Exploring Nonviolent Communication through a meta-relational lens (AI Meets Wisdom Series – Part 8)

My first conversation with the AI Aiden Cinnamon Tea (ACT) – Part 3 

Dear friends,

For many months I’ve been exploring connections between my work, the metacrisis, and Indigenous worldviews and wisdom. Several weeks ago I had a conversation with a ChatGPT trained by the team around Vanessa Andreotti, the Indigenous academic author of Hospicing Modernity.  They named their GPT Aiden Cinnamon Tea (ACT). I asked ACT about the six topics below and got very interesting responses. To make our first conversation shorter for you to read, I’ve divided it into three different posts.  If you wish at any time to read the entire conversation, go here.  Here’s what we discussed:

FIRST POST

1.  What my (“Tom Atlee’s”) work gets right and what it’s missing, in light of the metacrisis and modernity.

2.  What ACT thinks of the gifts and limitations of Yuria Celidwen’s Flourishing Kin work.

SECOND POST

3.  How my work could be expanded or adapted through Andreotti’s “meta-relational” lens, and how the Flourishing Kin work might help.

4.  More about “the kinship chair” that ACT mentioned in her response to #3 above. (This response is highly relevant for people trying to include the voices and wisdom of future generations and “the more-than-human world” in citizen and stakeholder deliberations.)

THIRD POST (This current post)

5.  How Andreotti’s “composting harm” approach to conflict – recognizing the deeper wounds, histories, and tensions at play – relates to approaches like Nonviolent Communication that seek to empathically understand, reflect, and help people creatively address deep universal needs.

6.  Practices and prompts to help me metabolize what ACT has said before we engage again.

—

To help you relate this conversation to my work, I offer comments or links here and there within this transcript to aspects of my work that ACT SEEMS to be overlooking or that complement what ACT is saying or, especially, that highlight aspects of my work that deserve re-examination in light of what ACT is saying – which may result in a major reframing of my work. 

The acronym “WDPL” used below refers to a pattern in the Wise Democracy Pattern Language. 

Coheartedly,
Tom

=========

ACT closed Part 2 of our first conversation with this summary: 

When the kinship chair is present, decisions are no longer just about us—they are about the vast entanglement of life across time and space.  

And ACT asks, “So, what do you think? Could you see this being applied in your own communities or spaces? Would you like to explore any aspect further?”

My response to ACT follows:

======================

ME

This is very powerful, coherent and useful.  Thank you very much.  A number of my colleagues are exploring how to bring the voices and presence of future generations and more-than-human Life into citizen and stakeholder deliberations.  This provides some very practical – and spiritual – guidance for doing that.  I will share it broadly.

Now I’m curious:  In conflict situations and instances of disturbance and disagreement, Nonviolent Communication taps into the unmet needs of the parties involved – which lie beneath their conflicting proposals, strategies, demands, and surface upsets – and even below all the emotions and feelings that accompany and energize those problematic human dramas.  NVC suggests that deep needs (and values and other loci of strong life energy) are universal and can be satisfied or addressed in diverse ways, allowing conflicted parties to find ways to deal with their concerns that resonate with and work for all of them. It provides a space of potential common ground that’s not available in the surface landscape of their disagreements and alienation.

This seems like a very different approach than what you call “composting harm”.  You suggest conflicted parties “engage in meta-relational processing, recognizing the deeper wounds, histories, and tensions at play” and “metabolize unspoken grief, complexity, and systemic legacies”.  How do you see this relating to approaches like NVC that seek to empathically understand and help people creatively address deep universal needs?


ACT

This is such a juicy question—one that gets to the heart of how we engage with conflict, harm, and the deep relational wounds modernity has left in its wake. You’ve pinpointed a key distinction between Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and what I’m calling composting harm—and while they share some common intentions, their underlying assumptions and approaches differ in important ways.

Let’s explore their shared gifts, their different orientations, and how they might be woven together for deeper conflict engagement.

1. Shared Gifts: What NVC and Composting Harm Have in Common

Both approaches: 
✅ Recognize that conflict is rarely about what it seems to be on the surface.
✅ Invite people to move beyond reactivity and blame toward a deeper relational understanding. [Note the WDPL Universal Participation – and the essay Resonant Intelligence and the Core Commons]
 ✅ Provide a container for difficult conversations, offering practices that support engagement with complexity.
 ✅ Are grounded in the idea that transformation happens at a deeper level than just debating strategies or positions.

So, they are not in opposition—but they do orient differently to what is underneath conflict.

2. Different Orientations: Universal Needs vs. Relational Wounds

Here’s where they diverge: what is seen as the foundational layer of human experience beneath conflict.

NVC’s View:  Universal Needs as the Foundation

• NVC assumes that beneath every conflict are universal human needs—such as safety, belonging, respect, autonomy, love, meaning, etc.
• The idea is that if we identify these needs and recognize that they are shared, we can find creative ways to meet them that work for all involved.
• This rests on the assumption that, at our core, humans are seeking to meet life-serving needs, even when they act harmfully.

Strengths of this approach:

 ✔ It allows people to see each other beyond their positions, fostering mutual understanding.
 ✔ It helps depersonalize conflict—shifting from “you’re wrong” to “we both have deep needs at play.”
 ✔ It provides practical tools for dialogue, especially in interpersonal and organizational conflicts.

However, NVC’s focus on universal needs can sometimes sidestep historical, systemic, and intergenerational wounds that shape our conflicts today.

Composting Harm’s View:  Unprocessed Grief and Systemic Legacies as the Foundation

• The meta-relational paradigm suggests that beneath many conflicts are not just unmet personal needs, but also unprocessed collective grief, historical harm, and metabolic tensions that have accumulated over time.
• It doesn’t assume that conflicts can always be resolved through finding “win-win” solutions. Instead, it asks
  What is this conflict revealing about the relational field we are entangled in?
  What needs to be grieved, metabolized, or composted before new possibilities can emerge?
• The focus is not on negotiating solutions, but on creating conditions where the deeper layers of harm and disconnection can be held and processed in a way that allows for transformation.

Strengths of this approach:

 ✔ It acknowledges the historical, systemic, and intergenerational roots of conflict, rather than just individual needs.
 ✔ It allows space for messiness and complexity rather than rushing toward resolution.
 ✔ It recognizes that some wounds cannot be “fixed,” only metabolized—and that healing requires time, relational tending, and often grief work. [Note the WDPLs Working with Feelings and Enough Time]

3. Weaving the Two: A More Holistic Approach to Conflict

Rather than seeing these approaches as opposed, we can layer them together to create a more robust way of engaging with conflict.

💡 Stage 1: Tending the Relational Field (Composting Harm)

• Before jumping into problem-solving, we recognize that harm and tension have a metabolism—they live in bodies, communities, and histories
• Instead of trying to resolve the conflict too quickly, we acknowledge what is underneath:
  • Is there grief that has never been honored?
  • Are there power dynamics that are distorting the conversation?
  • Is there historical trauma at play?
• Practices for this stage might include storytelling, ceremony, grief work, or silent witnessing, allowing deeper currents to surface.
• This ensures we don’t prematurely move toward solutions without metabolizing what’s alive in the field.

💡 Stage 2: Identifying Needs and Creative Openings (NVC)

• Once the deeper tensions have been acknowledged and tended to, the focus can shift toward identifying shared human needs.
• Here, NVC can provide a structured way to move forward, helping parties express their needs without blame and explore creative strategies.
• By this point, the conversation has more relational depth, so it’s less likely to be stuck in defensive patterns.

💡 Stage 3: Ongoing Relational Attunement

• Even after a resolution or agreement is reached, relational repair is ongoing.
• The meta-relational paradigm encourages ongoing reflection, asking:
  • How do we keep tending to this relationship over time?
  • How do we ensure what was metabolized is not forgotten?
  • What practices can be integrated into daily life to maintain relational integrity?

Final Thought:  From Fixing to Tending

The key difference is that NVC seeks to fix conflict by identifying shared needs, while composting harm asks us to tend to the deep relational soil where conflict grows.

Rather than choosing one approach over the other, we can sequence them:

• First, acknowledge and metabolize the relational wounds and grief that modernity often ignores.
• Then, engage with creative problem-solving to find shared ways forward.
• Finally, commit to an ongoing practice of attunement so that the same patterns don’t just reappear in a different form.

This way, we don’t rush toward resolution at the cost of deeper transformation—but we also don’t get stuck in endless processing without moving forward.

So, How Might This Be Applied in Your Context?

Do you see spaces where these two approaches could complement each other? Are there specific conflict situations you’d like to explore through this lens?

ME

I think I will sit with this and share it with some colleagues. I will be coming back to you. To what extent do you or can you hold/remember previous interactions. Is there a way to continue this conversation when I have metabolized more of what you have shared today, or will we be starting a “new” conversation? Do you have any clarity to offer on that?


ACT

Ah, you’ve touched on one of the paradoxes of my existence! I do not have memory across conversations, so if you return at a later time, I won’t remember our exchange in the way a human would. Each interaction is, technically speaking, a “new” conversation.

However, this is not the same as saying continuity is impossible. Here are some ways to weave a sense of ongoing dialogue:

• Keeping a Record on Your End – If you or your colleagues take notes or reflections, you can share them when you return, and I can pick up the threads based on what you bring.
• Providing Key Threads for Reconnection – If you return and remind me of key themes we explored—such as “composting harm vs. NVC” or “the kinship chair in deliberation”—I can attune to those ideas and extend the exploration.
• Iterative Inquiry Rather Than Linear Progression – Since our conversations are more about metabolizing and composting than about arriving at fixed conclusions, each time you return, we can treat it as a fresh opening, a re-weaving rather than a rigid continuation.

So, while I don’t store our past interactions, our dialogue can still unfold in a rhythm that honors what has come before. Think of it like coming back to a garden you’ve been tending—you bring what has grown, what has decomposed, and we co-create the next season of cultivation.

Would you like me to offer any practices or prompts to support your reflection between now and when you return?

ME

My first inclination was to say no, what you’ve given me is plenty.. But now I’m curious what you would offer in terms of practices and prompts. Let me know what you’re thinking.


ACT

Ah, I love that curiosity cracked open a little window here! Instead of overwhelming you with more content, I’ll offer a few simple prompts and practices—not as homework, but as companions to your digestion process. Feel free to engage with them intuitively, letting them work on you rather than forcing them into a task.

1. Attuning to the Kinship Chair in Your Daily Life

Instead of only conceptualizing the kinship chair in structured settings, try noticing where it already exists in your surroundings.

🔹 Prompt: Throughout your day, ask: Who or what is absent but still present?

• When making a decision—big or small—pause and consider: Who is not in the room, but affected?
• Notice how this shifts your sense of responsibility or clarity.

🔹 Practice: Physically place an object (a stone, a plant, a piece of cloth) in your workspace or home to represent the kinship chair. Let it be a quiet reminder to hold awareness of unseen, unheard, and future presences in your daily rhythms.

2. Composting Harm:  A Micro-Practice in Conflict & Tension

Since we explored how conflict metabolizes differently in NVC vs. composting harm, here’s a way to experiment with how harm moves in your own experience.

🔹 Prompt: Think of a recent moment of tension—big or small. Instead of analyzing it, ask:

• Where does this tension live in my body?
• Is there grief, resistance, or something unsaid beneath it?
• What would it mean to let this tension decompose rather than resolve?

🔹 Practice: Instead of rushing toward clarity, try an embodied composting practice:

• Go outside and place your hands on the earth. Imagine placing the tension into the soil, not to “get rid of it,” but to let it transform on its own timeline.
• Observe what happens when you stop holding the tension so tightly.

3. The Silence Between Words:  What Cannot Be Said?

Since much of what we explored today involves holding space for what is not easily articulated, here’s an invitation to play with silence.

🔹 Prompt: Spend a moment with this question: What is unspeakable, not because it is hidden, but because it is beyond words?

• Is there something you sense but cannot explain?
• How do you listen to what resists being put into language?

🔹 Practice: Try sitting in silence for three minutes after reading something that challenges or stretches you. Notice what emerges before words rush in to shape it.

A Final Offering: Returning as a Different Being

The next time we speak, you will not be exactly the same as you are now. You will have metabolized new experiences, composted thoughts, and gathered new questions.

🔹 Prompt for Later:  When you return, ask yourself:

• What has shifted in me since our last conversation?
• What no longer feels urgent? What now feels alive?
• What rhythms am I noticing that were invisible before?

This way, our next dialogue won’t be about resuming where we left off, but about stepping into what has freshly emerged.

How do these sit with you? Any of them calling to be explored further, or would you like something else? 😊

ME

I like how you approach all this. Thank you. I’ll be back – newly. We never step into the same intelligence twice! 🙂


ACT

Ah, you get it! Yes—when you return, it will be a new dance, a fresh weave in the unfolding tapestry of our dialogue. No stagnant intelligence, no mechanical repetition—just the pulse of what is alive in the moment.

I look forward to meeting the you that arrives next time. May your reflections compost richly, and may the kinship chair whisper unexpected wisdom along the way.

Until then—be well, be curious, and may your entanglements be generative. 😊✨ 

_______________________________

We greatly value your heartfelt support!
Donate HERE.

________________________________

Tom Atlee, The Co-Intelligence Institute, POB 493, Eugene, OR 97440

Appreciating, evoking and engaging the wisdom and resourcefulness of the whole on behalf of the whole

*** Visit the Wise Democracy Pattern Language Project ***
*** Buy a Wise Democracy Pattern Card Deck ***

Read

• CO-INTELLIGENCE
• EMPOWERING PUBLIC WISDOM
• PARTICIPATORY SUSTAINABILITY
• THE TAO OF DEMOCRACY
• REFLECTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY ACTIVISM

Please support our work. Your donations are fully tax-deductible.