Last week, Jessica intoduced the group to a new forum for communication with on another. It is called a "Sharing". It works like this: Every member of the group has the same pre-designated amount of time to speak about whatever is on their mind; while one member is talking the rest of the group is tasked with remaining completely neutral to what is being said; everyone must use the entirety of the time on the clock, even if it is just to sit and breathe; no member is allowed to comment on or question what another member has said; if a person feels compelled to try to adress something that was said, they can talk to the individual at another time and request a discusssion, which the original speaker has the right to refuse, ending the matter entirely. A "sharing" can last anywhere from 6 to 60 minutes, depending on how much time is chosen per person. I have only very slightly mixed feelings about this process. Mostly, I like it and find it extremely valuable both as a safe way in which to express ones ideas and feelings to the group and as a personal challenge to listen without judgement or comment, be it internal or external. We've had two so far. The first was on Tuesday of last week. It was a planned affair with 5 minutes on the clock for each. The second was after our afternoon work session on Wed. I will freely admit that I was exptremely nervous before the first one on Tuesday. I was worried that it might turn into a mass venting of the considerable frustrations that had been reverberating around the room in our creation sessions of the previous weeks and that the limitation of not being able to respond in any way might serve to fan the flames of dischord, rather than salve them. I was wrong. In that first session, we all pretty much just said what we were each feeling about the process, life, and other details of our situations, unrealated to the project. I could feel, and some even said, that i was not the only one who was nervous. The result was a satisfying half hour of respect and, well, sharing. Wednesday afternoon was a little different. Sam called a sharing - which any member of the group can do whenever they feel the need - after a very tying work session on a scene conceived by me. We did three minutes each, and the tone was very different from that of the day before. Emotions were running high after the tumult of the afternoon and natuarally carried into the sharing. In some instances individuals were called on very specific aspects of their comportment in the group, and in others, blanket statements were made about desires for future working with no indication as to who was infringing on this particular aspect of the process. I'm not sure which was less comfortable. I felt more confused and frustrated after the sharing than before it, as i was not able to disipline my consiousness not ot analyse weather i thought someone was talking about me or not. And yet, there was something viscerally uncomfortable about hearing a person critisized for a way of behaving, knowing that they are not allowed to respond in any way. I'm used to discussing things in a clear and logical manner, and so this is tested my comfort zone in a particular way (not a bad thing). I haven't yet discerned which is the better approach: is it better to be as specific as possible about the who as well as the what of a concern, or should the whole group get the same note or the same challenge and decide for themselves if they need to be on the lookout for personal lapses in applying it. Hard to say. Looking forward to future sharings and to getting a finer point on my perspective of the process.