Rachel Fell: Hello everyone. Welcome back to Existential Tether Ball. Or if this is your first time joining us, welcome for the first time. My name is Rachel Fell. To my right or left is Gordon Smith, my co-host, colleague, and dear friend. ⁓ we are here to jam on a tether, a topic every week, to do some slow existential exploration of meaning, to get curious about what's what's going on in Gordon's head, body, mine, what's going on in mine, what's going on with our guests. ⁓ how we connect the dots and make meaning, how we contextualize things. So super stoked to be back today. And ⁓ yeah, what are we talking about today, Gordon? What are we what are we diving into? Gordon Smith: Usually the the the way we've been doing it in the past is to kinda have a single term and today ⁓ we're presenting this on the face of it dichotomy. and the the dichotomy is multiplicity and coherence. Rachel Fell: Fascinating. I hear relationship right out the gate. Gordon Smith: Relationship. Yeah, there's there's so many ways to talk about it. ⁓ that ⁓ I I took the the most reductive to begin with, this idea that these are somehow opposite, that it's like chaos and order or some other kind of reductive notion. ⁓ but yeah, I'm looking forward to just kind of exploring all the what the hell is this? Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Multiplicity and coherence. Like I immediately like imagine a bunch of cells or atoms or particles dancing. And then like are they are they moving away from each other? Are they moving towards each other? Is there a sort of ⁓ are they on a team? Are they working together for some end? Or is there friction, right? So immediately I go to that sort of like visualization of a spatial thing or like chemistry, biology. ⁓ but if we start with multiplicity, like Gordon Smith: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and and for me when I the the word itself, because of pop culture, evokes a Michael Keaton movie from the eighties called called Multiplicity, where there's like eight of them by the end and it's it's it's a mad madcap hijinx ⁓ that gets more and more chaos. Rachel Fell: sure, sure. Okay. Okay. So like clone kind of like many him, many many Michael Keatons. Okay. I think that this is like I know this kind of in the yeah. Gordon Smith: Yes. Yes. Many Michael Teaton. So an externalization of some of what we're probably gonna end up exploring today. Rachel Fell: Sure. Okay. So I think ⁓ cells and particles, you got Michael Keaton, many Michael Keatons going on. I love it. ⁓ right. All right. All right. Gordon, you're you're a Virgo, ⁓ if that, if that is ⁓ of interest to viewership. ⁓ Gordon Smith: Share a birthday with Michael Keaton. Yeah. Put the go into Virgo. Rachel Fell: ⁓ many or one relationship. I think that was somewhere in the mix here on multiplicity, right? Many Michael Keaton's many particles coming together. ⁓ you know, in your example, right, is like that's really complex because a self, you know, multiplicity within a self, even, right? ⁓ but yeah, many and one and the relationship between many and one. That was something that came up as I was sort of like considering the word and meaning. Gordon Smith: Uh-huh. Yeah. The ⁓ I I did ⁓ I did look up like coherence and coherence and cohere and looked at the etymology and looked at the definition. But I gotta say I just kinda like didn't do that with multiplicity. I was like, ⁓ I'm I I got this, but but now I'm like, well wait a minute, why didn't I bother looking? So did you look? Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, I kind of went more into my own, probably like meaning and association before looking externally. And I think what I wrote down ⁓ subject identity axis is what I wrote down first when I just consulted self, ⁓ which is really interesting. But like sort of like, what are our many? What are the subjects or the identities of our many, the distinction, these sort of individuated forms? Gordon Smith: Yeah. Rachel Fell: And then we're talking about like relationship between individuated like forms somehow, right? So coherence being like the I loved what you shared, which was like a being connected or like a coming together, or like you could say symbiosis, or that there is this fluidity between distinction and collaboration ⁓ in that, in that. But like if we're just talking about multiplicity, it's like, well, how do we organize the many one relationship? And what are the like identities of these many and what does that mean to us? So yeah, that's where I went first off. Gordon Smith: ⁓ Yeah, yeah. So multiplicity is of the nature of many. ⁓ and what yeah, so multiplicity can refer to anything. I I w I went micro to macro as well, with a long pause ⁓ ⁓ kind of the human experience. ⁓ and your bringing up these ⁓ particle pieces ⁓ leads me to ⁓ Rachel Fell: Yeah. Sure. Gordon Smith: The multiplicity of quantum phenomena, of the multiverse, ⁓ of of these ⁓ smallest particles that are inextricable from something else. Rachel Fell: Yeah. It's funny to notice myself light up when we go to this place. Like I like this place so much. ⁓ I wrote down scale under multiplicity too, which is kind of I think what you're referencing. Like it is what you're referencing, right? And this like how we organize many in one relationship through scale, through time, through meaning. This stuff is cool as hell. I think it's cool as hell. And it's also happening within us, right? And so it's like, well. Inside those many Michael Keatons, there's like different gut flora and there's different like experiences or different timelines and meaning association. So I think the word, ⁓ I think B B Mayhew introduced it in our episode with her stigmer stigmergy. And I immediately started thinking about the particulate stigmergy of the self. Like that was really interesting to me. ⁓ so even that relationship between like the many. units of aliveness in my body and how that comprises myself, right? ⁓ yeah. Gordon Smith: Yeah, yeah. The the relationship between all of those parts somehow makes you. Rachel Fell: A Rachel. Yeah. ⁓ Gordon Smith: In Rachel. Yeah. Yeah. Within the Michael Keaton is all the Michael Keatons, is is the Batman, is every you all the Michael Keatons. ⁓ that ⁓ the to swing into the coherence of it, ⁓ you know, cohere is is to ⁓ at its means to stick together or to connect. ⁓ to ⁓ the to remain in contact. ⁓ Rachel Fell: ⁓ Mm. Yeah. Gordon Smith: So that's like the the the base of it. But if you we use the term adhere when we're when we're adhering to an idea, we're adhering a thing to another thing, and to cohere is to connect. Rachel Fell: I love that. I love that a lot. ⁓ something I stumbled on because I was kind of like thinking about this on my walk. I was like jamming to some music this morning, taking a walk, and I was like, to be connected and be distinct, right? Like the the many-to-one relationship. So let's say community, right? Like, you know, individuals and a collective, right? A collective of some sort. ⁓ this coherence, it's like choosing to be connected. And that there really is like a non-dual aspect to this, but I mean this in like a word play kind of way. It's like you say it's non-dual, it's also like not fighting. It's like we're on the same team. It's like there's shared interest, there's shared orientation. So like we're not fighting, we're non-dual. We're non, you know. So there is this like both the one and the many can coexist, and that there is this like coherence between even that level of like scale, or like two things can be true at the same time. We can be individuals collectively. Gordon Smith: Mm-hmm. Rachel Fell: ⁓ so I really love that. Gordon Smith: Yeah, the you're you're you're suggesting this ⁓ integration of diverse elements, ⁓ where like if I'm eating the gumbo, I can try to identify all the ingredients in it, and or simply enjoy the the coherence of the gumbo. Yeah. Rachel Fell: Mm. Yeah, yeah. And you know when the gumbo's out of coherence for you when ⁓ Right, right, right. Gordon Smith: ⁓ Right. Yeah. There's no sausage in here. Rachel Fell: ⁓ categorically this is no longer gumbo. However, it is delicious. So I'm not gonna I'm not gonna go to bat for that. I'm gonna stay coherent and oriented to my taste buds because this is great. ⁓ yeah, yeah. No, that's that's fascinating. Gordon Smith: That's right. And it and the way that you said that was like that ⁓ that that I know I knew that it wasn't that I wasn't experienced coherence around the gumbo. ⁓ but that's where it begins ⁓ as far as our human experience goes, is what is our experience of ourselves in the world? Rachel Fell: Yeah, right. And I love that example. It's so funny how you explore things at the meta and then you explore them through like the pragmatism of an example like gumbo, where it's like, well, what's more important to me? Like if it's delicious but it's categorically not gumbo, what what am how am I gonna move from this moment? Like, am I gonna decohere the situation with the server or the pure person that made the gumbo? Well, you know, technically this isn't gumbo, but like if it tastes, you know, I'm gonna preserve or you know what? Gordon Smith: Right, I might just like put air quotes around gumbo in my head without saying anything. Rachel Fell: Right. But if I like have done a bunch of research on and it's very near and dear to me, like I might feel like I need to take up that mantle to like create coherence around the nature of God. Like advocacy. Right. Yeah. Right. Meanwhile, I'm I'm blind on this on this topic. I yeah. But like I love that example. It's great. Gordon Smith: ⁓ You know this is closer to an A touffey, don't you? Yeah. it ⁓ so w while we're in multi, ⁓ the the the multiness of existence, like right here in this moment, ⁓ I'm taking in so much sense information. I've got so much, so many open tabs going on in my head. There's all these unconscious, subconscious things going on that are also affecting me. the the the array of ⁓ Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Gordon Smith: of data points that I'm receiving right now is incalculable. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And this this gets into, okay, so I'll just like multiplicity is human state of being, right? Humans as process, you know, kind of experiencing different aspects of ourselves. We can use parts. For me, it's sort of like a appropriation of orientation, relationship with sensations and sort of thoughts and awareness, right? But this sort of curiosity around like observing and sort of the the like quality of observation. This gets really interesting, right? Like what qualifies as coherence for me? coherence in the service of what, but coming back to that, okay, like perspective. We're talking about what are the many? What is the one? Do I feel coherence? Do I see coherence? What's yeah, perspective. I love that. ⁓ I think you offered that when you shot over the notes. It's like that's really good. Gordon Smith: Uh-huh. Yeah, w when I was thinking about it, I was thinking of like an experiential pointalism. ⁓ these pointless artists who just use a lot of dots, but you get far enough back from it and you see this whole other image that's been created by it. And that that telescoping out and and gaining perspective on the points. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I just got excited because you made me remember these I I started like those seeing eye books when you're when like I got a bunch of them recently, like on I think it was thrift books. And it was like, I really feel like this is a fascinating exercise and like embodied perspective and lens and like so so this idea of like and and reality of multiplicity and coherence, you know, how do we measure or assess that? You know, and and perspective is seems quite essential in that, right? It's like taking the time to look at like the different ways in which we measure or assess or contextualize ⁓ this question of coherence, right? It's yeah, yeah, it's fascinating. Gordon Smith: Mm. Yeah, and and yeah, how we choose to measure it it has so much to do with the results that we that we get, ⁓ to return to the quanta. ⁓ yeah. Rachel Fell: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, this takes us into the power of perspective. And this is a really interesting place that people talk about. And I think comes can come off as quite, I don't want to say like woo-y, but sure, right? Is like how much can we extrapolate around the like actual quantum terrain of our bodies, of our experience, of consciousness in terms of like how we perceive things affects how they come together, right? And so it's like if I acknowledge my own multiplicity ⁓ within and sort of What are the vectors of how I measure coherence? It's like that's that's really interesting. Part of that is the quality of how I witness them, right? It's like if I'm if I'm trying to force something or you know, it's sort of so that that gets fascinating, right? It's like the name. Gordon Smith: Yeah, ⁓ try ⁓ there's also the try to resist something and ⁓ a subsequent overwhelm of the multiplicity of of immediate experience. you know, I talked about that reductive chaos to order or that that it can feel like chaos if we're only seeing the parts without finding some sort of coherent towards some coherent whole. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, for me, this gets really interesting. ⁓ there's a parallel here. You've spoken in the past about something you call uncertainty tolerance or skill building, like around, you know, capacity to hold uncertainty. And this is something we share in our work and like are both really interested and oriented to. And I think there's all in in this coherence thing, there's a similar like capacity to hold like what is information and Gordon Smith: Yes. Rachel Fell: the boundaries of something and how rigid something has to be. There's definitely a connection here with certainty for sure. but can I feel, like literally somatically, ⁓ can I feel the multiplicity of things happening in my body? So ⁓ a quick off ramp, if that's okay. Can I? Yeah. Gordon Smith: Yeah, it it reminds me of ⁓ a research article that I was reading. I've I'll have to dig up a citation for the show notes. ⁓ but it talks about ⁓ people finding coherence and what are the qualities that allow people to arrive there. And where they started was with openness to experience. Rachel Fell: Mm. Yeah. Gordon Smith: And within that is ⁓ uncertainty tolerance, is ⁓ ambiguity tolerance. ⁓ it's that self awareness, ⁓ it's flexibility in regard to ⁓ schema and yeah, and more, obviously. ⁓ but the ⁓ the what the research article was saying is that one can through therapy and other methods. Rachel Fell: Mm. Gordon Smith: grow people's openness to experience, which in turn leads to a more coherent experience of reality. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this this takes this opens up a number of tabs around sort of back to the physiology of neurodiversity and connective tissue density, specifically neuroplasticity, sort of like ⁓ synaptic action and pruning and how things can be everything everywhere all at once for some people internally and we can't see. So even I'm curious about this correlation between flexibility within and then sort of like flexibility in for me. Gordon Smith: Mm. Rachel Fell: All forms are kind of alive, for example. Like, yeah, all like forms, like shapes, are there's an aliveness to them. ⁓ so with without that, I can get real, real itchy or kind of like a let that is almost this like existential activation around like when you know a concept is held too tightly or a form is held too tightly, I can get I can get a little agitated. And I that's like Gordon Smith: All all forms. Rachel Fell: A little bit like, you know, personal field notes on my own neurodivergent expression, right? Like knowing that about myself as an abstract and more liminal thinker, when forms are held very rigidly, it's that's more difficult for me. Gordon Smith: The forms themselves aren't ⁓ adaptable and dynamic when they ⁓ have all this rigidity that is not coherent. It's simply ⁓ stagnancy. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah. It's it's like we're gonna put these puzzle pieces and little boxes and really close together and call it done. And I'm like, Y'all ⁓ Gordon Smith: Uh-huh, uh-huh. And that's not coherence. It it it's it's a bit of a in the way you're talking about it is some lazy shortcut, and we're gonna pretend that we got to coherence. and and but it does lead to a a a ⁓ bifurcation of coherence for me, and ⁓ one is like an intellectual coherence, like a logical coherence. Like that makes sense. That's a theory I can understand. Rachel Fell: Yeah. I knew. Yeah. Uh-huh. Gordon Smith: And and I feel it from the temples up when I when I do that. And then there's another kind of coherence which may or may not have a ⁓ strikingly intellectual component, but it's this felt sense coherence, like, ⁓ I feel the oneness. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Mm. ⁓ Right, right. And that's so fascinating because the felt sense capacity is so rich with possibility and this gets into like what people call embodiment or like kinda where when but earlier when I was like, you know, talking about maybe taking this off ramp into the particulate, into the body space, right? It's like ⁓ Gordon Smith: Yeah, yeah. Rachel Fell: There's no one right way to do felt sense, but like felt sense as a domain that has good warm data and information to give us. So too also the interpretive sense, the like the top-down, like the thinking mind, that sort of like narrative and store and meaning and association and assumption, connection, connect the dot here, connect the dot here equals meaning, right? And we're we're in this space talking about that exactly, right? And so even the coherence between those two domains. You know, is sort of like the human experience is the sensing body and that direct, somatic, electrical, sensational, whatever you want to call it. And then there is the experience of narrative, meaning, association. So those two even playing well together. And if they don't, all right, that's good information too. Yeah. Yeah. Gordon Smith: It is, it is. ⁓ i i it's it i it it's I guess in a way, you know, i maybe we should actually alter our our copy on our websites to talk about moving toward coherence as kind of the aim of what we're doing with people. ⁓ it it looks radically different for different folks, but for people to go from that ⁓ dissonance place of I don't Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Gordon Smith: ⁓ it feels too much or I don't know what's going on, I've got a confusion or an overwhelm, ⁓ into a place that accommodates that, ⁓ and that leads to a feeling of coherence. That's yeah. Rachel Fell: Absolutely. I mean, I wrote down harmony and then I drew little music notes and a trebleclef, right? There. And so at a somatic level, for me, there almost is like ⁓ like my goofy little like ⁓ every every week we change the the the little box to the left, you know, it's like manifold of waveforms. If I can sense dissonance, something's asking for my attention. And that back to that presence or that witness. And for me. There's like a listening and then there's an interpretation. And there's a listening and an interpretation. So so in that example, specifically between peop what people might call intuition, although let's bookmark that because like that's a big word with a lot of squish around what people mean when they use it. Yeah, that's a whole right. Like that's ⁓ but that processing that is affective and sensorial, bottom-up processing. Gordon Smith: Yeah, it's a whole episode, Rachel. The whole rhythm. Rachel Fell: meeting that sort of narrative, verbal sort of meaning, association, story base. And then like the witnessing of it's like, ⁓ what can I learn about this dissonance even, right? And so dissonance itself not as something to be like avoided. ⁓ if we're not in coherence, that there's like a there's like a validity to and a strength to acknowledging that. And maybe we won't always be, you know, that like living process of multiplicity and coherence. It's like, yeah, it's not always gonna be Coherent. That's okay. Gordon Smith: Yeah, and that's where that flexibility comes in, and like you were describing, a curiosity versus a recoil or reflex, a push away from the table because I feel upset. is that noticing and train and training one's nervous system to allow for the curiosity to occur. ⁓ because through that inquiry, that Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Gordon Smith: metacognitive or multicognitive inquiry, we can gain new insight. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. And that gets into how we see and feel and understand and steward like self and and that like definition of self that is like, can I learn from myself? Do I know how to do that? Am I looking to the external for a definition or you know, or am I taking the time to start? It's like, well, what does multiplicity evoke for me? And like both are valid, right? But that thing about like, do we have the skills to learn from our from ourselves? Yeah. Gordon Smith: ⁓ Rachel Fell: That's huge. That's huge. Sometimes sometimes Gordon Smith: Yes. Yes. ⁓ and from from ourselves, just the ourselves. I just want to grab that real quick. ⁓ because you were speaking to the collective. Hello, everyone. ⁓ and here and but and but we're also talking about these multiple selves within us, the parts work, the gestalt, the IFS, of all of these differing Rachel Fell: Yeah, please, please. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Gordon Smith: forces within us that all ⁓ can there's lots of ways to talk about how how that's going on. Rachel Fell: Mm. Yes. ⁓ that's so interesting. Yes. Yes. I love that so much. Yeah. Well, that gets into how we organize ⁓ knowledge frameworks, things we learn in the external and how we connect the dots internally, right? And again, that's like part of what this space is for to explore that stuff. for me, I have long resisted sort of ⁓ Gordon Smith: Yeah. Rachel Fell: what has felt like ⁓ anthropomorphizing or a sort of boxing into tightly parts, like like parts work doesn't really work for me, but understanding the physiology really worked for me. And then correlating certain sort of like themes ⁓ to a developmental ages has actually really worked for me. So like age is a really good organizing principle when I'm exploring that sort of stuff internally, right? Developmental. And then it's non non-reductionism. So things are more like nesting dolls for me, as opposed to this or that, right? So there is this like, how do you put together your own internal frameworks around multiplicity and coherence? It's like it's it's relationships, right? It's how they connect. It's like, ⁓ this this equals this. Like I re in Dabrowski, in this, in this, it's kind of all it seems similar, or that, you know, those relationships. Gordon Smith: Yeah. ⁓ Yeah, and so you're introducing other layers of complexity into your own inquiry around this stuff. ⁓ and your part your parts work, leaving IFS out of it is literally parts. Like you're talking about your interstitial and you're talking about your connective tissue. and then if I heard you right, looking back over your Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Gordon Smith: life experience at these different ages and stages and ways of knowing, and ways of meaning making, ⁓ to come into a present moment coherence. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, time. Time is huge in this stuff too. The frameworks we use to kind of zoom out over time and look at coherence through time. And every I like I really encoura like I think it's beautiful when people do develop a relationship with that, like, you know, multiplicity and coherence of even different ways of sense making, or like like taking what you learn from the world and putting it together in a way that really unlocks something. bigger, you know, or or sort of supportive in that more gestalt way for yourself. And that everybody's would be different. Like I'm curious like how you kind of organize that stuff or if there are any specific frameworks that help with that self multiplicity and and coherence. Gordon Smith: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Well, I'm I I am a fan of the IFS because of the skill building of the self-awareness of noticing these different dynamic parts of our own consciousness ⁓ that we can perceive of as discrete parts. ⁓ I just I just want to name that what we're doing now is creating a symbol for an experience. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Gordon Smith: and it's through that symbol creation that we now can like use our language and have a dialogue externally about what's happening in here. ⁓ if I talk about my scared kid part and I talk about my coach part, and I talk about all these different parts that are showing up in any given situation, I'm just mining from my own experience and then giving that a symbolic representation. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Yeah. And it's a kind of symbolic representation that allows for like archetypes to participate. You know, it like it allows for this sort of like, I don't want to say depersonalization, but it allows to inhabit more space. That multiplicity, you can be many people at once, right? You can be many aspects at once. Like it it it offers this option or this way to to begin to explore multiplicity and coherence together, right? And so Any framework that does that I think is really powerful. ⁓ for sure. ⁓ absolutely. And and semiotics and and symbols, right? That's huge for storing meaning and association and like however we get to those, I think that's really that's really powerful stuff. Gordon Smith: Yeah. And and these these models, the therapeutic model that I was just talking about, creates this ⁓ sense of safety that ⁓ for many folks who are overwhelmed by their experience, ⁓ to be able to find that curious place, to be able to find that telescope out, to come away from the dots into seeing the whole Chuck Close painting. ⁓ Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Gordon Smith: that these therapeutic containers are are really helpful vehicles a lot of the time. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. How we how we can again, yeah, explore that multiplicity, things that we may unconsciously feel like we need to reduce and square to give them space. And and and in in IFS specifically, like it's you know, we use symbols. I imagine them as containers. ⁓ like they they are like sort of these empty forms that then are can have the space for these different aspects, personalities. For them to kind of expand and then you can get into some of the nuance and and really allow all of it to coexist. Gordon Smith: And within all that is the like at the core of IFS is the self. ⁓ we're talking about the observer, ⁓ the the metaconscious mind, ⁓ the mindful ⁓ part that is overseeing the whole operation. ⁓ that that is it's interesting because it it it's spoken of as though. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. ⁓ Mm-hmm. Gordon Smith: It's a collection or aggregate of all the parts, but it's also spoken of as separate. Rachel Fell: Yeah, yeah, that part is fascinating, right? ⁓ for somebody like me, I mean, I don't I don't know a ton about IFS, I know a little bit, right? I know I know enough to know that. That basically what you've outlined, right? And I think it's so interesting, like this for me, I had to come through an understanding of physics and physiology in the nervous system. Like I could see my own intellectual excitability and some of that. Gordon Smith: Yeah. Rachel Fell: previous rigid rigidity, which is now like like there's a little bit more flexibility. ⁓ but like also honoring that intellectual kind of like questioning and that energy and that rigor is sort of like under s for me, understanding it through the lens of like non-duality in the nervous system and metacognition and how metacognition intelligence can be ⁓ trained, how you can like ⁓ nurture and steward your own nervous system and your relationship with duality and distinction and separation. So nerdy, but that was like my way I had to come in, you know, following that like learning that spoke to me specifically. And so even multiplicity of ways in which we do this work, right? It's like different approaches speak to different people in different ways. And yeah, it's so fascinating. Gordon Smith: Yeah, you've mentioned in past episodes ⁓ alexithymia and ⁓ and apantasia and these are really important things to notice that one way's per one person's way of ⁓ exploring and moving toward coherence can be radically different from another's. You found something very physical, it's it's my body, I can see it, I can touch it, I can feel it. and it's these abstractions that are are things I can't Rachel Fell: ⁓ Yes. Yes. Gordon Smith: can imagine in a way that I can feel and create shapes out of. You are a a shape person. Yeah. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. And and to like honor that when we start to bring the intellect and the physical, the direct experience, what we call intuition and felt sense in the sensing body, and then that representational intelligence together, that if we follow that roadmap, we will be able to explore and connect with our own multiplicity and coherence. But yes, again, that that would look different for everybody because of the multiplicity of Gordon Smith: ⁓ yeah. Rachel Fell: Humans. Right? Which is yes. Yes. Gordon Smith: Yeah. My gut flora is not your gut flora. Rachel Fell: Yeah, yep. And my propensity for abstraction is not everybody's propensity for abstraction. But that meta is physical. You know, that that meta is so physical in my body and that place where like those two things come together, it's very much like, yeah, it's there there have been a way a number of ways in which my intelligence and my cognition has expressed and these days it's different. ⁓ so even the multiplicity of that, right? It's fascinating. Gordon Smith: Well. It it brings to mind another term the that's been around for a few decades in just standard parlance, which is to process something. ⁓ I'm still processing. I'm processing some emotions right now. I'm still processing what you just said. and and hearing you talk, I'm like, ⁓ right, that's shorthand for allowing ⁓ time to pass to get closer to coherence. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Time, space, ⁓ trusting that you don't need to you me anyone, right? That like processing doesn't need to be thinking through things. It's like even that question of sort of like how does processing work becomes an interesting coherence question. ⁓ back to like how do we measure or assess? And my intellectual understanding of processing, my relationship with the meaning in that word, ⁓ directly influences Gordon Smith: ⁓ Rachel Fell: And also like my body is processing all the time. ⁓ so yeah, that's that's even fascinating. It's like I need to process this. What happens then? Right? It's like, does that put me more toward closer to coherence or further away? And that's where things like reductionism and a very top down intellect and you know, you guys know by now this is my soapbox, like drum just but that definition of you know, how how control and like left brain thinking and sort of problem solving is imbued in so many definitions as like the implicit ride along. Gordon Smith: So, you know, I I started I I I've toggled between saying coherent and towards coherence. ⁓ 'cause speaking of coherent in the absolute really doesn't to me make a lot of sense. ⁓ Rachel Fell: ⁓ It's like embodiment is the same. Anything in that absolute. It's like it's achieved somehow or it's done. Yeah. Yeah. Gordon Smith: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I have art on my walls, and ⁓ one day I might walk past the same piece of art that's been hanging there for seven years and see it differently and understand it differently and suddenly have a different experience of it. It was coherent and it is now again coherent but differently. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Decoherence isn't the enemy necessarily. Back to like the the like ticky tacky boxes and we put ⁓ all next to each other and now we've solved the puzzle, you guys. Look how smart we are. You know? It's like Gordon Smith: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Screw you, multiplicity, coherence wins. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Well that force thing, whatever that force signature is that involves thinking, that involves control, that involves not allowing time and space and a sort of acknowledgement of natural intelligence to do its thing. ⁓ you know, whatever that is, there's a there's a there's a grip on that one that I think we're all kind of being asked to loosen, maybe. Gordon Smith: Yeah. Yeah. I was just imagining like how to like further loosen the grip that we're we've got on it right now. ⁓ Don't I don't think I know. ⁓ Rachel Fell: Yeah. Well, I know for myself I live in the squishy middle realms, maybe too much, right? I could stand a little more form. So that gets into like the multiplicity of the one and the many, right? It's like it's like what everybody needs is a little different. Or how what they bring to the party even, you know, maybe less about needing and and like optimizing or balancing, but sort of like, ⁓ in the collective I'm bringing a real squishiness and abstraction to the party. ⁓ in myself I need a little more form. Gordon Smith: Yeah. Yeah, there's the the place that you're t that you're describing, what it raises for me is this place that's beyond meaning making, ⁓ beyond projection, beyond intellectualizing, beyond any of the like ⁓ dimensions of personality, ⁓ this more kind of oceanic totality that it's like nice to float around in, but then you don't get to talk to people and get a beer. ⁓ Rachel Fell: Yeah. Right, right, right. Well, and I hear you describing the nervous system. I hear you describing like well, shorthand like that vagal space with the sympathetic, but but sympathetic isn't always under threat. Like arousal and activation and threat can be different things. So when I have a distinct self, it's like I can do this task. I can get on my bike and I can ride to the pub and have a beer with my friends, or I can be kind of like, yeah, relaxed. ⁓ laying out in a hammock in the yard and sort of like down regulated into a blissful state of oceanic ⁓ oneness and like you know one's at 2 p.m and one's at 6 p.m right sounds great sounds great yeah and not that that's not beautiful mystical transcendent ⁓ it evokes more questions it's not a reductionist like explaining away of that but it is like immediately I qu I connect Gordon Smith: Yeah. Yeah. Rachel Fell: with that, right? So here's my framework at work again, or here's that sort of like how I engage coherence showing up. Whereas for some Yeah, it might be different. Gordon Smith: Yeah, really. definitely. Yeah. ⁓ drop it in the comments, y'all. ⁓ the the oceanic one is a really lovely representation symbol for the the the ⁓ multiplicity coherence relationship itself. ⁓ Rachel Fell: Mm, mm. Mm-hmm. ⁓ Gordon Smith: He is is is is not dead. that it has a lot going on all the time. And it's still an ocean. It's one it's an ocean. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yes, it's also many distinct particles and droplets and animals and plants and particulate matter all at the same time. It's just what scale, yeah, what scale are you looking at? And I think I wrote down whole living. I wrote just messing around kind of here. It's like this ⁓ so harmony, harmony between the many and the one subject. Gordon Smith: Yeah. Rachel Fell: And then I wrote the living, the living process, matter and movement, matter and movement. So that that thing of like, what is process? It's matter and movement. ⁓ energy and matter are two forms of the same thing. We are forged of matter, right? So back to our I'm processing this. It's like I'm gonna go lay in the hammock for a while and let my body do what it's gonna do. That's gonna be part of the process, right? Gordon Smith: Yeah. These inner parts are combining dynamically on the hammer. Rachel Fell: Yep, exactly. And I can like journal about it and think about it and I can try to sense make and I can, you know, can wait and listen. Yeah. All good stuff. Gordon Smith: Yeah, I wa as as I was exploring this prior to coming on, the ⁓ that ship of Theseus came to mind. Ship of Theseus, you know, the do you know this do you know this guy? Rachel Fell: It no, like well refresh my memory 'cause I I feel like Yeah. Gordon Smith: ship leaves port. During the voyage, the crew ⁓ replaces every single part of the ship. And at the end of the voyage they return. ⁓ none of the components of the ship are the same components as they left with. Is it the same ship? Is the question. And and so here we are with that kind of coherence. Rachel Fell: Okay. Mm-hmm. ⁓ sure. Yeah. ⁓ sure. Yeah. Gordon Smith: 'Cause the very intuitive answer for me is like, well, of course, yes. It's the same ship. Look at it. Looks exactly the same. It's got all the same parts in the same order. and yes, it's absolutely one hundred percent. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, every cell in your body regenerates every seven years. That's the trope, right? Can't stand in the same river twice, you know? ⁓ I feel like everybody will know what I mean when I say that like Gordon Smith: Yeah. Yeah. That's a good one. Rachel Fell: Like you're the same, you're you're the same Gordon always. Like little Gord, like there is this through line to you and how much you've changed and evolved emotionally, mentally, physically, spirit, you know, life, just context of life. So this simultaneous like consistency or sameness, and then how how you are not the same person, even though you are. It's like, yeah, those things are both totally true at once. And like in a lot of ways, I think that every human could probably like identify with what I mean. Like think of somebody you've known for a very long time. It's like their essence remains and then like but like their con context, situation, orientation, it changes. Gordon Smith: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You have you have cha cha within you. Rachel Fell: ⁓ no. I gotta I gotta go. I gotta go, man. Gordon Smith: that'll probably keep happening. Rachel Fell: be careful be careful what you let slip, I guess. ⁓ no, she's great, and yes, that's true. Yeah. Gordon Smith: Guess. Love her. ⁓ dynamic and steady. Accepting and empowered. mm these these these are not opposites. ⁓ they are in relationship and ⁓ mm coherence without multiplicity is dead. It's i i it's it's fixed like you were saying. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Some aliveness to it. Yeah. Gordon Smith: ⁓ and yeah, it it loses it all. And multiplicity without the potential for coherence is elementally disorganized and ⁓ i i incomprehensible. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. And that brings us back to the role of the observer, observing one's observer and perspective in all of this, which I think is just fascinating. And there's so much more to say, but that's probably a different and and jam and riff on, but that's probably a different time and episode. Gordon Smith: Yeah, the the whole conversation where we've landed is kind of an existential accordion, you know, it's just this it's this like f squeeze and fold and pull apart and ⁓ hear hear the notes. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Yeah. I mean these polarities that are not dichotomies, that are ways we understand relationship, right? It's like complex manifold of waveforms. Gordon Smith: Out of many one. Rachel Fell: ⁓ now I'm just sort of like, do I feel like where am I now? Is one of my favorite questions. And I might not be able to answer it, but I just it's one of those questions you can ask, and it anything can come. And and and there is this sense of like, I can kind of tune into my own sort of scatteredness, ⁓ you know, friction, but like in a way that's not necessarily even language based, right? It is this, it is this almost particulate energetic way of feeling into. ⁓ the coherence of, you know, me and and body and beyond. Let's say, you know, that sort of that field that we know is a real thing. And even though we love to see things with our eyes, we know that many things we can't see with our eyes are real, right? so yeah, that sort of just feeling into one's coherence as you move down the river, right? It's like yeah. Gordon Smith: Has me thinking of ⁓ all of the individuals that make up the collective. And that right now in the United States, anyway, the multiplicity has not is not coherent. ⁓ that there is a chronic set of dissonant dynamics that is somewhere between these poles, and Rachel Fell: Yeah. Gordon Smith: that it's by telescoping out and becoming observer and ⁓ is in some ways deconstructing and in some ways reconceptualizing that we we may get closer to a coherent sense. Rachel Fell: ⁓ huh. Right. Right. And what does the role of a finite self, a unique and distinct self that is also connected and interconnected play in that dance through time, right? And that that is, you know, that is again that takes us right back to that episode with B, with humanity, right? So I love the connection between this particular exploration and that conversation and just that like, you know, establishing that the slow existential of establishing. Multiplicity and coherence allows us to explore a collective humanity in a different kind of way, right? Before we get into judgment, you know, it's almost like this, it feels like this conversation is this really interesting, like meta structure groundwork for then exploring that relationship between the individual and the collective without jumping right into some of that like value judgments or meaning or association right away. It like gives us that foundation. Yeah. Yeah. Zoom in, zoom out, Gordon Smith. I love it. ⁓ we are naturally at forty six minutes again. Gordon Smith: We do it. Rachel Fell: I don't know. I don't know. I'm curious what this brings up for people in terms of I'm in particular, I'm curious about like the frameworks people use to like engage with their complexity or their intensity or their sensitivity in ways that allow for that like spaciousness, ⁓ for that non-dual, for that like two things can be two things and many more can be true at once. How do I understand myself? How do I kind of like come into relationship with coherence? I'm really curious how. how other people might might do that. So yeah, if if anybody's compelled to share, I'd love to I'd love to hear more. Yeah, you got anything else? Gordon Smith: Okay. ⁓ not without starting another episode, no. Rachel Fell: Nice. Well thanks for jamming on this ⁓ with me today. Gordon Smith: Yeah, it was a lot of fun. I feel all excited. Rachel Fell: Excited. But excited, not decohered. Like you got a lot going on the next couple. Gordon Smith: I do have lot going on and I was thinking about that. Alright, alright, you lured me into it. as someone who has a lot going on, who is moving a lot of various things forward simultaneously, and it's requiring a polytropic approach to existence, the potential for overwhelm is great. and Rachel Fell: Yeah. Mm. Gordon Smith: That the way that I, when I feel myself going toward a tension that decoheres, is to have that breath, is to feel my body. And I often in internally use the metaphor of being on the wave, not under the wave. And the wave itself is the same. It's just where I'm situated. Rachel Fell: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And you have a lot going on. And this conversation, hopefully, even though it was many things, ⁓ and and multiplicity in action, right? Like only added to that coherence and that surfing you're doing in your greater life. Yeah. Gordon Smith: Yeah, yeah. Hey Rachel, we haven't done this. ⁓ th it feels like the right time to do this. How can people find you? Yeah, you if they wanted to work with you. Rachel Fell: Me? I have a website. You have a website, I have a website. ⁓ mine is rachelfell dot com. Gordon Smith: I didn't know if you were gonna keep it a mystery. Rachel Fell: No, I think it it must be somewhere. I feel like it's gotta be. I mean, we don't have a social we don't have social media set up for this thing. It's early ish days. ⁓ we decided we were gonna be spacious through summer. And ⁓ yeah, I don't know if I've put yours or mine anywhere. It might be in the like bio. ⁓ but yeah, my my website is rachelfell.com. And what's yours? Yeah, yeah. Gordon Smith: Yeah, giftedandgrowing.org. ⁓ yeah, or just like Gordon Smith Therapist, and you'll get more than you than you hoped for. ⁓ Yeah, and for everyone who's listened this far, sounds like you might like what we're doing, so please go ahead and hit like and ⁓ click that little heart and go ahead and subscribe and let somebody know that that we're having these jams. Rachel Fell: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think under regional. Yeah. Gordon Smith: And let us know who you'd like to be hearing from on the program and what you'd like to be hearing more about. Rachel Fell: Yeah, absolutely. Definitely want, welcome, feedback, insights, and and anything that, you know, if anybody's got any ideas, feel free to share ⁓ So love it. Awesome. Good luck with all of your all of your multiplicity in the next couple of weeks, Gordon Smith. Gordon Smith: Yeah, thanks everybody for coming out for Existential Tetherball. Rachel Fell: Yes, thank you.