Ps: Here the Cambridge Definition again:

What popped into your mind? Why did you laugh when I presented you this definition?

It is interesting that the process of forming this space is indefinitely ongoing. It makes me think whether a result of negotiation, a solution, a final approach to common ground can be at least at some point steady. Or is common ground as flexible as our disagreements with each other? What do you think?

I think that fascism is fostered by glorifying purity and autarchy. But in reality everything and everyone is mixed and dependent. But how and where do we set boundaries? How can we still find each other? And how can we not be destroyed in this process?

In the Cambridge Dictionary the definition got me confused by this "most", as in the following: Common Ground - Shared interests, beliefs, or opinions between two people or groups of people who disagree about most other subjects. Does it mean that we tend to disagree more likely than to agree to each other? How does it correlate with the current political situation where the idea of an homogenic society gains more power again whilst the believe in the strength of diversity decreases?

Common ground doesn’t seem to be a safe and solid space but rather a fragile ecosystem easily tipped off balance.

It also seems temporary by nature.

There is this conception that two people in a relationship always have an intersection with each other, an overlapping space where their identities are mixed up. Another theory presents the idea that a relationship is more like a third entity in addition to the two individuals who never overlap.

But what about the hope for Common Ground? Can this ground be built online? And what about sharing? Is it about sharing in the end? What can we share? What do we want to share? And what not?

Is there a fragility for you?

I find this dissolving feature of one particular circle a bit scary.

Text by Lynne Kouassi (in collaboration with Christina Pestova and Maria Styablina)