Estuary Hub

Discussion

O.G. Rose:

"Paul Vanderklay is another individual envisioning and designing spaces for meeting and conversation, and though “The Philosophical Silk Road” and Estuary initiatives are not identical, they are nevertheless both profound examples of social coordination enabled by the internet (which favor Voicecraft over Kafkalikeness, which is so critical to everything).

To help explain the concept, from the Estuary website:

‘Geographically speaking, an estuary is the area where fresh water from a river meets up with the salt water of the ocean. It is a place of constant change, as when inland storms sometimes create torrents of water rushing towards the ocean, or when strong winds drive the waves to come crashing ashore. Estuary is where waves and currents meet, where the landscape changes constantly, where unique vegetation, and strange creatures, capable of adapting to different salt content, find their home. Estuary is a place of chaos, of change, of adaptation to different forces. Estuary is exciting, unpredictable, a place of adventure!

‘But we use ‘Estuary’ metaphorically. Estuary is a place where people come for conversation. Honest conversation. Not ideological warfare, memes, and trolling, but mutually respectful attempts to understand one another, and to learn to appreciate different perspectives and viewpoints. Estuary is a place where different ideas and ideologies meet. Where participants allow themselves to be exposed to new ways of thinking, where listening may be as important as talking, where being open to feedback will force you to ‘hear yourself think.’

‘We also believe that in doing so we form new friendships. We build a unique new community. We may learn to love one another in ways we didn’t realize were possible. Some people have found a new life partner in an estuary meeting!’10

It’s a beautiful initiative, and no doubt “Philosophical Silk Roads” of some kind are “walked” in these meetings. I would highly suggest the video titled “The Estuary Protocol Explained” (Sep 1, 2021) for a better sense of how Estuary operates:

In that discussion, John Van Donk noted that there is a hunger for discussion out there, and how efforts to organize conversation spaces matters (indeed, without them we are destined for Kafkalikeness). He noted how meetings often originally started by gathering people interested in discussing Jordan Peterson and his ideas, but with time the meetings grew into more. YouTube channels, Discord servers, and the like orbit the movement, and Estuaries allow for personal exchanges and updates, helping friendships flower and blossom. Based on their Google Doc found in the description of the video, Estuaries tend to gather people who attend church but have questions that average churches aren’t ready for, the Nones who still seek community, followers of Peterson, and the like. Events often invite guests to gather in a circle and then introduce themselves, followed by inquiries into what brought people to Estuary in the first place. Attendants are then invited to share what they have been thinking about, which can be intellectual (what they’ve read, seen on YT, etc.), but participants are also invited to discuss what contextually (in their settings), personally (in their relationships), and “estuarily” (regarding Estuary itself) has been on their minds. There is a stress on listening, and after everyone shares with the group what they are thinking about, there is a decision on what topic will be discussed (there isn’t time to discuss everything). There’s much more to making Estuary spaces work, and I would strongly encourage you to watch John Van Donk and Paul VanderKlay discuss the protocol. Here, my hope is only to provide another information to help readers see it as part of a movement of culture making to which the SCM relates.

Evidence that there is indeed a hunger out there for discussion, “The Estuary Protocol” reads:

‘Ever since PVK began modelling the estuary experience on his YT channel, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people have, in one way or another, joined the conversation. Whether it be by signing up for individual rando conversations with PVK himself, or by participating in local meetups, or by showing up on the Bridges of Meaning section of the Discord server, or chiming in on Friday morning’s online Q&A sessions, many people appear eager to engage with others in what is sometimes referred to as ‘meaning making.’¹¹

The document goes on to discuss how it is ‘by no means clear’ that the meaning arises primarily from just the discussions: it could also be the ‘gathering,’ the ‘being known by name,’ ‘being heard,’ the finding that others are moved by the same questions that move us, being appreciated, and/or a combination of all of these and more.¹² I agree there is an ambiguity on why people find these kinds of engagement valuable, but I believe whatever it is that so moves people, the SCM increase the probability people have these kinds of experiences. Such work is important, but at the same time it is hard to maintain because they are so easy to ruin. In the conversation with PVK, John Van Donk notes that Estuaries are very fragile, that one bad conversation or upset person in the group can ruin the whole dynamic, if not the regular meetings. From the Protocol:

‘[…] it is important we regularly remind ourselves that the estuary is a fragile ecosystem. It doesn’t take much for strong currents or crashing waves to completely alter the lay of the land. If new life-forms have begun to take root amidst shifting tides, it doesn’t take much to thoroughly uproot them and flush them out to sea.’¹³

In my experience, spaces which formulate subjectivity anew and according to different value-forms are very fragile, and if they break, they can cause people a trauma that can make them feel like they would have been better off not to have been involved at all. For this reason, it can be “rational” not to build such spaces (perhaps notably until this moment in history), but then we cannot habituate our subjectivities alternative to Capital (A/A), which is a major problem before our AI-Causer. This hints at another reason why the SCM is so significant: it allows spaces like Estuary, which in the past couldn’t support or spread themselves with the internet, to develop overall “antifragility.” If one Estuary group fails, there are other groups which members can shift into, and if an Estuary fails in Virginia, there are still others going on around the world, and just knowing that can help generate the motivation to build another group in Virginia again. Likewise, if one online organization fails, there are others to receive people, and in other groups still existing, that can help motivate people to try again. If one group fails, it doesn’t have to feel like all is lost: the movement continues."

(https://ogrose.substack.com/p/the-social-coordination-mechanism-5d0)