> I agree that it's a very good idea to stop spewing one's own memes, take
> a step back, cool off, and get some perspective when tensions rise and
> people are talking past one another, but "everyone's right?"
You make some good points KMO, but I think the easiest way to show what
I meant is to repost where the idea came from:
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 97 20:06:55 UT
From: "Mike Jay" <Quarterback@msn.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@maxwell.lucifer.com
Reed in the "DISCIPLINE OF TRANSLATION stated:
. < Instead of trying to drag their memes, individually, into line with
yours
my suggestion is to try to adopt their way of thinking, to truly delve
into
the undiscovered country of an alien meme-sphere.>
Reed, et al.
I do not have the scholarship or for that matter the intellectual
horsepower
to understand and process internally much of what the list speaks to or
from,
however I do want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to "remain"
in the
room!
With that context, I would like to proffer a concept that I have been
working
on in living leadership: leading at the edge of chaos, a work in
progress.
This concept is entitled "EVERYBODY'S RIGHT!" The purpose of this
concept is
to establish a "higher level" of understanding and foster a dialogue at
a
level beyond values. It also is an absurdity designed to raise the
level of
dialogue in such a manner as to cause a shift in one's thinking, I think
you
call it a meme!
First off, we know that everybody is not right.
With that out of the way, may I describe what it does mean in this
context.
Reed's DoT describes the reasoning. If we can find a way to examine
another's
meme's and resultant values and beliefs in such a manner as not to
cause:
1. alarm and a defensive personal position
2. alarm and a defensive interpersonal position;
...we set the stage for a "different kind of dialogue."
When you undergo a shift such as described by DoT / Everybody's Right!
You
automatically divest yourself of the need to "defend" your
*investment!* This
is critically important, because instead of a defense debate you move
into
problem solving (in the worst case) or into *interdevelopmental*
conversation
(in the best case) .
This shift leads to understanding that while the person on the other
*side*
may not be in *truth*, they think they're right and any frontal assault
on
that *held* position will create only defensiveness. As far back, as
Sun Tzu
(SP) there has been discussion concerning one's enemy (in the case that
your
values differ at the worst case) should never be approached frontally.
In the change literature, there are many ways to move someone to a new
position and very little of the time, a frontal assault is the best way,
unless you're pushing them out from in front of a passing car!
If we accept the premise that "they are right and think they are based
on a
"limited view" then it becomes our role to provide new information, test
their
assumptions in the face of known principles, etc. Yet this involves a
NON-emotional mindset and allows us to release our * investment * a lot
easier than if we have a strong emotional bond and are under emotional
attack.
A frontal attack (especially an intellectual) causes the attacked
(read-one
who must defend their right, or their left as it may be) to lose focus
on the
*instrument* and translates into a full-blown *psychic-attack* causing
realignment with the ability of our psyche to *be well.* This then
engages
all the defense systems and a hardening of all barriers to entry in a
defensive mode and a literal bolstering of the *investment.*
If we can "shift" our own modus operandi in to
1. recognizing the right of the individual to believe different based on
their
*held* information and acquired knowledge,
2. understand that it will do no good to assault them with *our*
intelligence
or *right way*,
3. shift our own perspective as suggested in DoT,
4. realize that while the person's truth may not hold up under
examination,
that it IS in fact THEIR INVESTEMENT and maybe be closely held,
5. realize that it is not our supra ordinate position to judge and make
everything to everyone else right,
we may invoke the *mechanism* of interdevelopmental dialogue and
1. lower emotional intensity and loosen the lock on the investment (our
own
and theirs);
2. collaboratively discover new mutual positions;
3. in the worst, "agree to disagree";
4. live and develop more peacefully; and
5. foster sustainability in view of pluralism and diversity.
I know it is pie in the sky, but if you have understood Reed's position
on the
DoT I think you can see for yourself the shift that is made in your own
*directive mind set*. If you can't see what I'm saying then try ACTING
like
you do for one day and see if things don't become much more effortless
and
attractive in your life-peace follows.
Remember, EVERYBODY'S RIGHT! (Thanks Reed for making my limited view
translatable!)
I wish I could of done that "programming thing" you guys do with that
"shell"
thing so I could of" like<insert beevis voice here> impressed ya! (But I
haven't quite figured that three liner out yet! If I would spent as
much time
studying as I did playing football, I bet I could do it!)
mike
PS
1. <Everybody's right>
3. <Reed is great>
4. go to lunch <g>
*** There, I hope that clears up any confusion. "Everybody is *not*
right", but thinking that they *might* be is a valuable mental exercise.
ERiC