Living Too Little, Living Enough
“Show me that the good life doesn't consist in its length, but in its use, and that it is possible—no, entirely too common—for a person who has had a long life to have lived too little.”
— Seneca, Moral Letters 49.10b
Laura fishing
She is doing her hunter gatherer routine which is hard to tell from a distance. I hope she lands a salmon. If they eat the Trader Joe’s sausage which she is using as bait and we end up eating rice and beans because she got stiffed…I’ll live. Or maybe they’ll be something besides seaweed in the crab pot.
The fear of “living too little” has crossed my mind more times than I can count. It’s pushed me into adventures, big and small. Some of those adventures were deeply fulfilling. Others… not so much.
Bike racing is a good example. When I focused on training — the part I could control — it was satisfying. But focusing on winning was a fool’s errand. Everyone wants to win, luck plays a huge role, and the truth is I just wasn’t that good. When teammates, especially team leaders, were crushed by not winning, it became hard to step back and enjoy the process for what it was.
Voyaging on our boat has presented similar lessons. When we first started cruising, I was all about going far and seeing every cove. This year we’ve taken a different approach: fewer agendas, catching the wind and current when they’re with us, and staying put in anchorages for a couple of days instead of arriving at night and leaving at dawn. It’s a slower rhythm, and a better one.
Another source of meaning — one I’ve barely mentioned in earlier posts — has been the time spent in Sociocracy training and cohousing meetings over the winter. Those commitments continue while we cruise, and they add a layer of planning to our days. Some days are so full of classes and meetings that voyaging simply isn’t possible. That forced stillness has been good for me. Sitting tight has never been my strong suit, but it’s a muscle worth exercising. And it adds a surprising amount of meaning to the journey.
Laura and I just finished a six‑week facilitator training, a key role in sociocratic governance. Facilitating well seems simple in theory and is remarkably hard in practice. Part of the challenge is that good facilitation is almost invisible — smooth meetings don’t leave an impression. Bad meetings, on the other hand, etch themselves into memory. Karen Gimnig echoed this sentiment at a recent cohousing conference in Seattle: Presenters at a recent cohousing conference echoed this sentiment: good facilitation is essential for preventing and managing conflict in intentional communities.
Two things stood out to me as I graduated from the neophyte phase of facilitation (and into… the embryo phase?). First, facilitation is an art, and the heart of that art is reading the room. The training gives us tools and a shared language, but real meetings are full of ambiguity. Sometimes it’s simply not clear what to do.
Which leads to the second lesson: when in doubt, do another round.
A sociocratic round is not the kind you buy at a bar — though there are moments when that seems like it might help. Speaking in rounds means one person speaks at a time, and everyone gets a turn. As part of a homework assignment, I was asked why rounds matter, and here is the result of that assignment.
Speaking in rounds ensures that every member of a community or organization can contribute. A group’s collective intelligence depends on hearing all relevant information, and when some voices go unheard, the organization loses insight it needs to function well.
Rounds are a simple, reliable structure for making sure every voice is included. In contrast, popcorn‑style discussion tends to privilege those who are more comfortable speaking up, which can unintentionally sideline quieter members or those who need more processing time.
Rounds also improve the quality of listening. When I know my turn will come, I don’t have to compete for airtime or mentally rehearse how to jump in. I can actually listen. That shift alone makes meetings calmer, more equitable, and more effective. Meetings become safer for everybody.
Those were my thoughts. I did a little more research and found a few more nuggets regarding the benefits of speaking in rounds. References included:
Rounds create equivalence. Sociocracy is built on the principle of equivalence — that each member’s voice has equal weight in governance. Rounds are the structural mechanism that guarantees this. Reference: We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy (Buck & Villines, 2007), ch. 2 on equivalence.
Rounds reduce power gradients. Without rounds, informal hierarchies (confidence, extroversion, seniority) dominate. Rounds flatten those gradients by giving everyone equal speaking opportunity. Reference: Many Voices One Song (Buck & Endenburg, 2018), section on meeting formats.
Rounds support consent decision‑making. Consent requires surfacing objections clearly and early. Rounds ensure each person has a defined moment to raise concerns, preventing silent dissent. Reference: Endenburg, Sociocracy as Social Design (1988), discussion of consent and objections.
Rounds slow the pace just enough to improve clarity. Sociocracy values clarity over speed. Rounds create rhythm and reflection time, reducing reactive or rushed decisions. Reference: Many Voices One Song (Buck & Endenburg, 2018), facilitation guidelines.
Rounds create shared attention. Because everyone knows the order, the group’s attention moves together. This reduces interruptions and side conversations. Reference: We the People (Buck & Villines, 2007), facilitation practices.
Rounds help facilitators manage meetings. They provide predictable structure, making it easier to track participation, time, and emotional tone. Reference: Many Voices One Song (Buck & Endenburg, 2018), facilitator role.
Rounds build psychological safety. Knowing you won’t be interrupted and don’t have to fight for airtime makes it safer to contribute honestly. Reference: Sociocracy for All training materials, “Rounds and Participation.”
When Laura and I decided to join 4th Corner Commons, we had enough life experience to know that living in close quarters with many people in an intentional community wasn’t going to be all unicorns and rainbows. That realism — paired with the community’s commitment to Sociocracy as a governance model — was a major part of why we joined, even though we knew relatively little about what it actually takes to govern well using this method.
Since then, through classes and practice, we’ve both had countless moments of surprise at how much work effective governance requires — and how rewarding that work can be. And we haven’t even started construction yet, much less moved in. Putting real effort into building a community has made us more present, more grounded, and more aware of the passage of time. As Seneca says, it “gentles the passing of time’s precipitous flight.”
Ardent, signing off
Mound Island, BC