NMOD 4

So glad to be back at this.

I feel inadequate (understatement) when I can't keep up with long threads and conversations. I so much want to help and contribute and respond to everyone and connect with everyone equally, but I just can't keep up. It's a fact about myself. There are things that would make it easier for me, but I'm not going to make those requests just yet because I need to sit with acceptance about myself right now, and I also need that to be received by the We-Space.

Now.

I want to bring one thing into the foreground again that some are having trouble with and that is the difference between the self who is talking and the topic of conversation. Here is a picture of one person (self) and a topic of conversation. Yeah, they're either writing about it like I am right now or their talkin' to themselves. Who cares? Anyhoo, Lets say the people are circle shaped and the topic of conversation is the diamond shape. The topic can be events, ideas, or ... other people.

But don't confuse that with the circle! If the people are present and they can participate in the conversation, they are circles. If the people are not present, then they are a diamond shape or a topic of conversation. In order to keep this simple, lets pretend we're talking about an idea.

The normal way of having conversations is with another person present: a We-space (or a Lower Left). So we have a Person A and a Person B. Two people. More can be added. The number doesn't matter except that it must be two or more for this illustration.

So, lets say they start talking about something. Talking is represented by arrows. This is how the Old Mode of Discourse usually begins. If Person A and Person B come to agreement about the Topic, then there is a felt sense of "oneness". This is how "oneness" is established in 1st Tier: we attempt to come to agreement about the Topic of conversation. All manner of techniques are employed in order to do this. Simple conversation to debate. Dissociation to brute force. In the case of brute force, agreement is not necessary, only obedience. Nevertheless, all of that is put to work in order to bring people into some form of agreement about events, ideas and people.

However! In the case of what has been called "Civil Discourse" people are allowed to disagree without being clubbed over the head. They can argue. The proper form of this is Debate. Most forms of argument and debate are competitions between perspectives. One perspective wins and the other loses. One perspective is adopted by the group (We-space) or jurisdiction in question and the other one is excluded. The question of where the losing perspective goes once it is excluded is a valid question, but not until 2nd Tier. In 1st Tier, the loser simply goes away.

But what happens when both refuse to lose and insist on being included? They start asking questions about why the other person sees things the way they do.

And because of how we evolved, this is interpreted as "rude" and out of bounds because the winning and losing format has been unconsciously carried forward into this context and the other person is confused with an object in order to be excluded or disqualified. Much discussion has already taken place here about that but because no new way to have a conversation has yet been established, we still don't know how to avoid the inevitable decline and fall of decent and productive interaction when this happens.

We have tried all sorts of different ways to get around this. NVC is an attempt to allow the other Person to have valid feelings and needs and requests, but this is mainly put in service of solving interpersonal conflict. The puzzle of how to have a productive conversation about events, ideas and other people without creating a winner and loser and without it becoming a flame fest is still unsolved.

So we're trying to find another way!

In the New Mode of Discourse, there is still a Topic of Conversation, but we actually begin by speaking about the self. This inquiry into the self is as deep as the Person is able to go in the context of how they feel about the Topic of conversation and why. This is bringing the rational mind to any Shadow or pathologies that will be shaping their perspective by either limiting it or creating a certain expertise. This is not the Old Mode of Discourse where we display our qualifications for having the most correct and objective view possible. This is a New thing entirely! This will be leading with everything that makes our view partial and specialized. This will be naming our own blindspots and weak points. In this way, we let the other Person know where we need their help in understanding the Topic of conversation better - before we even begin!

This is going to require us to understand ourselves first! That's why I have part of each Person shaped with the diamond shape. We are using our skills at turning parts of our own Subject into Objects in our own awareness in order to have this conversation. If you can't do that, then this is going to be very, very difficult. Understanding our own limitations and partialness of perspective is Job #1. This is not an exercise of self-condemnation or letting "The Critic" run rough-shod over our psyche. This is not about shaming or guilt or judgment at all. This will require us to be able to observe our own characteristics with equanimity. And this can't be done without at least some State Training.

So when we have each brought our rational mind to our feelings and partial views about the Topic of Conversation, we then each demonstrate that we understand what the other person is saying and hold them in our Presence with equanimity. There is no judging because nothing bad is happening here. There is no fixing because nothing is broken. There is only a mutual holding of one another and our limited perspectives.

The irony is that this is where true Oneness is found. As we reveal our own limits and obstructions, others recognize their own by listening. We find ourselves in one another and one another in ourselves. Thus, agreement is found in the Subject, not the Object. This happens not thru the Validity Claims of the Right quadrants: Objective Truth, but the Validity Claims of the Left quadrants: Honesty and Resonance and Shared Value and Shared Meaning.

To be clear: the Topic of conversation is not the other person. We do not begin talking about the other person except in service of making sure we understand them. That is all. Each is in charge of answering the question, "How is my view partial?" for themselves and the other person can ask in order to clarify. The task is not to improve the other person's view. It is to find the most complete view together with the help of everyone's partial views.

Then discussion about the Topic of conversation can begin! As it unfolds, we will already each be informed by one another's self-revealed partial views and accept their help in seeing things that we cannot see. We can offer our own partial view to fill in their gaps as well. But above all, no one is trying to convince anyone that they have the only correct view or the only objective view. We are simply offering our partial view along with others so that the Topic of conversation is seen as completely as possible by the whole group.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the "One" entity that we were sensing is not a Monad, but the "I" felt as a Group and not just an individual. This practice can end up at the Absolute Self thus creating a sensation of a single entity.

--

"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."

~SES pg. 148

Integrity allows clarity in context about our decisions, and for certainty, and choice.  That is, in integrity, I create who I am, I choose to be how I am/how I become, and I am blessed with the clarity of knowing my other values, specifically and clearly in the order of their importance to me, and so making choices becomes more and more fun.  If I am clear about who/what I am choosing to be/become, i.e. create in any given context or situation, others involved are less likely to truly project upon me, any fears or insecurities about their own self identities.  I am also more willing to feel what I feel, and free to clarify my feelings  or share them, for example, if I feel that something is unjust, i.e. if I am hurt, and not able to be responsible for/willing to take responsibility for the experience.

• Abstract art and the emphasis on gesture
• a drawing is defined by 'lines' in relation to movement
• matrix of potentialities; intersection of possibilities to create the path of contra-mimetic tendencies (Eros)
• relation of attention and memory by way of associative paralleling
• Love, and the celebration of beauty: variation in Unity

• Inegrative Imaginings: Safe conversational tactics, responses, and/or suggestions for respectful conversation
• Example Statement: "I am a beloved sheep, without arms" - If this statement is unexpectedly expressed toward you for a reply and you wish to expressively respect (sth illegible) and dignity, while maintaining a safe direction, I might offer you

Creative Suggestion Number 3 (The Use of Associative Reference):

Use your association to some of the words and phrases and respond with a related statement or poetic question, remembering to honor the tone and context of the original statement.  For example: "Ah, yes, but what shepherd has fewer feet than any one of the flock he commands?"

However, each one has value served by understanding, and every one is valuable, deserving to be understood.

Third Ethical Response: Response to The Third Reminding: (On the acceptance and recognition of humanity) I forgive (you).  

• saying 'yes'
• affirming or accepting
• the recognition and honoring of what is and/or has been

...from Kerry Dugan on my "Wall" last night.

Supporting Social Deliberative Skills in On-line Contexts

--

"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."

~SES pg. 148