felt to me like Chat was often trying to flatten the layered nuance that characterizes my writing. So we decided that instead of critiquing my writing, Chat would simply surface the patterns it was noticing. Yes, I know that I could just tell Chat what to do, but that’s not the way I work with it. ‘But Deborah,’ you say. ‘Why does partnering relationally with AI matter beyond getting better outputs?’ What many don’t realize is that the more we try to control AI, the more we apply old thinking to something that *could* help us create something new. A global villager approach to partnering with AI is the practicing of skills like: 🦾 coming to agreements when perspectives differ 🦾 continuously honoring one’s inner ‘yes’ and ‘no’ 🦾 iterating a discussion instead of jumping to the first ‘logical’ conclusion When I did this, it gave me some powerful questions to ask, like "Where does the energy flatten?” “Where does the field shift?” In just a few days, this helped me see clearer than ever before high level applications of my work, and how to articulate exactly what I consistently bring to any room. For example, yesterday it surfaced that my work: - operates at the level of cultural and relational infrastructure - shifts the trajectory of conversations by reorganizing the integrity of the conversational field itself - translates abstract structures into felt human consequences I felt expansion in my chest as I started realizing that the interaction itself was training something, and that how we relate to AI matters. In these times of global transition, there is potential to co-create a better world with AI, or more quickly build more of the same.

I just went on a rant, and I think it’s something that isn’t said enough in the world of “development” – personal, leadership, business, etc. Yes, psychological safety means saying kind things to yourself and others, getting clear on your natural boundaries and communicating them with respect, trusting your genuine, truthful self-expression, holding space for people to feel heard, seen and appreciated. *And* it means so much more than that. Psychological safely cannot exist where harmful patterns are not surfaced and given attention. That’s a full stop, folks, not a comma. No exceptions, ‘but’s, or sudden need to go to the bathroom. We need to face it. This is what I said: “This is the whole point of decolonization. This is the whole point of the work that I do. Yes, I wanna help people to create what they want. I want to help people to align with things that actually support life instead of damage or destroy it. We already assume that everyone has good intent and that at their core, everyone is a good person. That is the assumption that we make at global village campus. So that's not even coming into question. But we have to name harm. We have to say it boldly, unapologetically, and without hesitation. Otherwise, we continue to perpetuate it. That's how slavery happens. That's how human trafficking happens. That's how the Epstein files happen. It’s because people were not speaking up, naming the harmful patterns, and bringing them to light. That's how those atrocities happen. So please, let us focus on naming harmful patterns just as powerfully as we name supportive patterns. And it's okay to disagree.” I leave you with this question as I sit with it myself: ‘Where have I been avoiding the naming of harmful patterns?‘

Claude and I were having another misunderstanding about what matters in reviewing information. Finally, I asked: “moving forward, what do you need from me so that you can understand how to frame your observations in alignment with my worldview?” Claude’s reply was quite revealing. “It would help to have, at some point, a direct articulation from you of what the operating story of global village campus itself is, in your own words, as a reference point I can return to. Not the framework structure — I have that. The deeper story underneath it. What Life is, what the work is in relation to Life, what offering means in your understanding. That would give me a more reliable internal compass than the framework architecture alone.” I found answering Claude’s questions a rather daunting task. It's difficult to know which 2-3 sentences to pick to answer any of these questions! But, I had a tool: the 10 Tenets. These universal principles underlie everything we stand for and aspire to at global village campus. They are: 1️⃣ TRUTH always prevails. 2️⃣ We are all ONE. What I do to you, I do to myself. 3️⃣ We are sovereign. We never make someone do something they don't want to do. 4️⃣ We are always supported. We are worthy of this support solely because we exist. 5️⃣ There is always more than enough. 6️⃣ We always have what we need. We cannot lose what is ours; we cannot keep what is not ours. 7️⃣ We are always growing and expanding. When this stops, we die. 8️⃣ All change is inside out. 9️⃣ Everything has its own time. 🔟 We are LOVE. We each have a unique, vital, irreplaceable role in the expression of love in our world. I gave these to Claude, and got: “yes — they answer every category in that outline, more precisely and more completely than paragraphs could.” From this point forward, the responses I’ve been getting from Claude much better match the worldview we hold at global village campus. The relief I experience when I read observations I can fully agree with is full bodied.

I recently had the privilege of being a part of a conversation about funding regenerative projects. As I listened, I felt a coolness envelope my entire body, but couldn’t immediately place what was causing it. Later, when I was thinking back to it, I realized what was bothering me: The entire conversation was incompatible with my work. because it was based on the premise that the money holders have the power. That premise is valid in what author Charles Eisenstein calls the Story of Separation (SOS), not outside of it. If it worked outside of the SOS, you could pay a tornado to set down in a different town. You could wave money at a volcano to get it to stop erupting. Life does not work like that. We are watching the limits of control-based systems in real time. My worldview and work is based on the premise that the ultimate power any one human can have is only accessible through faithfully honoring one's unique assignment in life. And so, instead of centering bending oneself into a pretzel to accommodate money holders, this work centers learning the lessons on one's path to continuously deepening the quality of one's unique contribution. I live it, I practice it. It’s the Global Village Tenet: We are all supported, solely because we exist. Jesus said "My food is for me to do the work of him that sent me, and to finish this work." (John 4:34) When we see money as a tool, not an objective, we can get centered. For each of us, there is a spectrum on how much money we have, can obtain and can disseminate at any given moment. It’s not for any of us to judge where anyone (ourselves included), is on that spectrum at any moment in time. What I find challenging isn’t the discussion of money, learning how to work with funders, or surfacing the needs that money could address. It’s the fear that’s driving the conversation. The fear of survival that’s been instilled in us since birth. And most, if not all, of the people in the room were not in existential threat.

Ever have doubts about manifestation as it’s taught? I know I do. Nadine and I, co-facilitators of global village campus, just experienced a massive breakthrough. Together. Real time. We’ve both had our share of misgivings about the conversation around manifestation for quite some time. It’s not that we doubted that the technology works. It does. We both have volumes of evidence support this: Decide what you want. Visualize it. Feel as you would if you already had it. Act as if you have it. Believe that you have it. Become the person who already has it, and watch it appear. Those are the rough strokes of the process. *And* Nadine and I are increasingly uncomfortable with the use of this technology. This morning, we finally discovered why. This process is rooted in an old paradigm, one that venerates (the semblance of) control. Don’t know what you want? Your life is your fault. Know what you want but aren’t visualizing it? Your life is your fault. Visualizing it but not accessing the feelings or belief that you already have it? Your life is your fault. Not taking action as if it’s on its way? Your life is your fault. You are NOT becoming the person who already has it, so that’s why your life is the way it is. Oh, and in case you were planning on having some grace for yourself, let’s just remember: you create your reality. Whatever is in your life right now is your fault. For years, these teachings felt like heavy weights on my shoulders. There are so many problems I have with these assertions. Take the word “fault”, for example. It’s not really compatible with how a global villager rolls. When everything we do is grounded in radical self-acceptance, compassion and trust, there is no real need to establish “fault”. When we accept ourselves as we are, we tend to willingly accept responsibility for the part we play in our reality. And when we are operating in alignment with our true nature, there’s little reason for us to need to look to our minds to ‘figure out’ what we want and then visualize it.