Thanks Paul, Very interesting I can see how that is very useful in groups especially where there are some shared values. Where I am struggling at the moment is how to reframe with people on the far right, I read about project 2025 today: https://www.mediamatters.org/heritage-foundation/guide-project-2025-extreme-right-wing-agenda-next-republican-administration - where does one even start a pragmatic conversation when world views are so extremely different. I know even in that situation I would have things in common - food I love, loving my kids, enjoying holidays etc but the barriers are huge. I can see pragmatisim working in a group running a permaculture farm, I can also see it working in a far right think tank. I dunno - I'm just thinking out loud - does that make any sense? I'd love your thoughts. xo
Thanks Paul, I love that reflective answer. Yes, contact is #1, @betje told me about Human Libraries which seems like a cool way to start those sorts of difficult conversations IRL. None in the Canberra region but some in Sydney I think. #1 is also scary as a queer woman. While I might tend to "other" someone on the right it is more from bemusement and confusion about how they got to their world view, I never think they are not human and worthy of love. I have, however, encountered others who have othered me so extremely as to make me not human and evil, which is a major bummer! Thanks for the encouragement to write even if we don't have perfect answers. I love having a space to chew on these ideas! Thank you - have a super day!
On another note. Jerry Harvey opined in "The Abilene Paradox" that it is not the inability to cope with conflict that gets us into trouble. "Rather it is is the inability to cope with agreement. Not conflict is central to organizational dysfunction." We have all colluded in the results that we have by agreeing to what we have would be Harvey's understanding of what got us to here. Pragmatic?
Are you aware of the "Abilene Paradox"? The underlying idea is that we agree to a course of action out of fear of being separated from the group. It could be thought of as a form of collective peer pressure caused by "separation anxiety". It is distinguished from "Group Think" in that there is unexpressed agreement yet action contrary to that agreement. Harvey would add "that most conflict is phony and specifically designed not to accomplish anything important".
Why do you fear conflict? Why don't you want to 'rock the boat'? Is there an underlying fear? Harvey opines that the fear is from 'separation' or 'disconnection' known as 'separation anxiety'. The disconnection can be from each other, ideas, beliefs, from one's true self. It results in a form of depression. ( anaclitic). The only known antidote to AD is "connection".
If connection to others is necessary for human survival then separation from groups that we deem important to us is a form of psychological death. This is not a trivial thing. If you think about it we are living through an "epidemic of loneliness". There are myriads of best-selling books on the 'epidemic of loneliness". The evidence pointed to, are drugs, suicides, and violence of all kinds. This is far from where we started. If conflict is inevitable is disconnection, also inevitable? At some level is there the possibility of absence of conflict? Is this the field that Rumi beckons us to meet?
Is "conflict inevitable"? If you believe that it is aren't you just replacing one conflict for another? If that's true is the question simply what conflict(s) do you prefer to have? Would that question itself generate conflict? What would the absence of conflict be like? Could we imagine it? Is there a pragmatic answer?
Thank you for engaging as I am learning as we go too! If we believe that we are separate from each other in our "particular knowing" conflict is indeed inevitable. If we reframe what we know as the product of all life, conditioning, that is the known of our collective experience what might change? Can freedom from the known be the absence of conflict? Might it be the only true freedom?
Yes. We are surely threading the needle with all of this. I'm circling the idea that true agency resides beyond our individual and collective known. If we are not "that" we have the ultimate agency of 'freedom from the known'. Any choice we have or make within the boundaries of the known is limited by the known. As such it is merely an illusion of choice. I've been beginning my days with the thought "What will I do today if I believed that I was choosing for all humanity and I further believed that I always got what I wanted"? Again, I am most thankful for this opportunity for this inquiry.
It is my way of reminding me of my contribution to the whole for now.
By the way, the superpower in our toolkit for all of this is 'noticing'. ( inside and outside). For another day, perhaps.
Thanks Paul, Very interesting I can see how that is very useful in groups especially where there are some shared values. Where I am struggling at the moment is how to reframe with people on the far right, I read about project 2025 today: https://www.mediamatters.org/heritage-foundation/guide-project-2025-extreme-right-wing-agenda-next-republican-administration - where does one even start a pragmatic conversation when world views are so extremely different. I know even in that situation I would have things in common - food I love, loving my kids, enjoying holidays etc but the barriers are huge. I can see pragmatisim working in a group running a permaculture farm, I can also see it working in a far right think tank. I dunno - I'm just thinking out loud - does that make any sense? I'd love your thoughts. xo
Thanks Paul, I love that reflective answer. Yes, contact is #1, @betje told me about Human Libraries which seems like a cool way to start those sorts of difficult conversations IRL. None in the Canberra region but some in Sydney I think. #1 is also scary as a queer woman. While I might tend to "other" someone on the right it is more from bemusement and confusion about how they got to their world view, I never think they are not human and worthy of love. I have, however, encountered others who have othered me so extremely as to make me not human and evil, which is a major bummer! Thanks for the encouragement to write even if we don't have perfect answers. I love having a space to chew on these ideas! Thank you - have a super day!
On another note. Jerry Harvey opined in "The Abilene Paradox" that it is not the inability to cope with conflict that gets us into trouble. "Rather it is is the inability to cope with agreement. Not conflict is central to organizational dysfunction." We have all colluded in the results that we have by agreeing to what we have would be Harvey's understanding of what got us to here. Pragmatic?
Are you aware of the "Abilene Paradox"? The underlying idea is that we agree to a course of action out of fear of being separated from the group. It could be thought of as a form of collective peer pressure caused by "separation anxiety". It is distinguished from "Group Think" in that there is unexpressed agreement yet action contrary to that agreement. Harvey would add "that most conflict is phony and specifically designed not to accomplish anything important".
Why do you fear conflict? Why don't you want to 'rock the boat'? Is there an underlying fear? Harvey opines that the fear is from 'separation' or 'disconnection' known as 'separation anxiety'. The disconnection can be from each other, ideas, beliefs, from one's true self. It results in a form of depression. ( anaclitic). The only known antidote to AD is "connection".
If connection to others is necessary for human survival then separation from groups that we deem important to us is a form of psychological death. This is not a trivial thing. If you think about it we are living through an "epidemic of loneliness". There are myriads of best-selling books on the 'epidemic of loneliness". The evidence pointed to, are drugs, suicides, and violence of all kinds. This is far from where we started. If conflict is inevitable is disconnection, also inevitable? At some level is there the possibility of absence of conflict? Is this the field that Rumi beckons us to meet?
Is "conflict inevitable"? If you believe that it is aren't you just replacing one conflict for another? If that's true is the question simply what conflict(s) do you prefer to have? Would that question itself generate conflict? What would the absence of conflict be like? Could we imagine it? Is there a pragmatic answer?
Could it be the illusion that we have independent thought that creates conflict? If we are one how can there be conflict?
Thank you for engaging as I am learning as we go too! If we believe that we are separate from each other in our "particular knowing" conflict is indeed inevitable. If we reframe what we know as the product of all life, conditioning, that is the known of our collective experience what might change? Can freedom from the known be the absence of conflict? Might it be the only true freedom?
Yes. We are surely threading the needle with all of this. I'm circling the idea that true agency resides beyond our individual and collective known. If we are not "that" we have the ultimate agency of 'freedom from the known'. Any choice we have or make within the boundaries of the known is limited by the known. As such it is merely an illusion of choice. I've been beginning my days with the thought "What will I do today if I believed that I was choosing for all humanity and I further believed that I always got what I wanted"? Again, I am most thankful for this opportunity for this inquiry.
It is my way of reminding me of my contribution to the whole for now.
By the way, the superpower in our toolkit for all of this is 'noticing'. ( inside and outside). For another day, perhaps.