beautiful piece. been diving into burbeas soulmaking and imaginal and this is a lovely perspective on soul that is filling in some of the gaps for me. thank you tucker
Beautiful article! Haven’t read something so clear and applyable in a while. The way you refer to ‘Soul’ is an amazing Fundament from where to vasten the concepts of who we are.
This article is, well... soulful. I felt enjoyment in my bones. Transmits what it is.
It's helpful for me to see, at least temporarily, the soul as a distinct line of development. I've struggled with where some of these fields of work- Plotkin and other particularly "initiation" based modes fit in. Not everyone in the "second half of life" who has a big transformation is called to this kind of work.
As this article is directed toward sorecekeepers and collective transformation, I think there is also value in seeing that- as an example- an artist working alone may go through some of this initiatory process within the collective of oneself and spirit, not necessarily collectives of other humans. (Been musing lately about addressing individual/collective as a typology in itself).
When I see my own journey, I see myself CURRENTLY in all 5 of your stages. So while I do feel it's helpful to feel the true, deep soulfulness embedded within the transmission of the model, I can't say I see myself as having particularly gone through this sequence as much as perhaps Campbell's Hero's Journey by comparison.
On vow. In my experience and in working with others, I more frequently come across vow as a burning desire to answer a question, in my case the angst of not yet experiencing the complete unity of soul and spirit. I love the work you both are doing and feel your own vow as concretely expressed, but I wonder if for more of us it is an ongoing process, rather than a thing, more like a participatory unfoldment of vow-ing. At least this is how I see it.
Finally, I'm wondering if you see your model as salvific? If in the end the soul goes through and completes it vow, what happens? Does suffering have an end somewhere here?
Love the depth you are invoking here. Wish-ing you Enjoy-ing the Vow-ing.
And on the first piece about an artist who works in solitude more than in collective spaces - agree and will admit that because this article was developed in the context of the Sourcekeepers Guild, it is leaning more heavily in the direction of collective and networked collaboration as culture-building. And that might be a weakness or confusion, which perhaps I can better address (I’ve been pondering this same question the past week, so I’m glad you explicitly named it).
That said, to offer one take, with the Artisan, for example, it isn't necessarily someone who does collective work. It's someone who sees their work as inherently embedded in a larger pattern of mutual making — and who orients from that seeing, even if their daily practice looks solitary. The potter is still alone at the wheel. The gardener is still alone with the soil. But their inner orientation has shifted from "my offering" to "my offering as part of something none of us could make alone” - a mandala of world-building that we are both a whole and a part of. And that very recognition, I believe, on a field level at the very least, shifts things, and weaves that artist into a larger process which on some levels perhaps is already so, and also naming or experiencing it as such helps ignite that process, too.
Yes! I like the "on some levels perhaps already so". And I'm guessing we'd agree that it is the RECOGNITION of that embedded weave which is probably related to the kind of soul level initiation you're passionate about, yes?
I would propose that the view or rung of development you have written this article from actually has some experience of soul as identity (not just passively talking about it). I sense this comes online simultaneously with more direct realization of interconnection or interpenetration so the "sense of purpose" or "service to the world" is a symptom or natural byproduct of this realization.
Yes, if I'm understanding you correctly, soul becomes one source of identity - perhaps even a primary one - but can also live alongside other identities such as our personality, pure spirit, an earth animal, etc. Our recommendation is to hold the dimension of soul as an experiential frame, but not the only one. The purpose or service dimension is a natural byproduct of alignment with soul, even if the how and why of that is mysterious and unknown in the moment (or ever). That said, it's of course essential to include more rational forms of sensing around service and impact, so we're not getting lost in our own grand narrative, even one that is deeply felt. Our intention is to both highlight these different dimensions but also to hold them lightly (yet devotionally when supportive) and empty, and to include it as part of a larger mandala of integrated experience. I hope this make sense.
@Chad Bennett, thank you so much! Love these thoughtful reflections.
Re: vow, I hold it as a both/and, meaning there can be both an initiatory-like experience of claiming one’s vow as well as an ongoing vow-ing process. Just like in a marriage, there’s a process of “getting married” however that looks for each couple but then a lifelong process of living that marriage, moment-by-moment, which of course is a total mystery as to how that will unfold.
In my essay on this topic, I titled it “A Vow to Soul” because the vow (as I experience it) is to soul itself - and being in relationship with the ever-unfolding, revealing and dynamic unique expression of it, not to a fixed “name” nor identity structure nor to a specific project or product that emerges from soul. In other words, it’s saying yes to the relationship with soul itself, which is inherently dynamic, not to any one particular form that arises as its expression.
Lastly, what one experiences as a vow might look quite different and unique for each person. It doesn’t even need to be framed as a vow - that’s not the point. The point is there’s an inner shift that happens when we let go (yet simultaneously step into) our deep yes to living the unique expression of our being in service to the whole. And then live that yes, imperfectly and as best we can, moment-by-moment.
I like this framing of vow being a yes to a relationship with soul. And I do see this kind of vow can be a crucible and beacon to what is most essential to be expressed as soul. And the way you respond here helps me to think that perhaps "in service to the world" may unintendedly contribute to self images of being saviors or bodhisattvas or "finding my true purpose". I was camping in the depths of the Utah desert last week, deeply relating with sacred earth, lazy and wandering. Knowing all the while, this was deep congruence with this soul's unfoldment and thankfully inconsiderate of how might serve anyone! Halelujiah!
I think it’s generally good to want to be of service to the world. If one uses that to inflate their ego, ok that should be looked at. But the inherent desire to be of service is fundamental to our hearts and soul, no?
Cool. One conversation I'd like to have, maybe in person, is about the possible developmental distinction between the inherent desire of the soul to serve versus the "image" of doing so (egoic). I sense it's a rare capacity to have this discernment.
Would love that! Let's do it. For now I'd just say that I don't experience "ego" and "soul" as completely distinct, so even if a psychological part (or a whole complex of them) are operating in someone, that does't mean that soul or a deeper fundamental love and care that wants to make a difference in the world isn't also at play. I'd advise overly separating these and potentially pathologizing ego as pure distortion, as even in the purest of distortions my sense is there's that seed of soul operating deep in the depths, or so I like to believe.
As an elder I find the descriptions and ideas presented here spot on with my life experience.
So great to hear, thank you for sharing this! 🙏
I look forward to meeting you at ICON
beautiful piece. been diving into burbeas soulmaking and imaginal and this is a lovely perspective on soul that is filling in some of the gaps for me. thank you tucker
Thanks brother! Happy to hear it’s resonating :)
Beautiful article! Haven’t read something so clear and applyable in a while. The way you refer to ‘Soul’ is an amazing Fundament from where to vasten the concepts of who we are.
This article is, well... soulful. I felt enjoyment in my bones. Transmits what it is.
It's helpful for me to see, at least temporarily, the soul as a distinct line of development. I've struggled with where some of these fields of work- Plotkin and other particularly "initiation" based modes fit in. Not everyone in the "second half of life" who has a big transformation is called to this kind of work.
As this article is directed toward sorecekeepers and collective transformation, I think there is also value in seeing that- as an example- an artist working alone may go through some of this initiatory process within the collective of oneself and spirit, not necessarily collectives of other humans. (Been musing lately about addressing individual/collective as a typology in itself).
When I see my own journey, I see myself CURRENTLY in all 5 of your stages. So while I do feel it's helpful to feel the true, deep soulfulness embedded within the transmission of the model, I can't say I see myself as having particularly gone through this sequence as much as perhaps Campbell's Hero's Journey by comparison.
On vow. In my experience and in working with others, I more frequently come across vow as a burning desire to answer a question, in my case the angst of not yet experiencing the complete unity of soul and spirit. I love the work you both are doing and feel your own vow as concretely expressed, but I wonder if for more of us it is an ongoing process, rather than a thing, more like a participatory unfoldment of vow-ing. At least this is how I see it.
Finally, I'm wondering if you see your model as salvific? If in the end the soul goes through and completes it vow, what happens? Does suffering have an end somewhere here?
Love the depth you are invoking here. Wish-ing you Enjoy-ing the Vow-ing.
And on the first piece about an artist who works in solitude more than in collective spaces - agree and will admit that because this article was developed in the context of the Sourcekeepers Guild, it is leaning more heavily in the direction of collective and networked collaboration as culture-building. And that might be a weakness or confusion, which perhaps I can better address (I’ve been pondering this same question the past week, so I’m glad you explicitly named it).
That said, to offer one take, with the Artisan, for example, it isn't necessarily someone who does collective work. It's someone who sees their work as inherently embedded in a larger pattern of mutual making — and who orients from that seeing, even if their daily practice looks solitary. The potter is still alone at the wheel. The gardener is still alone with the soil. But their inner orientation has shifted from "my offering" to "my offering as part of something none of us could make alone” - a mandala of world-building that we are both a whole and a part of. And that very recognition, I believe, on a field level at the very least, shifts things, and weaves that artist into a larger process which on some levels perhaps is already so, and also naming or experiencing it as such helps ignite that process, too.
Let me know what you sense! @Chad Bennett
Yes! I like the "on some levels perhaps already so". And I'm guessing we'd agree that it is the RECOGNITION of that embedded weave which is probably related to the kind of soul level initiation you're passionate about, yes?
Can you clarify what you mean? I’d love to better understand what you’re pointing to here!
I would propose that the view or rung of development you have written this article from actually has some experience of soul as identity (not just passively talking about it). I sense this comes online simultaneously with more direct realization of interconnection or interpenetration so the "sense of purpose" or "service to the world" is a symptom or natural byproduct of this realization.
Yes, if I'm understanding you correctly, soul becomes one source of identity - perhaps even a primary one - but can also live alongside other identities such as our personality, pure spirit, an earth animal, etc. Our recommendation is to hold the dimension of soul as an experiential frame, but not the only one. The purpose or service dimension is a natural byproduct of alignment with soul, even if the how and why of that is mysterious and unknown in the moment (or ever). That said, it's of course essential to include more rational forms of sensing around service and impact, so we're not getting lost in our own grand narrative, even one that is deeply felt. Our intention is to both highlight these different dimensions but also to hold them lightly (yet devotionally when supportive) and empty, and to include it as part of a larger mandala of integrated experience. I hope this make sense.
@Chad Bennett, thank you so much! Love these thoughtful reflections.
Re: vow, I hold it as a both/and, meaning there can be both an initiatory-like experience of claiming one’s vow as well as an ongoing vow-ing process. Just like in a marriage, there’s a process of “getting married” however that looks for each couple but then a lifelong process of living that marriage, moment-by-moment, which of course is a total mystery as to how that will unfold.
In my essay on this topic, I titled it “A Vow to Soul” because the vow (as I experience it) is to soul itself - and being in relationship with the ever-unfolding, revealing and dynamic unique expression of it, not to a fixed “name” nor identity structure nor to a specific project or product that emerges from soul. In other words, it’s saying yes to the relationship with soul itself, which is inherently dynamic, not to any one particular form that arises as its expression.
Lastly, what one experiences as a vow might look quite different and unique for each person. It doesn’t even need to be framed as a vow - that’s not the point. The point is there’s an inner shift that happens when we let go (yet simultaneously step into) our deep yes to living the unique expression of our being in service to the whole. And then live that yes, imperfectly and as best we can, moment-by-moment.
Curious how this lands for you!
https://tuckerwalsh.substack.com/p/a-vow-to-soul
I like this framing of vow being a yes to a relationship with soul. And I do see this kind of vow can be a crucible and beacon to what is most essential to be expressed as soul. And the way you respond here helps me to think that perhaps "in service to the world" may unintendedly contribute to self images of being saviors or bodhisattvas or "finding my true purpose". I was camping in the depths of the Utah desert last week, deeply relating with sacred earth, lazy and wandering. Knowing all the while, this was deep congruence with this soul's unfoldment and thankfully inconsiderate of how might serve anyone! Halelujiah!
Utah desert wandering sounds amazing!
I think it’s generally good to want to be of service to the world. If one uses that to inflate their ego, ok that should be looked at. But the inherent desire to be of service is fundamental to our hearts and soul, no?
Cool. One conversation I'd like to have, maybe in person, is about the possible developmental distinction between the inherent desire of the soul to serve versus the "image" of doing so (egoic). I sense it's a rare capacity to have this discernment.
Would love that! Let's do it. For now I'd just say that I don't experience "ego" and "soul" as completely distinct, so even if a psychological part (or a whole complex of them) are operating in someone, that does't mean that soul or a deeper fundamental love and care that wants to make a difference in the world isn't also at play. I'd advise overly separating these and potentially pathologizing ego as pure distortion, as even in the purest of distortions my sense is there's that seed of soul operating deep in the depths, or so I like to believe.