Is the whole problem of collective sensemaking a problem of modernity? Is the need for a consensus reality a product of Enlightenment values? Would a worldview that is closer to nature be more entangled and fluid, without fixed categories of knowledge? We need to form a collective before we can sensemake. How do we form community? The problem with technology is that it allows us to talk to people who are not our neighbours. We need to slow down. To establish a shared reality, we need to slow things down and check in with each other. This is the practice of NVC. We need to invite objections. This is the practice of Sociocracy. Sensemaking is embodied. Not just cerebral. We have to confront our shadows, our projections, our attachments. That's why evidence alone doesn't persuade people. Our minds have sophisticated defense systems that prevent us from taking in information that contradicts our most foundational beliefs. Names are just guests of reality. Early history of quantum physics had a lot of confusion before the terms stabilised. [[The Age of Entanglement]] Reality is more fluid than static. English has 70% nouns and 30% verbs. Indigenous languages have the reverse ratio. How much are we trapped by our language? The danger today is that we strip things out of its context, and quote things on Twitter or Facebook. I heard a quote from Warren Buffet that made me think he meant the opposite. We are disconnected from the land and from our non-human kin relationships. Sensemaking is nonlinear. It's web-like. Sensemaking occurs in the spaces in between things, in relationships, in an ecology of values and thoughts. Ants follow very simple rules, and yet they have a very sophisticated collective sensemaking. Would collective sensmaking work better if we strip it of moralistic thinking around good and bad? Because we get defensive if we think we are being labelled as bad. And sensemaking works better if we are safe.