Replying directly to this, my own tentative methodology around Ontological Commoning is designed to support just this.
3 Likes
Would you be okay with a slight stepping back from the “theory” in “theory of change” towards the idea that so-called theories of change, as the appear in the wild, usually not having an actual theoretical basis, can more accurately be called stories or narratives? Then it’s clearer to me how they fit in with my Ontological Commoning frame.
2 Likes
Your work on ontological commoning looks good to me!
My history with this was in some personal perplexity around DEI-centric literature like Kendi’s How to be an AntiRacist. Generally, I liked the autobiographical part, but not so much the theoretical frameworks and policy proposals spun from the autobiography. That came up again and again as a generalized pattern with this sort of literature - narrative goes down easily; theory is more contentious.
Then a few months ago I experienced several days of training with Dave Snowden and Cynefin, Co. Snowden has decades of experiences in organizational-change making. Long story short, story is the primary data point to gather in any organization. Stories from the ground up. CEOs think they know how their own companies work. They generally do not. The people on the ground know. That all gets captured through story.
So the models I favor tend to be “grounded”, focusing on story and qualitative data in the first instance. Then eventually story data can be sampled, aggregated, categorized, quantified, and theorized. In line, I believe, with your work on ontological commoning, any new story must emerge from the interplay of current stories. There are no short cuts.
1 Like
How do you see your ontological commoning as being compatible or incompatible with my epistemological commoning (because that is exactly what I am proposing)?
I think there is a certain degree of ontological commoning in my position too, but it plays second fiddle to epistemology. Doesn’t epistemology have to come before ontology?
Thank you, I appreciate the vision(s) proposition and its way of back-casting where we are and “how” we might gain more coherence and earth bound fitness leading towards our full participation in LIFE. Or perhaps that is my hope for what you intend. My gut and soul say it is a good intention, but my distrust is activated of masculine, authorship which by default leads to authority holding (ego activating) propositions for how we are settlers for the future we want to live in and that fits within planetary boundaries. We I think can agree that we are stuck in several catastrophic trends, war-making, climate, ignorance of other life contributions that are man-made projections that double bind us to a future no one wants and is a planet killer.
I applaud that you have written this book and submit chapter 6 to us here. Thank you. Also for the imaginal space that you and dvdjsph (I find it trouble-ing that I can not imagine/feel you who is behind the letters dvdjsph) are co-creating/arguing “about”… and “about” that. It’s the work and practice of creating, presenting and practicing how we are with eacheachother in LIFE.
I notice there are no women contributing which for me is almost always a warning sign that we are too much into ideas and structures that repeat the pasts mindsets and theories. What space is needed so that we hear from the women and the not yet knowing? What circle is needed to hold in practice this rendering of the future for the good of the presencing actors, NOW.
thanks you all who are here and also to all that remains hidden from us now.
2 Likes
Thank you Keiri deeply for the heart and urgency of what you bring forward. I hear your call, and I share your concern that unless we radically expand the ways of knowing we honor, we risk simply replicating the same patterns that have led us to this planetary impasse. If we are serious about shaping futures aligned with LIFE, it is essential to expand the kinds of knowing we honor.
Beyond propositional and structural knowledge, we must embrace embodied knowing that listens to the intelligence of the body and the earth; emotional knowing that recognizes feeling as a valid source of orientation; ancestral and ecological knowing that situates us within the living networks of more-than-human worlds; dialogical knowing that arises between beings, not simply within individuals; and mythopoetic knowing that draws on story, image, and imagination to orient us toward deeper possibilities.
In practice, this means rethinking not just what we discuss but how we gather: privileging circle-based dialogue where every voice matters, making room for silence and deep listening, engaging in co-sensing practices that attune us to each other and the field itself, and fostering dialogues that are truly emergent rather than predetermined by fixed outcomes. The container itself must evolve, less a debating chamber and more a living, dynamic field where the quality of relationship is central.
A shared code of practice would include honoring uncertainty, privileging presence over argument, ensuring consent and care in our interactions, listening for the not-yet-spoken, and balancing expression with moments of collective stillness. What you name is not simply a call for broader inclusion, but a deeper invitation: to shift from ways of knowing that seek to control, toward ways of knowing that participate with life’s unfolding complexity.
I am grateful for your reminder, and committed to helping co-create spaces where this more relational, life-centered knowing can emerge 
2 Likes