EPI — A Peer-Led Practice of Presencing

structured-curriculum-vs-open-meeting

8 min read

✎ Edit this page on GitHub

Structured Curriculum vs. Open Meeting

The tension

EPI currently has two distinct shapes for transmitting the practice to people:

  • The 2025 ILC Master Curriculum — a 13-week structured teaching arc with persistent infrastructure (Mighty Networks, buddy assignments, fishbowls, office hours, a stated mission, a curriculum manual), delivered through a facilitator-led pedagogy ([FACILITATION] notes, teach→demo→breakout→integrate→homework, “Watch one, do one, teach one — RIPPLERS!”).

  • The open peer-led meeting — a recurring container any willing practitioner can host (principle-11), with no curriculum, no certification, no teaching role; the form does the work, not the individual (principle-6).

These are not the same shape. The first is teacher-student in structure; the second is peer-to-peer. The first has a beginning, middle, and end; the second is ongoing. The first is led; the second is hosted.

The question this fork holds: can both shapes coexist as EPI containers, or does the structured-curriculum shape live in unresolved tension with the peer-led commitment the fellowship has already chosen (resolved in facilitator-pathway-vs-no-professional-class)?

The current state, plainly: the ILC works — it transmits the practice to many newcomers. The peer-led principles also work, and the fellowship has resolved away from the credentialed-leadership shape the ILC’s vocabulary draws on. The wiki is not in a position to decide which shape EPI ultimately holds. This page holds all three plausible answers honestly, so the team can converge.

Side A — ILC as valued teaching container

The case: the ILC is a valuable, currently-working delivery form for the practice. The 13 weeks transmit a structured introduction to the tools (see ilc-fundamentals-arc); the Level II ongoing work maintains engagement (see six-facets-developmental-arc). Facilitator-led onboarding is not the same as a permanent professional class — it is a teaching role someone occupies for a finite period and then steps out of. The fellowship’s peer-led commitment is compatible with transitional teaching containers; the question the facilitator-pathway-vs-no-professional-class fork resolved was about credentialed development pathways with steward oversight, not about whether teaching happens at all.

What this side gets right:

  • The ILC has demonstrably moved people into the practice. Removing it without a replacement risks losing how newcomers reach EPI.
  • Teaching and gatekeeping are different. Someone holds the container for 13 weeks; they do not certify, license, or rank.
  • The 13-week structure gives newcomers something the open meeting can’t — a sequence of tools introduced in deliberate order, with time to integrate each.
  • The peer-led commitment is enacted by what happens at the end of the 13 weeks: graduates enter the peer-led practice, not a hierarchy of facilitators.

What it accepts as cost: the vocabulary of the curriculum (facilitator, demonstrate, RIPPLERS, watch-one-do-one-teach-one) reads like the language of the form the fellowship resolved away from. This side argues the substance of the ILC honors the peer-led commitment even when the vocabulary echoes the predecessor.

Side B — ILC in active tension with peer-led

The case: the ILC’s structural form is in direct tension with the principles the fellowship has chosen. The vocabulary is not incidental; it carries the shape of a credentialed-leadership model. Watch one, do one, teach one — RIPPLERS! is a pipeline metaphor — practitioners get certified-by-experience and then ripple the practice outward as trained transmitters. That is the same shape as the facilitator-development pathway named in facilitator-pathway-vs-no-professional-class (resolved against).

What this side gets right:

  • “The form does the work, not the individual” (principle-6) is hard to maintain when one practitioner is positioned as the teacher for 13 weeks. The class structure reintroduces the teacher-student asymmetry the practice is designed to dissolve.
  • “Anyone willing to follow the format can host” (principle-11) is hard to enact when “host” requires multi-week curriculum delivery competence. Eligibility shifts from willingness to capacity to teach.
  • “No leaders, no gurus; attract rather than promote” (principle-12) is hard to maintain when the ILC has a mission statement of its own (“to be a loving container for personal transformation that then supports the transformation of the consciousness of the planet”) and a persistent leadership layer.
  • Risk of inversion: the more the ILC becomes the primary gateway, the more the open meeting becomes the post-graduate optional extension — inverting which shape is primary. The peer-led principles become a downstream consequence of the ILC rather than the spine of EPI.
  • Pattern-matching to the prior resolution: the ILC’s vocabulary (steward, facilitator, training, ripplers) is precisely the vocabulary facilitator-pathway-vs-no-professional-class resolved away from. Holding both as compatible may quietly reverse that resolution.

What it accepts as cost: acknowledging this side means seriously asking whether the ILC, as currently shaped, is something the fellowship sustains. That is a hard conversation given the work already invested in it.

Side C — Reformed ILC (middle path)

The case: the ILC contains two genuinely separable things — a curriculum of tools and a delivery format. The curriculum is gold: years of refinement in how to introduce the tools in order, what intensity to ramp toward, what to demonstrate before practicing. The delivery format is the part in active tension. Side C proposes keeping the curriculum and reforming the delivery.

What reformed delivery could look like:

  • Rotating hosts, not a designated facilitator. The host for any given session is whoever is willing to follow the format that week.
  • No “teach the concept” voice. The tools are read aloud from the curriculum manual; no one stands as the authority who explains them. The practice unfolds through doing, not through being taught.
  • No “watch one, do one, teach one” pipeline. Practitioners do not become certified-by-experience; they participate, and over time their participation deepens. No graduation into a delivery role.
  • No ILC-as-its-own-mission. The 13 weeks are a container (principle-14-containers — practice has multiple homes), not a separate fellowship.
  • Buddy structure preserved. Peer accompaniment is consistent with principle-20 / principle-21 (Guide–Traveler).
  • Curriculum sequence preserved. The 13-week arc as a sequence is filed separately (ilc-fundamentals-arc) and survives this reform.

What this side gets right:

  • Preserves the substantive work the curriculum represents while honoring the peer-led commitment.
  • Treats the ILC’s tools and the ILC’s delivery format as separable questions — they do not have to resolve together.
  • Tests the hypothesis that the practice can be transmitted in sequence without requiring a teacher. If the form does the work (principle-6), the form should be able to do it without designated teaching.

What it accepts as cost:

  • Reformed delivery may be slower, less polished, harder to advertise. A peer-led 13-week container demands more from each cohort than a facilitated one.
  • The reform requires actually trying it — and risking that it doesn’t hold the same way the facilitated version does. That experiment may fail and require a return to one of the other sides.
  • Existing ILC infrastructure (Mighty Networks, fishbowls, office hours) was built around the facilitated form. Reforming the delivery means rebuilding some of the infrastructure to match.

Status — OPEN

Not resolved. The wiki is not in a position to decide between these three; the team is. Filed open per CLAUDE.md §7: “Holds the tension, both sides with their strongest case.”

What this fork does not do:

  • It does not weaken the resolved facilitator-pathway-vs-no-professional-class fork. That resolution stands. This fork holds an open question about whether the ILC, as currently shaped, lives inside that resolution or outside it.
  • It does not file the ILC as superseded. Side B’s case is one of three plausible readings, not a determination.
  • It does not preempt the team’s discernment. The three sides exist as scaffolding for that conversation.

What would move this

  • Team conversation. This is layer-3 contested wrapper material; resolution happens through team conscience, not through evidence.
  • Trial of Side C. A reformed-delivery cohort, if attempted, would produce evidence on whether the curriculum survives the reform.
  • Data from existing ILC cohorts about whether participants experience the container as a teaching class or as something more peer-led-shaped — and whether that distinction matches the practitioner’s own experience of moving from ILC into open meetings.
  • A new framing emerging that resolves the tension without picking a side — possible, though no candidate is on the table yet.
  • Convergence on vocabulary. If the team decides the words facilitator, ripplers, etc. are the load-bearing problem (not the underlying structure), a vocabulary reform could move this without fully restructuring.

Forks:

  • facilitator-pathway-vs-no-professional-class — the resolved fork this question lives in conversation with. Reading note: that fork resolved against a credentialed leadership pathway; this fork asks whether the current ILC sits on the resolved side or the superseded side.

Models held in light of this fork:

  • ilc-fundamentals-arc — the onboarding-arc candidate. Filed as the sequence; this fork holds the delivery format.
  • six-facets-developmental-arc — the ongoing-competency-arc candidate. Same separation: sequence here, delivery format in this fork.

Principles in the conversation:

All currently under-review. None ratified. This fork’s tension is between Side A/C and Side B’s reading of these principles, not between the principles and an external constraint.

Graph View

Backlinks