Repelling?
[apologies, I only saw this now] Uh… @Bembo_Davies, I cannot find anything in Protocol (or the Rule) “repelling other methodologies”. Both are meant as ways to make efforts easier by pooling manpower and agreeing to “sync” to each other. Without syncing, there is no commonality. One cannot be a nonpracticising Benedictine monk! You know this better than anyone, as your main contribution was on the rituals side.
But, I would argue, this is very much not “repelling”. Because:
- Protocol – like the Rule itself – allows you to do almost anything, from herbal gardens to slower-than-light interstellar travel to meditation.
- Forms of cooperation with people and orgs who do not follow Protocol are possible, necessary and welcome. It will simply be less tight. A historical example: Benedictines cooperated closely with Charlemagne towards the vision a Holy Roman Empire: a single Europe-wide, Christian, pacified political entity. The Emperor and his collaborators were obviously never monks, and were not subject to the Rule. I imagine this collaboration required some kind of interface: one or more senior monks with a special dispensation to live extra moenia, dispatched to court to participate in that effort, and reconvening frequently in the monastery closest to the capital in Aachen. On a much less grand level, both Edgeryders and the (still mysterious) unMonastery corporation partner up with orgs like companies and universities, and work together with them without demanding they use their same methods.
I do agree with the principle of treasuring diversity. It’s in Protocol too: algorithm 01, “be open”. No argument.
If anything, I would argue the unMonastery is exclusionary. Remember @katalin‘s words: “to become part of the group, or to leave” (source). At the time we were discussing the case of David: he had been living in the House, selected in the same way as the others, yet, it was claimed, “he has never part of the group” (source). Why? "arriving at the unMonastery with his partner, his son, a project that consisted of managing others’, and independent funding", in other words, doing things differently. Who decides whether one is part of the group? The incumbents. So much for treasuring diversity, huh?
At the same time, for all its many faults, Edgeryders is up and running. Early participants have dropped out, some even starting their own spinoffs (an impressive achievement in itself!); and new people have gravitated to it, without much drama or witch hunts, and that, my friend, I interpret as a sign of health. And here’s another one: fairness. Some financial benefits have been derived, and they have been spread out reasonably well, with (I may be off by one or two, our accounts are being processed) 28 non-directors including yourself receiving cash (53,454.64 EUR, of which 42,528.98 in fees and 10,925.66 in travel grants) in financial year 2014-2015 – this does not include unMonastery stipends and other unMonastery related expenses, which sum up to another 32K EUR for a grand total of about 85K EUR handed over in cash to the community. Practically all of these paid assignments were allocated via open calls, as opposed to directed to the inner circle. Directors have received 53,151.43. Ben has received more than I have, for example. I would say the economics of diversity are there!