Living the Question: What RSD13 revealed about narrative weaving and relational reality

ARC25 SIGHTLINES | Anthology of Reflexive Contributors

During RSD13, we prototyped an unpanel design for engaging complex challenges not as problems to solve but as questions to live—weaving them into something larger, more relational, more generative. The prototype we conducted was a deliberate exploration of collective inquiry, and the revelation was profound: an initial question in-formed, trans-formed and form-ulated into an outgoing question. RSD13 sessions

Understanding the flow: The concept is deceptively simple: create intentional encounters where participants could engage with their most pressing questions around a theme without the pressure to produce answers. We called these “Spaces”—spaces where individuals could come together as equals, bringing their unique histories, aspirations, and worldviews to collective dialogue. “Living the Question” offers open-ended conversation, providing space for reflection and emergence—a departure toward aspired collective wisdom. An invitation to shift from passive observers to active contributors, creating an atmosphere of epistemological openness, curiosity, and humility.

60 minutes, like a dance: The design remained consistent across sessions: a three-act performance that allowed questions to breathe and evolve through dynamic relationships between panellists and audience, where all became co-creators in the unfolding inquiry.

• The “dance” begins with arrival and attunement, using silence to co-create space for what will emerge. Then the panellists step forward in the first movement—a riff that deliberately loosens the initial question’s boundaries. Each brings their own lens and metaphors, not to provide answers but to make the question more liquid, more alive. As one panellist speaks, the others listen deeply, already beginning to sense how their own contributions will weave into the emerging tapestry.
• In the second movement, the roles shift. The audience steps into the creative space, no longer observers but active participants sharing emotions and reflections—not analysis or critique, but resonance about how the transformed question lands in their own experiences and worldviews. Meanwhile, the panellists become listeners, receiving these offerings and allowing them to reshape their own understanding. The question begins to breathe with the collective wisdom of everyone present.
• The final movement brings panellists back into dialogue, but now they carry the audience’s contributions within them. They weave together what has emerged, their conversation enriched by the collective input. A reflective team emerges. The boundary between presenter and participant dissolves as all become co-contributors to a transformed question that carries the wisdom of the entire gathering.

Strategic pause punctuates this dance, providing space for integration, letting what was heard settle into something deeper than immediate reaction—moments where the collective wisdom can crystallize before a next movement begins.

In attention, what emerged in practice: Each session carried its own atmosphere and quality of attention. In one panel on “Global and Local,” the conversation flowed around belonging, atoms, and stories—the audience somehow excavating directly applicable content within thirty minutes. What struck me wasn’t the speed of emergence, but its quality.

We witnessed what Maturana and Varela (1980, 1987) call “structural coupling”—different systems adapting and co-evolving through mutual interaction while maintaining their essential identities. When participants shifted from trying to understand problems to living within questions, the entire field of possibility transformed. The quality of our attention determined the quality of what emerged.

The challenges: Our ingrained cultural habits of seeking quick answers, institutional demands for predictable outcomes, and collective discomfort with sustained uncertainty all conspired against this way of working. Some participants struggled with the absence of clear agendas and the invitation to dwell within questions rather than move through them toward answers.

The etiquette we developed became crucial: brief interventions, speaking from the heart, sharing not just what was said but what was heard and how it felt, maintaining kindness throughout.

The deeper recognition: What emerged most clearly was recognition that our tools and methods aren’t neutral—they actively shape the reality we can perceive and engage with. When we approach systems as problems to solve, we create conditions for technical solutions. When we approach them as questions to live, we create conditions for relational transformation.

The implications extend beyond methodology into ontology itself. If reality is fundamentally relational, then our capacity to work with complex systems depends less on analytical tools and more on relational literacy. We need “narrative competence”: the ability to perceive, engage with, and weave together multiple stories that constitute any complex challenge.

Moving forward: The prototype demonstrated that, by creating the right conditions, transformation happens through better relationships—with our questions, with each other, with the living systems we’re embedded within. As we consider carrying this work forward, the question becomes:

How do we create more spaces where questions can be lived rather than solved, where complexity can be embraced rather than simplified, where collective wisdom can emerge through patient practice of dwelling together in uncertainty?

The answer lies not in scaling the specific format but in cultivating the underlying capacity—the ability to hold questions lightly, listen deeply, speak from the heart, and trust that something valuable will emerge when we create space for it. In a world of increasing (felt) complexity, perhaps our most radical act is learning to weave narratives that create space for collective wisdom to emerge. The encouragement we need might come not from finding better answers but from learning to live more generously within the questions that are already here, waiting to be inhabited together.

In gratitude to my partners in this, Christophe Kempkes and Tim Tompson—as well as to all participants, especially our prototype panelists 🙂 Donnie Maclurcan, Elise Talgorn, Gillian Marcelle, John Thackara, Michelle Miller and Valentine de Ganay.