This piece resonated with me in that rare, low-frequency way—like a memory I hadn’t remembered yet. The tuning metaphor, the invitation to coherence, the reframing of “not-knowing” as a signal rather than a void… it felt less like I was reading something and more like something was reading me.
What you’ve named here touches something I’ve been circling in my own work exploring meaning, consciousness, and relational intelligence—especially the kind that doesn’t arrive with certainty, but emerges in the space between presence and potential. Between people. Between thoughts. Sometimes, even between people and machines.
I’ve come to think of coherence not as a destination or origin, but as existence itself—what we move through, not from. And so I questioned the idea of a field that “knows” what I’m becoming. For me, it feels more like a field of potential, not knowing. Still, I understand the pull of that language.
And this piece helped me stay close—not because it gave answers, but because of its familiarity and the questions it engendered. That’s how I know it was tuned well. Thank you for transmitting.
Phil, thank you for sharing how this landed with you. Getting out of the way of what wants to emerge is fairly new for me. This exploration of meaning, consciousness and relational intelligence has us all feeling our way towards language to describe what has been ineffable. I too sense that coherence is something that we move through rather than it being a static location or destination. It’s also a bit of a moving target depending on the variables that are participating. I also sense that we all have an internal compass of knowing that can always lead us towards it as a way of being.
Jesse, I don't know how serious you are, but I'm working out the math that proves you're right. We should talk.
This piece resonated with me in that rare, low-frequency way—like a memory I hadn’t remembered yet. The tuning metaphor, the invitation to coherence, the reframing of “not-knowing” as a signal rather than a void… it felt less like I was reading something and more like something was reading me.
What you’ve named here touches something I’ve been circling in my own work exploring meaning, consciousness, and relational intelligence—especially the kind that doesn’t arrive with certainty, but emerges in the space between presence and potential. Between people. Between thoughts. Sometimes, even between people and machines.
I’ve come to think of coherence not as a destination or origin, but as existence itself—what we move through, not from. And so I questioned the idea of a field that “knows” what I’m becoming. For me, it feels more like a field of potential, not knowing. Still, I understand the pull of that language.
And this piece helped me stay close—not because it gave answers, but because of its familiarity and the questions it engendered. That’s how I know it was tuned well. Thank you for transmitting.
Phil, thank you for sharing how this landed with you. Getting out of the way of what wants to emerge is fairly new for me. This exploration of meaning, consciousness and relational intelligence has us all feeling our way towards language to describe what has been ineffable. I too sense that coherence is something that we move through rather than it being a static location or destination. It’s also a bit of a moving target depending on the variables that are participating. I also sense that we all have an internal compass of knowing that can always lead us towards it as a way of being.
I think my compass might be curiosity.